An old Glenn “InstaPundit” Reynolds line I’m appropriating: They told me if I voted Conservative that the government would impose martial law, and they were right:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made history by becoming the first leader of this country to invoke the federal Emergencies Act, to try to bring an end to the ongoing trucker convoy protests paralyzing Ottawa and border blockades.
“This is not something that's been used ever. But, it exists for a reason… Right now, the situation requires additional tools not held by any other federal, provincial or territorial law. Today, in these circumstances, it is now clear that responsible leadership requires us to do this,” Trudeau said in announcing the unprecedented move on Feb. 14.
[…]
The Act allows for actions to combat urgent and critical situations that seriously threaten some aspect of Canadians’ lives, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The Act was called a "last resort” when federal officials were looking at, but never acted on, using these powers in March 2020 to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are four types of emergencies listed under the Act: A public welfare emergency; a public order emergency; an international emergency; and, a war emergency.
In this instance, the government is enacting a public order emergency, which is described as: “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency.”
The Act gives the government a range of options to enact to address a public order emergency, and in this instance federal officials are moving forward with a wide-sweeping range of new measures:
enabling the RCMP to have the jurisdiction to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offenses;
prohibiting taking part in a public assembly where it’s considered a breach of peace and goes beyond lawful protest;
regulating the use of certain property, including goods used in blockades;
designating secure and protected places and infrastructure that are critical to the economy such as border crossings and airports;
compelling those capable to render essential services, so in this case ordering tow truck drivers to move vehicles blocking roads;
authorizing financial institutions to essentially stop the financing efforts, including immediately freezing or suspending affiliated accounts without a court order; and,
imposing fines of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to five years on those who breach any of the above orders.
Okay, “martial law” is going a bit too far. The Emergencies Act is a rather timid piece of legislation compared to the War Measures Act it replaced, and which was imposed by Prime Minister Trudeau 1.0 in response to Quebec separatist terrorism.
And my give a damn for the freedom convoy got busted a while ago. If I lived close to downtown Ottawa or relied heavily on major border crossings, I suspect I’d be downright enthusiastic about the Emergencies Act being imposed.
But is this really necessary, and does the “freedom convoy” constitute a national emergency as contemplated by the Act? I dunno:
Jack Lindsay, an associate professor in the applied disaster and emergency studies department at Brandon University in Manitoba, said one of the first steps in invoking the Emergencies Act is the government showing that a state of emergency exists.
“They're gonna have to basically prove that first hurdle, that it is a national emergency," he said.
"He's basically going to be arguing that these truckers are basically creating a threat to the security of Canada."
Leah West, an assistant professor in international studies at Carleton University who has published a book on national security law, questions whether that threshold has been met.
“To invoke a national emergency, the government would need to be saying that these protests threaten the security of Canada, our sovereignty or our territorial integrity," she said.
"I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have."
Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa, sees it differently. [See? - DP]
“If you look at what's happened not just in Ottawa but at the Ambassador Bridge and Coutts, Alta. and in B.C., essentially we have a national emergency," he told CBC News Network.
"You have this small group basically asking the government to do whatever they want. That's the national security problem."
There have been some disturbing incidents where convoy participants were found to have weapons. A major bust was made in Alberta (before the Emergencies Act was imposed), but so far the most notable act of violence related to the protests has been against the demonstrators.
I’ve long said that no government should use or impose special powers they wouldn’t be comfortable with the other “team” having at its disposal if and when they form the government. The Emergencies Act wasn’t used by previous governments during previous protest campaigns, in the wake of mass shootings and terror attacks, or even after 9/11. By doing so now, Trudeau has broken a taboo against taking this extraordinary step and made it that much easier for a future, presumably non-Liberal, government to do the same.
Hey, maybe he’s right and this is just temporary and we’re not on the road to dictatorship. But if you see me writing something I would never ordinarily say, like “Go Habs!” or “Let’s be honest, the Darth Jar Jar theory is just a myth,” you’ll know something is up.
Shot:
It’s a neat trick to claim Ukraine must be liberated from its “neo-Nazi” government while financing extreme-right political parties and allowing actual neo-Nazis from around the world to run training camps within your own borders, isn’t it?
That a subreddit called “Communist Memes” (yes, it’s sincere) and the Niki Ashton wing of the New Democratic Party would go along with it proves, yet again, that horseshoe theory is real and it is spectacular. Hey, it’s not like it’s the first time these two hooked up.
Dan “Baseball Crank” McLaughlin in National Review: “Enes Kanter Freedom was cut by the Houston Rockets because of his outspoken opposition to the Chinese government.”
NBA: “That’s ridic-”
Chinese state media: “YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!!!”
The Global Times is a belligerent English-language daily that is owned by the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily and has been designated as a “foreign mission” by the State Department. It is a reliable barometer of the nationalistic id of the CCP under Xi Jinping. Its jubilant response to Kanter Freedom being traded and cut was not only to deride him, but also to brag about how Chinese influence could deter NBA teams from wanting to sign him:
NBA team the Houston Rockets, which has a large fan base in China, waived the controversial Enes Kanter Freedom after acquiring the center via a trade with the Boston Celtics…After [ESPN], announced the trade through a Twitter post, netizens swarmed to the platform, mocking the player who has been ignorant and arrogant on China’s core interests and internal affairs such as those involving Xinjiang, Xizang, and Taiwan…Broadcasters in China have yet to resume games featuring the Celtics, making the anti-China Kanter Freedom look like a burden to the league that has hundreds of millions audience members in China…If this is the end of his NBA career, Freedom’s future path doesn’t seem as surprising as he makes it out to be. “Now you can be a full time John Bolton puppet,” commented Chen Weihua, China Daily’s EU bureau chief, receiving over 1,600 likes.
Freedom wasn’t a popular character in the NBA…He called out Lebron James, one of the greatest basketball players ever, last November, for not standing up to sponsor Nike and its alleged use of “forced labor” in China, which proved to be fictitious and fabricated. James responded that Freedom tried to use his name “to create an opportunity for himself,” and “he’s definitely not someone I would give my energy to.”…Freedom repeatedly made false and irresponsible comments regarding China’s Xinjiang in 2021. Meanwhile, he publicly declared his support for Xizang and Taiwan secessionists.
I'm having a little trouble understanding the need to invoke the federal Emergencies Act. Now, I know precious little about American law and my knowledge of Canadian law is zero or less, but I'm just going to assume that systemically, they function similarly.
I suppose what I'm having a hard time understanding is the apparent inability of this law enforcement situation to be resolved "farther down the chain of command", for lack of a better descriptor. I cannot imagine the more eye-catching aspects of this situation - the ongoing disruption to the lives of the residents of Ottawa in numerous ways and the blockading of international border crossings - as being "legal" in any aspect, even if being perpetrated under the guise of peaceful protest. I suppose the most benign term that can be applied to the situation is civil disobedience, and that has its limits when the rights and welfare of a vast number of citizens are adversely affected by the actions of an obviously militant mélange of a minority acting in bad faith over a sustained period.
I know the Devil's in the details, such as towing companies refusing to cooperate (governmental entities with whom these operators have contracts may want to seriously reconsider those contracts at some not-too-distant point in the future), but beyond that, I think this whole exercise has been a failure of more localized authorities to administer the law in a fair and just way, as has occurred numerous times here in the States of late. No matter how "righteous" the so-called cause behind this debacle, at some point the rowdy school kids hogging the playground facilities need to be told ok, you've had your turn, now get the hell out so the other kids can go on playing. And if they don't, the teachers on hand should remove them, by the scruff of the neck if necessary. If more than a few teachers are needed to do this, well get a couple of janitors or other locals involved. This isn't the type of problem that should have ended up requiring a special decree from the School Board Superintendent to enforce what already must be a host of existing rules (read laws).
Oversimplification? Absolutely. But my point is that in the interest of "fairness" or political correctness or fear of criticism from wailing and snarling talking heads on either side of an issue, or in pursuit of (or in supplication to) the ubiquitous "bothsidesism" of today, law enforcement - fair and just law enforcement - often hesitates to discharge its duties in a timely and correct manner, resulting in situations such as this, going beyond the pale of what most people would find reasonable vis a vie the right to protest peacefully, or to assemble with whom you choose, where you choose, when you choose.
The Ambassador Bridge is not Tiananmen Square, the government of Canada is not the CPC, and I dare say the truckers and others clogging up the works are not truly oppressed in any meaningful way. The fact that the tanks haven't rolled in should give them a clue about this premise. Some sense of proportion is necessary in deciding what action needs to be taken, when, and by whom.
If saying this makes me come off as some closeted authoritarian, so be it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. I am no more than a man who believes in the rights and freedom and liberties of others, who thinks those rights come with certain responsibilities. One of which is to realize that "your rights" to speak your mind don't trump my rights to live my life without certain harms being propagated, such as being able to sleep sans blaring horns, or travel legally where and when I choose, or to buy a simple commodity for which I have a need.