Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Going against my better judgment here, but there is a troubling element about the government using the emergency measures to quell the protests. They could've tried other avenues, and sure didn't seem to. When you have had other protests (for example the rail blockades), the government negotiated and tried to resolve those matters. Why did they jump right to restricting peoples rights here?
For the record, I didn't love the truckers convoy, but I do have concerns about how this was handled. It's kind of a "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" scenario for me.
And as far as characterizing their protests as "illegal occupations", that is what civil disobedience is. It's non-violent protest. Again, their particular message here wasn't mine, but non-violent protest is a big deal. And to be clear, part of that civil disobedience is people getting arrested and detained for those actions. It's basically how things should be functioning in a democracy in my view, but the restriction of rights is something that has to be examined.
|
Wait, I'm super confused by that post. You acknowledge that part of civil disobedience is getting arrested for doing the illegal civil disobedience you're doing, but you're concerned about restricting peoples' rights? Putting someone in jail is pretty restrictive of their rights. So if it's not that, what then is the restriction of rights that you're concerned about, specifically?
For me, if you're deliberately trying to interfere with a major piece of infrastructure, whether it be a rail line or a border crossing, to make a political statement, you're going to get arrested and charged, and you
should. What exactly are you suggesting is the correct course of action?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
As I understand it, its just supposed to override the Constitution Act, 1982 or something.
|
OK, that's what it sounds like and that is of course crazy (even though I would actually support it if it were just a piece of satire aimed at the BC government for its own deliberate, consequence-free defiance of federal jurisdiction under the constitution). Although the article posted by GordonBlue seems to contradict what you're saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue
this link sums it up.
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...overeignty-act
According to the overview, the act would affirm the authority of the legislature to refuse provincial enforcement of specific federal laws or policies “that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta” under the Constitution of Canada or Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
This is on its face less crazy, but serves no purpose. The law that permits the legislature to not enact federal laws or policies that violate the jurisdictional rights of Alberta under the constitution already exists:
it's the constitution. There is no separate role for a piece of provincial legislation to play. That's why I was confused.
The UCP seems to have a knack for trying to implement purely cosmetic legislation as red meat for the base.