Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
|
Yes, they raided and started arresting people the morning of the 14th and started clearing the blockade prior to the emergencies act being declared and it was completed by the 15th. On the 13th they stopped escavators and more trucks from joining. But if you want to get really tight on timelines I agree that after the 15th it was completed. But ambassador was cleared beforehand.
Edit: I should have added a source
https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/can...r-protest.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
Sounds like a hindsight argument. How could we know no emergency measures were required? The occupation in Ottawa was still ongoing.
It seems that the arguments against the use of the EM act are based on the fact that we don't want the government suspending people's rights at all, which is understandable, but the government must have that power and must be able to exercise it when they decide they need to. The convoy occupation in Ottawa was probably as mild of a case of civil emergency as you will find, but that doesn't change the fact that it could have gotten much more serious, and therein lies the crux. When is it too soon and when is it too late? Too soon and you are answering questions about government overreach and abuse of power; too late and people are dead in the street.
|
I disagree that the arguments are based around any use of the act is wrong. The argument (at least my argument) is the government must follow the rules when suspending peoples rights. We have defined when the government “needs to” in the legislation which references section 2 of the CSIS legislation as the criteria.
Perhaps my argument is hindsight but let’s look with foresight question is they cleared the ambassador bridge and were in the process of clearing Coutts when the act was declared. The means that were available with out the suspension of rights were working when they were applied to clear the protest.
For me to agree that the emergencies act was required I would want two things to be made clear as part of the inquiry.
1) the conditions in the legislation for implementing the act were met.
2) that other means of dealing with the problem were exhausted prior to implementing the act.
What conditions in this inquiry would lead you to change your mind that the use of the act was not justified?
The other thing that bothers me is that it’s clear that the government new they were using a broader interpretation of emergency then was contained in the act yet when they presented this to Parliament as required they did not disclose that they broadened the definition because of the circumstances on the ground. Had they disclosed this information to the public, the house, and the senate then I could see your argument that the government needs to make immediate decisions and the situation forced their hand as being valid. However the government did not disclose this when the house voted on use of the act.