The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in some of the most affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
The Glebe, Sandy Hill, Rockliffe, Island Park, etc.. All those parts of Ottawa's core have always been more afluent than the downtown by the Parliament.
The rise of new condos in that area has probably improved it somewhat in the last 10 years but it's still far from "afluent".
The point absolutely does not stand. You've retreated to "relative affluence". For your point to stand, it would also have to be a given that the acceptability of noise pollution correlates with how rich the population is. That doesn't stand either.
It means you can strike "some of the most" from my comment and the point remains unrebutted.
>The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
I live in Toronto and have been to Ottawa many times, as well as tons of other Canadian and American cities. Downtown cores have some middle class folks in them, usually in somewhat luxurious condo buildings. But in no way does the interpretation of "where all the rich Canadians live" being downtown Ottawa make any sense.
* §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or, (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime.
>The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified:
The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly:
* I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1]
In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act:
* §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act.
Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time:
* Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2]
And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3]
>Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)?
The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold.
>Dennis: Think about it. She’s out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. She looks around her, what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. “Oh, there’s nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?”
>Mac: Okay…that seems really dark though.
>Dennis: No, no, it’s not dark. You’re misunderstanding me, bro.
>Mac: I think I am.
>Dennis: Yeah, you are. ‘Cause if the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no. The thing is that she’s not gonna say no, she’d never say no…because of the implication.
>Mac: Now, you said that word “implication” a couple of times. What implication?
>Dennis: The implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for her, but she’s thinking that they will.
Sure, and at first the Canadian government didn't force indigenous children into residential schools - it just withheld resources and services and used a monopoly on violence to make resistance untenable. Believing that's acceptable behaviour from your government, is certainly... a position.
Respectfully, it is insane to not recognize the discrete similarities listed, and moreover, how many genocides have their roots in purported "public health measures".
I feel you are exemplifying the typical conspiratorial thinking patterns. You might as well have asked me to concede based on the fact that there are technically similarities between vaccine mandates and the Yellow Badge. I mean you must be insane not to recognize how they're basically the same thing, right? /s
