I think Trudeau (the current Trudeau) is writing the playbook on what not to do.
That’s what future governments will have to follow is the playbook on what not to do.
Public Inquiries into Emergencies Act begin September 19
- Thread starter The_Foxer
- Start date
That’s what future governments will have to follow is the playbook on what not to do.
Call them out...have at it. But that's not what she was discussing. Conflating divisive political strategy with racism is a pretty shallow dive. If you are trying to defend the destruction of unity in this country because you once met a racist, you may want to rethink you're strategy, it's certainly a loser.
If the only thing that results from Trudeau's recklessness is the inability of governments (including his) to pull this shit in the future, it will most certainly be a win. Looking at the state of politics in this country right now, I'm not holding my breath that this is the outcome we will reach.
How about simply celebrating Canada? I'm not sure I've seen a time in this country when I witnessed more unity and celebration of our country, even July 1st doesn't draw as many proud, Canadian flag waving crowds. It was awesome to see, and we need more of it. This is what Trudeau actually fears... unity.
I'm willing to bet that the government was told that there was no reason for the EA and that it should not be implemented and that's why they refuse to release the legal opinion it received. I would bet that's exactly what has happened.Anywho….Emergencies Act Inquiry, etc…
Now that the Public Order Emergency Commission has finished, its conclusions on whether invoking the Emergencies Act was justified will turn on two questions.
The first is whether the threshold for a threat to the security of Canada has been met, and the second is whether the federal government had “reasonable grounds” to determine that such a threat existed. Crucially the government has not released the legal opinion it received advising it that the legal requirements for the act had been met.
Kristopher Kinsinger: Was the Emergencies Act threshold for a security threat met? — National Post
Now that the Public Order Emergency Commission has finished, its conclusions on whether invoking the Emergencies Act was justified will turn on two questions. The first is whether the threshold for a threat to the security of Canada has been met, and the second is whether the federal government...apple.news
I'll bet that you're right BUT - that after 13 pages of saying that and explaining why it should not be implemented there was one paragraph that said "I suppose you MIGHT be able to claim it was somehow justified legally IF you interpret this to mean that, but that wouldn't be the standard interpretation".
To which justin said "YES!! YES THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT!!! Emergency act everyone, the lawyers said i could...."
I don't think turdOWE gives a rats azz what is legal or not. As long as he caters to OntariOWE and Quebec, it really doesn't matter what the rest of the country think because that is where the votes are.
And that a massive amount of people can organize themselves a peaceful gathering without help and funding from government . Really if a spontaneous group can put up a fair like atmosphere in the middle of winter , complete with facilities and kitchens and leave on mess on the Hills of Parliment , why do we need them ?
Leave no mess on Parliment Hill . The City of Ottawa has never been cleaner or safer then during the Convoy protest and that is embarrassing to all levels of government .
I agree Trudeau paved the way to use the EA for misuse.
Authoritarianism, no, not unless the PEOPLE elect such garbage people, then that's not the fault of government, but US, the voters.
LOL! At this point, I think that people with the last name Trudeau are assholes and should never be in politics. Same with a few other last names like LeBlanc (my local MP). Are you assuming I'm a Trudeau supporter or something?
Yes, and no.
Yes, the 'rules of the game' are being decided now, and precedent is being set, but I CAN and WILL find fault of future governments if they try to do the same thing as Trudeau and have an 'easier' time of it. Actually, not just fault with government, but the Canadian people, too. Cause sure as hell as all the bitching and whining - legitimate or not - that has been going on, if, say, the Cons used the EA for something like this and there's absolute silence on it, it won't be hard then to get the reason why, right?
That's EXACTLY what she was discussing.
And is a two way street at this point; or rather, the "in" thing to do. But I'll ask you the same question I asked her - if someone IS racist, are they to be called out on it? (yes, I know, you already answered that above). Perhaps go back and read the entire exchange between Dix and I and then maybe you'll get why her stance is bullshit, IMO.
Your assumption is amazing, and wrong.
I'm defending the point that if someone IS a racist, bigot or white nationalist, you NEED to call them out on it.
Dix is defending the stance that even if someone is one of these things, you DON'T call them out on it. Or maybe you do; she flip-flopped on that so...
It's more than racism, bigotry and white nationalism that is keeping this country from being unified, LOTS more. How about regionalism? How about the way Government caters to Quebec? How about... fill in the blank.
Calling people out on their negative stances to parts of society is the LEAST of the things that are keeping this country from being united, yet make the biggest noise because so many who ARE these things, do stupid shit to make themselves heard and seen, and loud and proud of these stances.
Yes, unity from a section of the country shows unity for all.
I also know a lot of people who were AGAINST this bullshit than for it - so... unity for Canada? Not really. Unity for people of the same ideas? You might as well have linked a city after a sports team won and you'd get the same result. Oh, how about Olympic Hockey! That's a great way to unify for Canadians!
Could be. I certainly thing that brief needs to be released regardless of what it says.
It is the greatest thing. There is no greater. But because left wing haters like serryah are so fond of it they pretend otherwise.
Speaking of union things, I thought this work at home thing wound up more than a year ago? Apparently not….
Unions vow to fight order for public servants to return to office 2 to 3 days per week — National Post
The new blanket policy was announced to departments Thursday, according to documents obtained by the National Post
It's still a thing, and the gov't isn't going to win any votes going down that route. It should be left up to the departments to figure out what works for them. In many ways making people go in 2 days a week is kind of the worst of all worlds as far as productivity goes. But for some jobs it might make a lot of sense and for others it might not, individual teams should be able to do what works for them.Speaking of union things, I thought this work at home thing wound up more than a year ago? Apparently not….
Unions vow to fight order for public servants to return to office 2 to 3 days per week — National Post
The new blanket policy was announced to departments Thursday, according to documents obtained by the National Post
Leastways down here, work-from-home has been a work in progress for at least ten years. Covid added a lot of data with regard to productivity and what jobs could be done from home one day a week, three days a week, all the time, etc. Questions like what do you do if part of your workforce can effectively work from home more often, and who needs to be on-site all or most of the time? What's "fair?"Speaking of union things, I thought this work at home thing wound up more than a year ago? Apparently not….
Unions vow to fight order for public servants to return to office 2 to 3 days per week — National Post
The new blanket policy was announced to departments Thursday, according to documents obtained by the National Post
And, of course, you were naive to think it's ever "settled." It's only settled until the next round of grievances, contract negotiations, what-have-you.
As to the unions "vowing to fight," of course they are. Unions always vow to fight for the workers. Kinda their thing.
They sure didn’t fight for those workers that refused the jab .
So how would it be if our camp cook decided to work from home? How about the driving examiner?