Canadian Civil Liberties Association to sue federal government over Emergencies Act

[Sympthsical]

I'm still a liberal who believes in civil liberties. Not going to give that up. That comes with the package, not when convenient.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ccla-lawsuit-emergencies-act-1.6355846

Mendelsohn acknowledged reports of "violent, racist and homophobic acts" occurring within the Ottawa protest but said the presence of those elements doesn't justify the introduction of measures the CCLA considers a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The act gives the federal government temporary powers to quell protests by, among other things, banning travel to protest zones and prohibiting people from bringing minors to unlawful assemblies. The act also allows the federal government to restrict protesters' access to bank accounts.

"Protest is how people in a democracy share their political messages of all kinds, whether they be environmental activists, students taking to the streets, Indigenous land defenders, workers on strike, people who know that Black lives matter, and others who oppose government measures of all kinds," Mendelsohn said.

"Not every person may agree with the content of every movement."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. It's not a protest. It's a criminal blockade, infringement on rights of residents, interference,..nt

[Sympthsical]

3. Use as many shades as you wish to obscure

The sky is still blue.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Obscure what? You think I can park my car in your driveway because I protest your "__" sign?

[former9thward]

12. You may have forgotten that blocking traffic was common in the anti-Iraq war protests.

And depending on your age you may not remember the tactic was used in anti-Vietnam war protests. It was also used in the Floyd protests in 2020.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. Blocking traffic for an hour is different from blocking a whole downtown for weeks. Not comparable

Further, I have never been in favor of blocking roads as a tactic. Why should other people's rights to freedom of movement be abrogated by people who can say the same things from the sidewalk?

Perhaps you've never been caught in a jam with important court papers for a deadline or a mother-to-be in labour or with a flight to catch to see a dying father? Fortunately I have not.

When innocent third parties have to suffer damages because of "free speakers" blockading roads, then it is not speech, it is criminal interference with third party rights.

I don't get to set up a tent and barbecue in your doctor's office because I want to protest the way you don't cut your grass on your lawn.

[Cha]

21. TY! No Excuses for the RW Truckers

funded by RWingers in Canada and Across the Border.

[ForgedCrank]

32. Yea, well you aren't

going to make much headway having standards and convictions here, especially when you stick to them.
the people who agree with you won't post publicly because they get hammered like this.
Ask me how I know.
I got attacked from 35 different angles for suggesting the same thing a couple of days ago.
Some appear to be losing sight of what is right and wrong in the name of team loyalty. It is a bit troubling to see.

[cinematicdiversions]

45. Take a look at the attempted aspirations of a Jewish democratic

Candidate early this week. Before we knew who the perp was people were literally calling for the suspect to be shot without trial.

Know we know it is crickets.

[cinematicdiversions]

40. So you would be okay with freezing the bank accounts

Of those that donated to BLM?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. False equation. Don't bother trying. . . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. I can't go squat in your house bc I don't like your neighbor & call it a protest & no consequences.n

[Sympthsical]

6. No one said "No consequences"

Civil disobedience almost requires consequences. Go in, ticket, arrest, tow. All would be completely normal things.

But a state assuming emergency powers then using those sweeping powers to retaliate for speech is an entirely different creature.

Anyway. It's going to be interesting to watch our side basically argue against Canada's version of the ACLU.

They're suing because they think it's an authoritarian reach.

I agree with them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. I think it is fine that CCLA is doing its job. I don't think they have a prayer of winning

Their job is to uphold civil liberties by testing them in court. They are doing that and it is good. Just don't bet on them winning because I don't think they have a leg to stand on. I think their line of attack has been already thought through and the rights balanced and safeguarded.

What the situation is about really is that many people's rights are being abridged by a few who are imposing unreasonable and excessive use of their own rights.

No right is absolute. Free speech does not give you the right to should "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Rights have to be balanced.



The blockaders have been given plenty of notice and lots of time. This is not retaliation for speech. Nobody can rationally argue that.

It is not an authoritarian overreach. Everything in the Act is subservient to the Charter of Rights. It says so right in the Act that it has to be that way.

The occupiers have had plenty of speech. More than adequate opportunity. By staying they aren't saying anything they didn't say on the first day.



Ball is in your court. I think you have to get rather specific about which action is specifically against which right and why and how other rights of other people don't have standing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. Public Order Emergencies

Make of it what you will:

Public order emergency

Part II of the Emergencies Act describes "public order emergency" results from serious threats to the security of Canada. When defining "threats to the security of Canada" the act references the definition provided in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which includes espionage, sabotage, detrimental foreign influences, activities which support the threat or use of violence for a political, religious or ideological objective; or those activities which threaten to undermine or otherwise destroy, or overthrow the Government of Canada.[41][42] The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act specifically notes that "lawful advocacy, protest or dissent" do not constitute "threats to the security of Canada".[43]

Section 18 of the Act states a public order emergency declaration persists for 30 days, subject to being extended through another proclamation, or ended earlier.[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act

[Bev54]

10. I think they should just hold back on that lawsuit until all the information is known

The Canadian intelligence knows things we are not yet privy to. The only way they could get tow truck drivers to go in without liability and banks to freeze funds without liability was to use the Emergency Act. Nobody brought in the military and nobody is being prevented from peacefully protesting anywhere in Canada nor is there a prevention of free speech. This was necessary and as a Canadian, I absolutely agree with the measure and it is temporary. These people were not protesting they held siege our capital city and the citizens in it. This is a white supremist mission to unseat our government, it is most definitely a National security issue.

[PortTack]

18. The protesters are attacking the police and trying to confiscate their weapons

It may have been a peaceful protest, it isn’t anymore

[Samrob]

4. People at all levels have lost their damn minds over COVD protocols.

Do these protestors even realize that they are probably able to protest because most of us have followed vaccination and masking mandates?

[Sympthsical]

7. Doesn't matter

They're not the brightest people on earth, near as I can tell.

But a government assuming emergency powers to go after what was not a particularly large protest should be concerning to anyone.

The fact that it's cheered is deeply disturbing.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. When night fell on the first day & the trucks were still blocking, it was no longer a protest. . .nt

[PortTack]

19. See post #18

[Bev54]

11. This occupation used the vaccines as a guise but it is all about unseating our government

[Cha]

17. TY, Bev!

🍁🇨🇦🕯🕊🍀

[PortTack]

20. Exactly!

[Bev54]

35. It is the occupation and anti Trudeau rhetoric that they hoped would make the Liberal

Party make him step down as leader. It was never going to work but just the same they tried and the conservatives were helping them. We have a minority government so they were hoping for a nonconfidence vote and a new election called. Our politics are much different than the US

[Bev54]

38. Hard to explain if you don't understand the system

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Wrong. Rhetoric is no problem. Threats, provocations, weapons violations, etc are different

... from rhetoric and mere speech.

Similar distinctions are made in the US too.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

43. Plus there were machinations about getting functionaries and/or GG to dissolve parliament

or otherwise force new elections.


Not to forget the arson with intent to murder at the apartment building in Ottawa.

Or the gun truck stolen and mostly (all?) recovered in southwestern Ontario.

Or the conspiracy to murder RCMP and heavy armaments discovered at the border out west.

[2naSalit]

13. Here's one for those protesters...

Best if you crank up the volume.

[Disaffected]

14. I'm not even clear on why

they needed court injunctions to act against the blocked roads and bridges and, the gross civil disturbance caused by the "protestors".

These protestor ass-hats were breaking the law once they started with the blockades, horn blowing, harassment etc. - they should have been removed and/or arrested or fined right off the bat.

[Bev54]

23. They use the court injunction to give more severe penalties. It is one thing

to ignore police requests but something more to ignore the courts.

They have been issuing fines everyday, they will owe quite a bit. There were some arrests for other reasons as well. They needed the emergency act to compel the tow truck drivers who were concerned with backlash and with liability and insurance. They needed the emergency act to compel the banks to freeze funds, again absolves them of liability.

[Disaffected]

25. OK but,

was it actually necessary to give more severe penalties? If a police request is ignored, the perps can still be arrested and removed from the scene (and their vehicles) which is, or was, the original objective.

I see what you mean though re the Emergencies Act - the situation had escalated to the point such that it became necessary

[Bev54]

26. More severe penalties is what makes people leave, knowing there is more teeth

in the consequences. It was only used at border crossing, not in Ottawa.

[Disaffected]

28. But they didn't need more severe penalties

to make them leave. They had all the authority they needed to remove them without the court injunction(s).

I suppose a court injunction may have induced some of them to leave voluntarily but that didn't work so the injunctions were pretty much moot. I guess maybe they though it was worth a try to get voluntary removal but, I dunno, I still think they should have hauled them off to begin with.

[Bev54]

29. I am not really sure you are getting what I am saying. It did work, they left the

border crossing, where it was used. It is not being used in Ottawa.

[Disaffected]

31. OK, I see what you mean.

I still contend though they should not have waited so long - they should have removed them before the injunction was applied for.

[Sympthsical]

41. See, you get the argument

Your argument is basically my own. What tools were not in their kit that they needed to invoke emergency powers for? I have not seen a good argument outside of, "They deserve it!"

Anyway, I posted the story more for my own edification. A kind of, "Are we going so far down the rabbit hole that an ACLU-like organization's basic principles are now cast aside and untenable in the endless effort to 'get' anyone who we don't like?"

I mean, I knew the answer. But sometimes it's nice to see concretely.

[Spazito]

16. It's really simply pro-forma...

The Emergencies Act has not been tested since it's passage in 1988 so it's not surprising the CCLA is going to challenge it.

[Kingofalldems]

22. So it's okay for outside multi millionaires

to finance major disruptions to Canada and it's people?

[Bev54]

24. That is a big problem and one people seem to ignore. I think our government knows

who is behind this occupation and it is not a grass roots movement, like people want to believe. They are dupes.

[Sympthsical]

47. Is it ok on our side?

Because it's been ok on our side.

I knew what answers I'd get when I posted this. I just want other people to see the answers. Sometimes, just occasionally, you get one or two, "Oh shit, is that what we look like now?" Just as a steady diet of twinkies may lead to a photographic surprise a year later if you haven't seen yourself in awhile. A steady diet of hatred, suppression of disagreement, and slow erosion of civil liberties due to tribalism will do that.

A few years have passed. We lived on a steady diet of Trump. So, here's a mirror. This is what support of authoritarian behavior looks like.

Just putting it out there. But hey, sometimes people like being Liz Lemon's boyfriend, Drew.

[FelineOverlord]

27. Sorry but no.

I don’t always agree with the ACLU either.

Chaos still abounds, and RW propaganda is still flooding social media from RW fanatics.

#HoldTheLine is trending on Canadian Twitter.

However, some of the organizers are in trouble.

Link to tweet

[Crunchy Frog]

39. I strongly disagreed with the ACLU on Citizens United.

[FelineOverlord]

30. Over 100 Arrested

Link to tweet

[leftstreet]

46. DURec