[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

First, to clarify when I said the law I meant the order, not the act itself. I never said anything in regards to the act itself being unconstitutional. The court document in several occasions specifically refers the economic order as the law including below:

K.

My terminology used is correct, and your interpretation and everything else following it is incorrect and efforts to clarify a waste of time.

K.

The violations of the charter sections 2 and 8 by the law were not saved by section 1 and thus the order was in violation of the charter. That is what I mean that the Emergencies Act not being a carte blanche to violate the charter, as the orders done under it still needs to withstand Section 1. Your statement insinuates that Section 1 does not apply when it still does. If that's not what you meant despite you writing it verbatim, I will accept it.

I know what you meant, and I know what I wrote, and my statement did not insinuate that Section 1 does not apply. You just jumped to a wildly inaccurate conclusion. Your interpretation and everything else following it is incorrect, and efforts to clarify, a waste of time.

This ruling does not endorse the convoy, I never talked that it did, nor have I ever stated anything positive whatsoever about the convoy. I agree with that particular part of the statement though it's entirely irrelevant.

I didn't say, imply, hint, suggest, intimate, etc. that you did "endorse" the convoy—you quite clearly wrote "this doesn't legitimize the freedumb convoy"—but you said you disagreed with LeBrun:

Originally Posted by Firebot

Luke LeBrun seems to be distorting what the judge stated. [...] Lebrun based on his tweets seems a bit...err extremely biased? To claim that the ruling is due to a technicality...is a stretch.

This in no way legitimizes the freedumb convoy, it's a ruling on the emergencies act as invoked in this specific situation.

Which precipitated this whole thing. Okay, if you disagree with him: what part? Because you're making it sound like you agree with him, yet you're saying he seems "extremely biased"...? WTF?

I already asked you once to "walk me through it" (which you completely ignored), because I don't know what the #### you are otherwise so hung up on.

Are you just stuck on the meaning of and connotation behind the use of the word "technicality"?

You are outright ignoring parts of the judge's decision and reasoning. You are getting stuck on his statement that if we used the term "threat" in broader undefined terms, that the blockades met that meaning and the order would have been valid, but there is a very specific definition that constitutes a security threat precisely to avoid situations where the Emergencies Act is misused by our government.

That's the reason we have laws and definitions, to avoid overzealous misinterpretations and abuse of power.

I'm not ignoring the judge's decision and reasoning, the guy quite clearly stated all along that he had to evaluate against the very specific definitions in the statutes. His statement that he would have "found the grounds for invoking the Act to be sufficient" had the words "remained undefined in the statute" is a powerful one in my opinion: it's not just some personal opinion, it's his professional opinion. He's saying that as a member of the bench, taking into account whether it would have been reasonable and justifiable; not just willy-nilly and in a vacuum.

Call that "getting stuck on it" all you want: I think you're foolish for trying to diminish its importance and bloviating about the importance of the particular specificity of the existing definition in the statutes and its protections against "overzealous abuse of power".

Also, if you look up the quotations to your "technicality" definition that you presented: How often do we hear about someone who “got away” with committing a crime or who “got off on a technicality”? This type of remark is common when discussions arise about the shortcomings of the U.S. legal system.

Technicality is usually used in a negative connotation. The definition of what constitutes security threat is not a minor detail as you assert. You want to continue to call a legal definition and the ruling on that definition a technicality, I entirely disagree. Let's also remind you what you posted and how you started this to begin with, that the ruling was due to a technicality.

And again, you stated earlier "your example of a technicality here is different from the one LeBrun asserted", which is what you were having a snit fit about in the first place. Walk me through it! What the #### do you think he means that I don't? Or vice versa?

You're saying here "technicality is usually used in a negative connotation." Again, is that what you're so hung up on? The word "technicality", and thinking it's "negative", and being pissy because I called you a boob for saying it's a "stretch" to call it a technicality? That's on you man, not on me.

If you think finding the threshold of what constitutes a "threat to the security of Canada" was not met because:

• Section 16 of the Emergencies Act says "go look at Section 2 of the CSIS Act",
• Section 2 of the CSIS Act says it's "[...] activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state...", and
• while there definitely were activities carried out for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada,
• ... and there threats of violence against persons for achieving that purpose...
• ... but the judge had to consider whether it was "serious" or not.
• The AG of Canada argued that "serious" in the context of the CSIS Act was "designed to constrain the investigative actions of the security service, and was ill-suited to serve as a threshold for the invocation of emergency powers" under the Emergencies Act (quoted the wording from the decision, not the AG's argument), and
• ... the judge agreed! However, he himself wrote "the Court cannot rewrite the statute and has to take the definition as it reads",
• and as such, because the belief that there were threats of serious violence was a result of the happenings at Coutts, which coincidentally was resolved literally the morning of the day of the invocation of the Emergencies Act,
• and they didn't find any other "hardened cells" when the cops finally acted at Ottawa and got the protestors to get the #### on down the road,
• the judge had to find that the threats weren't "serious",

... is not a "technicality": fine. Whatever. Whatever helps you sleep at night, but to me you're still a goof for it.

As for your claim that unreasonable and ultra vires were the same conclusion and that ultra vires was ruled on first prior to unreasonable, that is again another falsehood.

Let's put them together

[...]

Womp womp.

Both terms were clearly ruled separately from each other and mentioned together as one is used to help conclude on the other, as I stated. You even literally have it backwards, it was declared unreasonable first, thus making the decision and proclamation itself ultra vires.
. Not once from what I read (you are welcome to correct) did ultra vires get declared or ruled on prior to unreasonable (including 255 with the words unreasonable and ultra vires). Reasonableness also ruled on 372.

Worst is that 297 is right after 296 which you yourself previously quoted. You should have caught that both were judged on separately if you read it and my statement was correct.

I did not say that "ultra vires got declared or ruled on prior to unreasonable", but I can see why you interpreted it that way. My overarching point was that they were ruled on concurrently and jointly, and your assertion that "the ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires for a reason", as I put it, is "misinterpretation on your part and muddling the issue". As I wrote before: these aren't severable conclusions, it's the same conclusion.

When the judge writes:

Was the decision to issue the Proclamation unreasonable and ultra vires the Act?

... five times over in the same bloody decision, to me it's a pretty safe bet he's concluding whether it was both "unreasonable and ultra vires", or neither. Not "unreasonable" and then "ultra vires", nor vice versa.

But please, if you're so much more learned and your acumen so much more astute than mine: show me where I'm wrong. Please: explain said reason why "the ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires". You said it's "for a reason": what's the reason? You made it sound pretty ####ing important, but you didn't explain why. I'm an extremely eager learner; learning is my idea of fun.

Go ahead: please, teach me. I'm all ears.