I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Okay, I'll just summarize my opinion for the 100th fucking time as someone who studies this shit.
There is a difference between being perhaps tired of the mandates and being selfish and thinking something which, yes, is annoying, but an inconvenience as something as bad as the fucking Holocaust.
If the strikes were only about supporting truckers, and creating discussion on the continued measures taken for managing COVID-19 cases then I'd say okay. But what has happened is this has become a way for people to cry tyranny at something which isn't the case.
As already established, at these Convoys, there have been people who have carried Nazi flags, confederate flags, they have pissed on war memorials (Ironically which are symbols of "freedom") and vandalized the statue of Terry Fox, a man who raised money for cancer and tried to run across the country with one fucking leg while battling cancer and almost made it half way (who also would have been at higher risk if he was alive today FYI. He'd also call those people fucking pussies). Then they are blocking major road networks, which by the way, protest or not, is illegal in Canada as you can see here.
“Let’s assume there were people who do have a Confederate flag ... I don’t care … I want to hear unacceptable opinions”
pressprogress.ca
They denounced the Nazi flag which is a pretty low bar to settle.
I'm not going to go "US AND THEM" between protests between one group of society and another. Two wrongs do not make a right, and what is going on is illegal. And the thing which is frustrating to me is that the trucker convoys are misconstruing inconvenience as an attack on their liberty. It is not, especially in Canada. And here is one small example of them trying to make themselves seem like victims when they aren't.
Members of the so-called "Freedom Convoy" occupying the nation's capital have attempted to hijack a symbol and slogan representing survivors of residential schools and Canada's efforts at reconciliation.
bc.ctvnews.ca
In response to telling children children to wear a mask, organizers are using Aboriginal imagery, slogans and symbols which were made prominent last year in Canada while people uncovered (not discovered, they knew they were there) THOUSANDS OF UNMARKED GRAVES OF CHILDREN AT COUNTLESS FORMER RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS! These are the rally cries of "Every child matters," and wearing Orange. You know what the Residential Schools were responsible for? Did they try to make kids wear a mask? How about physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental abuse, and a nice helping of ETHNIC FUCKING GENOCIDE!? They were literally designed to "Get rid of the Indian problem."
Being told to vaccinate yourselves with a safe vaccine created by some of the largest and leading medical companies in the world and wearing a mask to help reduce transmission rate is not even in the same ball park as that.
Now, let's discuss the mandates, shall we? In Canada, are they a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
HERE IS A PDF OF IT SO EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME FUCKING PAGE!
First, let's take a look at section 1, shall we?
It states that "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limitsprescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
What does this mean? Basically, the government can infringe on certain rights a bit, but they have to justify it.
The test is, SAY IT WITH ME, the Oakes Test, from court case R v Oakes (1986) which is linked in whole for your convivence! The test I will put here from a nice case summary.
·Minimum for it to be characterized as sufficiently important: objective relates to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society
2.the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified
·involves “proportionality test”
1.measures adopted must be rationally connected to the objective
2.the means should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question (Which the court has clarified as meaning as little as possible while still achieving the objectives, but doesn't have to be the absolute least impairing option, just within the right ballpark)
3.proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance”
·the more severe the effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be if the measure is to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society
So any violation can be saved if it falls within this. Preventing blockades of essential resources, traffic, etc, is one for any potential violation of section 2(c) (assembly). As for the mandates themselves, I see potential arguments under section 7.
For there to be a violation, it has to meet this test as seen from my CANS from Constitutional Law last year because it is personally long to write out:
Section 7 Test
Has life, liberty or security of the person been deprived?
What is covered?
Life
Carter: Engaged where the law/state action imposes death or an increased risk of death on a person.
Liberty
Physical constraint
The right to make fundamental personal choices (B(R); Blencoe).
Security of the person
State use of force against one’s body.
Violations of psychological integrity (Morgentaler) – severe state imposed stress: test = profound psychological impact on someone of reasonable sensibility, and proof that the claimant was so affected (Blencoe).
Is there a state trigger?
Claimant must prove that there is a sufficient causal connection between the deprivation and the state action. No need to prove the law/government action to be the only or dominant cause of the deprivation. (Bedford)
Connection can also be proven if the law/government action heightens the risk associated with the activity the claimant is doing (Bedford).
Can the government make use of any defences here?
No causal connection
Violation was caused by a third person
Deprivation was caused by something outside of the governments control
The deprivation was caused by the claimant’s own personal choices
Was it in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice?
Note, this analysis is an individual, qualitative analysis of severity of effects on the claimant – not a qualitative issue of how many people are affected
What does fundamental justice mean?
Fundamental justice is not just procedural justice, but substantive justice (BC Motor Vehicles)
What is the objective of the infringing conduct/act?
Grossly disproportionate? (Bedford)
The effect of the law shouldn’t be grossly disproportionate to its objective.
Look at the significance of the law and see that its effects are disproportionate to the rights it affects. Compare the object of the law and its negative effect on rights.
Note: this isn’t a quantitative analysis. You look at the impact on the claimant’s rights and the significance of the objective. It just matters that it affects one person in a grossly disproportionate way.
Arbitrary? (Bedford)
No connection between the effect and the object of the law. Just need to prove lack of a connection.
Overbroad (Bedford)
The law is catching behaviours that are not meant to be caught pursuant to the objective.
Overbreadth is a species of arbitrariness. There’s a connection between the objective and most consequences, but there are some consequences that are not connected to the objective.
Now, I won't go into the test fully here. God knows I'm tired of it, but we will go back to the one which may be involved here, Liberty. It is related to "fundamental personal choices." Has the court system answered this? Is there a fundamental personal choice? Turns out, they have answered this and here is the result.
Turns out, no. There is no violation. Being vaccinated, like other choices, is one with consequences, however, and facing consequences from a decision is not a constitutional violation! So that is section 7 thrown out!
The final argument I see is perhaps related to the isolation requirements for those unvaccinated and that could be part of 6(1), mobility rights. If you are unvaccinated, you have to self-isolate for a certain period of time and all Canadian citizens may enter, remain, or leave Canada. Now this, I will need to do more research for! This was one section I did not cover in year 1 constitutional law and frankly I am lucky I retain even half the stuff since it was online.
But if we take the wording there, right to enter, remain, and leave, isolating does not prevent you from re-entering. It delays it, or modifies it where you need to self-isolate, but you can still enter. Just, once again, your actions have consequences.
Finally, one more thing to say:
Justin Trudeau has used the National Emergency Measures Act, something which has not been used for decades (Ironically not since his father when it was the War Measures Act). I do not love him, I do not despise him. I have things I supported, and things I am critical of him for. But to those calling him a dictator for this...
Here is the act. It literally states that the Constitution is still in full effect, and it is temporary. Whether he needed to use it or not is up to debate and we'll see after this is all over.
SO, to conclude, the Trucker Convoy is arguing a losing battle. Every single freedom they claim to be fighting for is either justified under the Canadian constitution, or, as stated by a New Brunswick court, is not even a violation to begin with. Then their use of literal hate symbols have also watered down any message they could have had. Their bastardization of imagery of people who actually have a reason to bitch is heartless, and a lot of this could have been avoided if there wasn't such extreme misinformation on the effect of vaccines. Seriously, it has been driving me mad for years now, and seeing this is just groan inducing.
What medical advice has Tim Pool ever gave anyone besides, "Talk to your doctor " ? Which is much better than just repeating "Trust the Science " like the rest of the lemmings.
I wear a beanie in doors too. Hell, I'm wearing one now. I got several of them.
Is that a real sure Or you just saying it so you don’t look like a hypocrite? Come on, this is your pal talking to you. I’m just trying to see what the difference is? I mean we’ve talked plenty before about issues like this man.
www.capitaldaily.ca
pressprogress.ca
Or you just saying it so you don’t look like a hypocrite? Come on, this is your pal talking to you. I’m just trying to see what the difference is? I mean we’ve talked plenty before about issues like this man.
