Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Saw this link going around Twitter/X:
https://theccf.ca/emergencies-act-use-unconstitutional/
The government has indicated that it will appeal, so this isn't final. Regardless: what are the actual effects of such a finding? Will the government have to pay any penalty? Can people whose bank accounts were frozen sue the government? Will it cause a significant loss of political capital for Trudeau and his government? Or is it just a slap on the wrist with no real consequences?
No, political capital in favor of Trudeau is at very very low point right now, it's quite likely the people who still support Trudeau right now are not moderates and the lawfulness of the invocation is unlikely to be a concern to them.
It might be a bit more uncomfortable for the NDP, which supported the invocation, although the swing NDP voter is more likely someone who hesitated between NDP and Liberals than NDP and anything else, so unlikely to have much sympathy for the Conservative/"alt-right"-coded truckers either.
The NDP's political capital is also low ATM due to their current prop-up-Trudeau-until-we-have-enough-money-to-fight-an-election policy -- but the trad-hippy-antivax types are still well within their wheelhouse, and I could imagine this resurfacing pushing them towards the Greens or something. (the decision to appeal does not seem like a political winner for this reason, as it doesn't seem like the kind of trial one wants going on in the runup to an election; not sure if it is just stubbornness or there are some deeper implications that I'm not aware of)
I think the deeper implication that makes it worth appealing for Trudeau is that being rebuked by the court does affect the real reason the act was invoked. Considering what kind of person I believe Trudeau is and his internationalist allies' goals are, I think the point was mostly the chilling effect. If the point was to end the blockades, police departments have testified that they had plans to do just that that did not require the invocation of the Emergencies Measure Act or doing anything as unprecedented as going after donators. And the rebuke can give some heart to those that will at some point in the future consider dissidence that maybe the system is not yet entirely captured after all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At least for this court case, the only thing that's been ordered so far is costs for Gircys and Cornell, the two challengers who had standing (because their cards and bank accounts were frozen), but not the public interest challengers or those who had less direct or less clear harm. Even for the Gircys and Cornell, the judge said he "will not award them costs for the preliminary steps in these proceedings which I considered to be often misguided or for the preparation of the largely irrelevant memorandum of fact and law that was filed".
Canada's equivalent to qualified, executive, and professional qualified immunity is complicated, but I would be very surprised if anyone was found personally liable -- I don't have a great understanding, but 'presume good faith' seems common and a complete block against one-offs like this.
It'll be a little embarrassing for Trudeau, but they're more likely to appeal to challenge the framework where the Emergency Powers Act only can be applied in limited circumstances. Neither are real consequences, especially since this ruling is only as-applied, and the application was so tremendously fact-specific.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link