Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Major
Sorry, it's been normalized? You can't possibly make that claim at this point. I know it's a buzz term that gets thrown around a lot these days, but if something happens in response to exceptional circumstances, it would need to happen at least one more time under less exceptional circumstances to be considered normalized.
The F Trudeau crowd are predictably butthurt that through investigation most people agree that this was the right call. It solved an issue that was untenable. The normal solution was not able to.
|
So I’ve asked this repeatedly and no one has answered so maybe you have one.
what specific powers we required that were not available to the government to end the protest? Why was Ambassador able to be cleared without these powers? On what basis do you believe the bolded? What piece of evidence from the commission leads you to believe this?
I think the closest anyone has come was Pepsi, the logic is that protest didn’t end before the EA but ended shortly after the EA therefore the EA was needed. I’d argue instead no one bothered to try to clear any protests until Ambassador on the 11th-13th. When no one bothered to try why do you accept that as being unable to?
I don’t even think this protest was that exceptional. Ambassador Bridge, Costal gas link, fairy creek, the railway protests etc all are protests invoking entrenched potentially armed groups who were restricting access to national critical infrastructure.
Anyway I’ve said my piece and will drop out until we get new testimony. I think the results of the commission will be as follows.
The commission recognizes the government didn’t meet section 2 of the act but genuinely believed the emergency met the intent of the act so the recommendation will be to clean up the definitions and secondly that the government failed to demonstrate that the powers they put in place (especially the financial powers) were an overreach and the requirements of the act weren’t met in that regard.