Canada Ends Emergency Powers(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Canada Ends Emergency Powers
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-ends-emergency-powers-invoked-tackle-truckers-protests-pm-trudeau-2022-02-23/
40 comments
Many Indians right now are laughing at Trudeau who last year was saying India should allow farmer protests to happen. Which India did and listened to the farmers and backed down from the new laws. Karma's a funny thing now protests happen in Canada and he had to use Draconian laws himself.
Let us remember that the "farmers" protests in India went on for more than a year without any emergency being declared.
indeed
India and Canada have totally different tolerances to civil unrest.
There are events that happen regularly in India that would absolutely mind blowing if they happened in Canada.
Communal violence, riots, women being gang raped to death publicly, large scale protests, corpses being floated down rivers, various public health conditions that would be absolutely unacceptable in Canada.
So maybe Trudeau’s actions would seem unnecessary or hypocritical to people in India, but we should keep things in perspective
There are events that happen regularly in India that would absolutely mind blowing if they happened in Canada.
Communal violence, riots, women being gang raped to death publicly, large scale protests, corpses being floated down rivers, various public health conditions that would be absolutely unacceptable in Canada.
So maybe Trudeau’s actions would seem unnecessary or hypocritical to people in India, but we should keep things in perspective
Farmer's protests aren't uniquely Indian, they happen in many Western countries and are sometimes rather spectacular. Especially French farmers can paralyze traffic very efficiently.
I think there is a general consensus that Trudeau handled this horribly. I feel like the political chops of our politicians has gotten worse over the past 2-3 decades.
It used to be an appreciated political skill to “skirt the middle”. Play the balancing act and make everyone a little mad but leave all parties feeling like they got at least something they wanted.
When the convoy was half way to Ottawa and Trudeau pulled the “unacceptable beliefs” I knew his goose was cooked - that’s not a statement you can back away from and not look like a fool. An amateur political move.
I feel like a consummate politician would handled it much differently. Engage the protestors, negotiate, delay, drag it out. The restrictions are almost all gone in March anyways, Trudeau could made everyone feel like a winner, but no, he had to paint himself into a corner he couldn’t get out of - not without suspending Charter rights.
Canada will survive no doubt, but Trudeau, the emperor, has been show to be wearing no clothes - the political dilettante, if you will.
“I want you all to meet the son of Pierre Trudeau. The Liberal Party took him under their wing and see how they’re repaid. He enacted the Emergency Act, instead of fighting like a politician. A base defiler, unworthy of a noble name.”
It used to be an appreciated political skill to “skirt the middle”. Play the balancing act and make everyone a little mad but leave all parties feeling like they got at least something they wanted.
When the convoy was half way to Ottawa and Trudeau pulled the “unacceptable beliefs” I knew his goose was cooked - that’s not a statement you can back away from and not look like a fool. An amateur political move.
I feel like a consummate politician would handled it much differently. Engage the protestors, negotiate, delay, drag it out. The restrictions are almost all gone in March anyways, Trudeau could made everyone feel like a winner, but no, he had to paint himself into a corner he couldn’t get out of - not without suspending Charter rights.
Canada will survive no doubt, but Trudeau, the emperor, has been show to be wearing no clothes - the political dilettante, if you will.
“I want you all to meet the son of Pierre Trudeau. The Liberal Party took him under their wing and see how they’re repaid. He enacted the Emergency Act, instead of fighting like a politician. A base defiler, unworthy of a noble name.”
I don't understand how Trudeau and his team didn't realize they should have retracted the powers immediately, if only for the positive optics that would have given them on the whole situation.
To say they need these powers after the protest was broken up and then do an about face a few days later is ridiculous political strategy.
To say they need these powers after the protest was broken up and then do an about face a few days later is ridiculous political strategy.
I don’t think that’s the general consensus at all. The local police forces were unable or unwilling to do anything.
A large majority of Canadians support direct action to remove the protestors. Who are you speaking on behalf of?
A large majority of Canadians support direct action to remove the protestors. Who are you speaking on behalf of?
I'm not speaking of Canadians, I'm speaking in general. Pretty clear consensus that Trudeau's handling was a slow-moving train wreck and having to suspend Charter Rights means he lost control.
Great so instead of speaking for the people of the country affected you are speaking for the whole world?
Isn't that the case with almost all politicians both on left and right these days?
The schisms are so wide that even a small gesture of acknowledging opposing beliefs is causing loss of popularity. For example, when Trump said he. Got vaccinated, he was booed by his own followers.
That said Mr T does appear to be naive. Like that ill advised trip to India where the Indian government wasn't even bothered that he was there and it finally became a private visit sort of.
The schisms are so wide that even a small gesture of acknowledging opposing beliefs is causing loss of popularity. For example, when Trump said he. Got vaccinated, he was booed by his own followers.
That said Mr T does appear to be naive. Like that ill advised trip to India where the Indian government wasn't even bothered that he was there and it finally became a private visit sort of.
Fwiw, if the protesters did not block the ambassador bridge, the protest in Ottawa might have continued indefinitely. Ottawa was incapable of responding it seems, and while Ottawa is the second largest city in Ontario the provincial government was ignoring it. When the provincial leadership and one of the two major parties is conservative and supporting the blockade/protest, things grow uncontested.
And recall that Trudeau has a minority government and the emergency is an act of parliament that was duly passed decades ago and it survived a vote recently. It is no “executive action” to use what I think is the us term. Following the laws of the legislature, by definition, isn’t illegal.
And recall that Trudeau has a minority government and the emergency is an act of parliament that was duly passed decades ago and it survived a vote recently. It is no “executive action” to use what I think is the us term. Following the laws of the legislature, by definition, isn’t illegal.
I agree it’s across the spectrum and because that’s what voters vote for.
But I think about Joseph Lieberman. A Democrat but not unwilling to split with the Democrats. Nobody loved him (maybe his own constituency?) but nobody really hated him either.
I’m on a movie quote spree:
”Ordained by blood, there are those who would have been better suited to harvest cow dung than to rule the greatest empire on earth. There are those who were as silver, a lesser metal, but worthy of coinage. And then there are those, like cold stone, who force their strength and fury and win the title by fear and intimidation. Blood is nothing. Heart and spirit make the sage”
But I think about Joseph Lieberman. A Democrat but not unwilling to split with the Democrats. Nobody loved him (maybe his own constituency?) but nobody really hated him either.
I’m on a movie quote spree:
”Ordained by blood, there are those who would have been better suited to harvest cow dung than to rule the greatest empire on earth. There are those who were as silver, a lesser metal, but worthy of coinage. And then there are those, like cold stone, who force their strength and fury and win the title by fear and intimidation. Blood is nothing. Heart and spirit make the sage”
Nice!. Which movie is this from ?
> The powers included the ability to freeze the accounts of those suspected of supporting the blockades, without obtaining a court order. Standing beside Trudeau, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said most of those accounts were in the process of being released.
> The aim of freezing the accounts was "to convince people who took part in the occupation and the illegal blockades to listen to reason," Freeland said, adding that the government had already asked banks to begin "to unfreeze these bank accounts."
Whatever you may think of the vaccine mandates and other Covid restrictions, I hope we can’t all agree that freezing assets without a court order to break the will of the protesters is an overreach. Imagine if they said you can’t spend cash in stores. I bet they would if they could.
Long term this is going to make for a lot of crypto enthusiasm.
> The aim of freezing the accounts was "to convince people who took part in the occupation and the illegal blockades to listen to reason," Freeland said, adding that the government had already asked banks to begin "to unfreeze these bank accounts."
Whatever you may think of the vaccine mandates and other Covid restrictions, I hope we can’t all agree that freezing assets without a court order to break the will of the protesters is an overreach. Imagine if they said you can’t spend cash in stores. I bet they would if they could.
Long term this is going to make for a lot of crypto enthusiasm.
Obviously you don’t live in the us as I recall seizures due to “the war on drugs” occurring for decades. Police departments supposedly use it for funding, and you needed court action to get your cash/goods back.
Funding illegal activities always had repercussions for those involved.
Funding illegal activities always had repercussions for those involved.
I don't think any of those were account freezes, though, mostly civil asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture is an abhorrent practice, but it is different than freezing someone's bank account.
I think it worse, as “I want my house back” is worse than “could you unfreeze my bank account”…
I would say they are different, not necessarily better or worse. In this case the target was political protesters who opposed the government.
Civil forfeiture is wrong, but targeting dissidents and threatening to make them economic non-persons is a different kind of chilling.
Civil forfeiture is wrong, but targeting dissidents and threatening to make them economic non-persons is a different kind of chilling.
You can be against both.
> Q: What things can be forfeited?
> A: There are different legal theories of forfeiture. Property that the wrongdoer would not have had but for the crime can be forfeited as proceeds. For example, cash acquired through an unlawful activity such as drug dealing, or a car bought with cash from drug dealing can be forfeited under the proceeds theory. Property that makes the crime easier to commit or harder to detect is called facilitating property. For example, a house where drug sales occur can be forfeited under the facilitating theory.
Property that the wrongdoer would not have had but for the crime can be forfeited as proceeds. Does this get abused? Sure. But I don't think this includes a shop owner donating $50 to some cause having their entire bank account frozen.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/divisions/asset-forfeiture
> Q: What things can be forfeited?
> A: There are different legal theories of forfeiture. Property that the wrongdoer would not have had but for the crime can be forfeited as proceeds. For example, cash acquired through an unlawful activity such as drug dealing, or a car bought with cash from drug dealing can be forfeited under the proceeds theory. Property that makes the crime easier to commit or harder to detect is called facilitating property. For example, a house where drug sales occur can be forfeited under the facilitating theory.
Property that the wrongdoer would not have had but for the crime can be forfeited as proceeds. Does this get abused? Sure. But I don't think this includes a shop owner donating $50 to some cause having their entire bank account frozen.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/divisions/asset-forfeiture
Doesn't the crypto enthusiasm from inside the US underscore the parent's point?
> Whatever you may think of the vaccine mandates and other Covid restrictions, I hope we can’t all agree that freezing assets without a court order to break the will of the protesters is an overreach.
That power is part of emergency authorizations, which have been given by the parliament to the executive precisely for the event that a situation is a severe threat to the stability of the nation.
> Long term this is going to make for a lot of crypto enthusiasm.
Highly doubt that, for a number of reasons:
- Crypto is showing right now with the price collapse as a reaction to the Ukraine invasion that it is not suitable as any kind of long-term storage
- people are growing skeptical about the ecological and economical impact of crypto coins. Just look at all the supply shortages for everything (CPUs, GPUs, RAM chips, even bulk storage) - people are sick of not being able to buy parts just because of cryptominers outmatching the market price. And the final nail in the coffin of public interest in crypto (other than NFTs, which were mostly celebrity-driven) were the news of people buying up coal plants to mine coins.
- the inevitable NFT crash will lead to a lot of people being burned off of crypto for a very long time - and without people to trade crypto with, the coins become effectively worthless.
- fundamentally, cryptocurrencies will always have to be converted back to fiat money at some point. And that's where the flow of money can be stopped at will of the government again.
That power is part of emergency authorizations, which have been given by the parliament to the executive precisely for the event that a situation is a severe threat to the stability of the nation.
> Long term this is going to make for a lot of crypto enthusiasm.
Highly doubt that, for a number of reasons:
- Crypto is showing right now with the price collapse as a reaction to the Ukraine invasion that it is not suitable as any kind of long-term storage
- people are growing skeptical about the ecological and economical impact of crypto coins. Just look at all the supply shortages for everything (CPUs, GPUs, RAM chips, even bulk storage) - people are sick of not being able to buy parts just because of cryptominers outmatching the market price. And the final nail in the coffin of public interest in crypto (other than NFTs, which were mostly celebrity-driven) were the news of people buying up coal plants to mine coins.
- the inevitable NFT crash will lead to a lot of people being burned off of crypto for a very long time - and without people to trade crypto with, the coins become effectively worthless.
- fundamentally, cryptocurrencies will always have to be converted back to fiat money at some point. And that's where the flow of money can be stopped at will of the government again.
Lascaille(3)
Just want to throw this[0] in here because it's easy to think that the opinion within a bubble is representative of actual consensus:
> New public opinion data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows after more than two weeks of unrest, Canadians are now more likely to oppose measures sought by protesters.
> Overall, more than two-in-five now say Canadians say the protests have made them more inclined to support ongoing restrictions related to masking indoors (44%) and vaccination requirements to cross the Canada-U.S. border (44%).
> As the country rolls into another week of uncertainty, nearly three-quarters of Canadians (72%) say the time has come for protesters to “go home, they have made their point.”
> As to how the situation should be resolved – most feel the time for talking is done. Nearly seventy per cent either think local police need to step in and send people home (45%) or that the military should be summoned (23%). One quarter (26%) say it’s up to politicians to negotiate a dénouement.
> However, those same politicians, including the prime minister and the leader of Canada’s official opposition, are roundly criticized for harming, not helping events. Two-thirds (65%) say Prime Minister Justin Trudeau comments and actions have worsened the situation, while two-in-five (42%) say this of Candice Bergen, leader of the official opposition.
The consensus here is pretty strong: Canadians supported the masking and mandates and supported it more strongly in response to the protest. Canadians supported ending the protest, including by force (military or police). Canadians think politicians on both sides handled the situation poorly.
[0] https://angusreid.org/trudeau-convoy-trucker-protest-vaccine...
> New public opinion data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows after more than two weeks of unrest, Canadians are now more likely to oppose measures sought by protesters.
> Overall, more than two-in-five now say Canadians say the protests have made them more inclined to support ongoing restrictions related to masking indoors (44%) and vaccination requirements to cross the Canada-U.S. border (44%).
> As the country rolls into another week of uncertainty, nearly three-quarters of Canadians (72%) say the time has come for protesters to “go home, they have made their point.”
> As to how the situation should be resolved – most feel the time for talking is done. Nearly seventy per cent either think local police need to step in and send people home (45%) or that the military should be summoned (23%). One quarter (26%) say it’s up to politicians to negotiate a dénouement.
> However, those same politicians, including the prime minister and the leader of Canada’s official opposition, are roundly criticized for harming, not helping events. Two-thirds (65%) say Prime Minister Justin Trudeau comments and actions have worsened the situation, while two-in-five (42%) say this of Candice Bergen, leader of the official opposition.
The consensus here is pretty strong: Canadians supported the masking and mandates and supported it more strongly in response to the protest. Canadians supported ending the protest, including by force (military or police). Canadians think politicians on both sides handled the situation poorly.
[0] https://angusreid.org/trudeau-convoy-trucker-protest-vaccine...
> New public opinion data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows after more than two weeks of unrest, Canadians are now more likely to oppose measures sought by protesters.
Weren't the protestors against measures. Were they proposing measures? Is there a measure to oppose existing measures? It's weird framing.
> Overall, more than two-in-five now say Canadians say the protests have made them more inclined to support ongoing restrictions related to masking indoors (44%) and vaccination requirements to cross the Canada-U.S. border (44%).
That's a weird way of saying the majority of Canadians say the protests have made them more skeptical of ongoing restrictions
> Canadians supported the masking and mandates and supported it more strongly in response to the protest
I don't see how people were against mandates that prevent you from leaving the country, saw a bunch of people upset about it and somehow swayed their mind to further restrict people. It's just odd.
Weren't the protestors against measures. Were they proposing measures? Is there a measure to oppose existing measures? It's weird framing.
> Overall, more than two-in-five now say Canadians say the protests have made them more inclined to support ongoing restrictions related to masking indoors (44%) and vaccination requirements to cross the Canada-U.S. border (44%).
That's a weird way of saying the majority of Canadians say the protests have made them more skeptical of ongoing restrictions
> Canadians supported the masking and mandates and supported it more strongly in response to the protest
I don't see how people were against mandates that prevent you from leaving the country, saw a bunch of people upset about it and somehow swayed their mind to further restrict people. It's just odd.
It's odd, but not uncommon. People rarely get a chance to evaluate their decisions based on primary sources and their own experience. They take their cues from others, both positively and negatively.
They may not know firsthand whether mandates are a good idea. The overwhelming opinions of epidemiologists will put a thumb on the scale, because they are experts, but at least some will remain on the fence. If they see other people who oppose mandates behaving in ways they consider unworthy -- such as blocking legitimate traffic and disturbing the peace -- it actually counts against their argument and pushes a few people off the fence in the opposite direction.
It's not valid reasoning, but if we were all reasoning validly we wouldn't be in this situation.
They may not know firsthand whether mandates are a good idea. The overwhelming opinions of epidemiologists will put a thumb on the scale, because they are experts, but at least some will remain on the fence. If they see other people who oppose mandates behaving in ways they consider unworthy -- such as blocking legitimate traffic and disturbing the peace -- it actually counts against their argument and pushes a few people off the fence in the opposite direction.
It's not valid reasoning, but if we were all reasoning validly we wouldn't be in this situation.