> Even people who donated to the truckers before the crackdown got targeted in the bank account freezes.
[citation needed]
The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections.
I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond.
One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way. The RCMP confirmed(https://blockade.rcmp.ca/news-nouvelles/ncr-rcn211130-s-d-en...) that this happened and denied being the ones who did it. Implying either the government went around them OR the banks took this action upon themselves with gigantic liability issues.
>The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2].
That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line.
What exactly was the emergency act used for? Not a single blockade existed. It was used entirely for the protest in Ottawa. Their goal is to remove the illegally parked semi trucks.
If this was used in such a way that charter rights were not trampled on. The police would have gone in, towed the trucks and left the protesters who were lawfully protesting.
That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest.
So what happens next? Section 46 of the emergency act is next. The people damaged by the protest, be it having gotten pepper sprayed or your right to protest being removed. You get compensation. The crown is about to pay huge $ to these protesters.
> I see you are a throwaway account and unlikely to respond.
Created on January 1 (01/01), 2017. It's kind of become less throwaway over time. :)
Also: your username is in green, which means (IIRC) it is less than two weeks old. One of us has a higher probability of being a throwaway.
> One cannot deny that the emergency act was used this way.
Your link says nothing to confirm that it was an ex post facto action.
> That's a very good point, but incorrect. The emergency act is EXPECTED to trample on charter rights. In an actual emergency it's entirely expected that police will go over the line.
The Emergencies Act itself says it is subject to the Charter:
> AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
> That's not at all what happened. They came in and removed the entire lawful protest, not just some illegally parked trucks. The emergency act was used to crush a legitimate protest.
It was not a blockade or protest that got removed: once they started living there it became an occupation.
Further, threats of use of violence are not part of legal protests:
> (a) the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various locations throughout Canada and the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada,
To safely remove the trucks from the street, nobody needs to be around the workers doing the towing. It's basic health and safety. Police repeatedly asked people to leave. Many refused, many complied. Would you have prefered the police run over the protesters with their own trucks?
Police have an additional power to asking politely. They can arrest people. It is the appropriate response if someone continues to break a law but is non-violent.
Why should anyone be denied access to banking? In our modern world, banking is about as essential as food. Would you deny someone food because of their political beliefs?
I might personally deny them food, but I do not think the government should have the power to stop another consenting person to give or sell food to some based on their political belief.
The charter also allows itself to be overridden so that's a bit disingenuous. If the charter says that you can ignore it in a lot of cases if needed, then it's very easy for any law to be compatible with it
[citation needed]
The Emergencies Act,[1] explicitly written to be compatible with the Charter, does not allow for retroactive actions [2]. There was a lot of initial confusion, and so whatever story you may have heard (and is stuck in your head), you may wish to go back and double-check to see if there were any corrections.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#Canada