Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[lenaitch]

The issue of emergency/temporary injunctions with respect to protests has been going on for a while. The mistake Sarnia PS made was outright saying they were going to ignore it.

I'm not fully familiar with that area of procedural law, but I think they are an imperfect way for a party to deal with a blockade. An injunction is supposed to be a legal pause button to preserve the status quo until the court has the time to hear and consider all sides in detail. The trouble is the second step never happens. Once the blockade is lifted, everybody goes home. The only time the second step occasionally occurs is labour picketing, and typically just to flesh out the ground rules. The entire concept of a protest or blockade is anti-social and confrontational. One side wants the other side to stop doing something and the other side doesn't

At the most basic, they are unaccountable. They can be appealed but, as I understand it, the process is limited and cumbersome. If matters 'go south' in the enforcement of the court order, the issuing court cannot be called to account for their role in the events. Individual police officers are accountable for their actions on the line, as are the protestors, but the police service can also be held to account. I've never heard of the non-labour protesting side being held accountable.

Law enforcement inherently impacts the rights of others. If push comes to shove (literally), it can impact their physical safety. The police will always retain the right to determine when and how the law is enforced

I did note in Christie's article that some member(s) of Sarnia PS sat down at a drum circle, which speaks to my previous concern of being seen to take sides.

 

[Kirkhill]

Can you clarify what you’re referring to? The courts don’t get involved in police operational decision making. It will be a very rare court order that would compel police to do something operational and specific. Courts may make court orders that are police enforceable, but that doesn’t necessarily usurp police operational discretion on the ground.

Seen it done. In the idle no more protests a judge gave a court order to clear a railroad crossing that had been blockaded. Instead of enforcing that order a cop went and sat with the protesters. And that cop retired just about 3 years ago, so he didn’t get fired or any other fair punishment for his clear dereliction of duty.

Christie Blatchford: Politicized policing around Idle No More blockades puts rule of law at risk

Christie Blatchford: David Brown on Monday issued a lament for the rule of law in giving his decision on an Idle No More rail blockade

nationalpost.com

At the end of the day our institutions are only as good as what we are willing to do to enforce them. Currently we are not willing to do so as a society. Laws are broken constantly, our streets are filled with citizens actively breaking the law. Criminals act with impunity and if someone dares to stop them we blame the good samaritan for getting involved and having the audacity to put a end to it.

Hell we allow our politicians to unilaterally re-write the constitution in ways they legally have no power to do so just because no one wishes to actually enforce the laws we have in place. All are signs of a declining democracy.

@dimsum is probably right and this tangent may require a redirected thread.

My perspective as a civilian.

I expect to be able to go about my business unimpeded if I adhere to the laws. If I contravene the laws I expect to be told about it. If I continue my illegal activities then I expect to be taken before the courts, the arm of His Majesty's government responsible for adjudication. His Majesty's judges, acting in his place will then decide my fate.

If I fail to comply then His Majesty's executive, the Government of the Day, the Governor-in-Council, has resort to armed servants to enforce His Majesty's will as described by His Courts and His Government. Some of those servants wear Scarlets and Blues. Some of them add CADPAT to their wardrobe.

If one group were told to clear an obstruction at such and such a location by such and such a time and six weeks later the obstruction were still in place and the OiC were sitting at the obstruction having a coffee and donuts I am inclined to think that the OiC would have some explaining to do. And that meeting would be without coffee.

I appreciate that Gilbert and Sullivan were correct in their observation - "When constabulary duty's to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not an 'appy one, 'appy one."

But I share the opinion that it appears that the police are inclined to go after soft targets rather than trying to crack the hard nuts. That it is easier to discomfit the majority of law-abiding citizens than it is to go after the law-breakers who may react violently, especially those that have already demonstrated a willingness to act violently towards the law-abiding and commit assault.

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Absent a "protest", if an individual planted themself on a sidewalk with bullhorn and a placard on a pole and demanded that I quit the sidewalk and cross the road might that not be considered assault?

Can protesters be charged for blocking traffic? Here's what the law says

The Extinction Rebellion protest shut down traffic on Edmonton's Walterdale Bridge from 7 a.m. to just after 8 a.m.

edmonton.ctvnews.ca

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to

Criminal Code

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Funny though if you decide to "protest" by physically removing the people who are blockading the street, then see how the authorities react. Even if you started spraying water on them.

 

[FJAG]

It's a difficult question and I agree that these protests are a pain in the butt. One thing I suspect that lingers in the minds of most Attorney Generals and the police in a province is the Oka Crisis (or, as known by its alternate name "The Kanesataki Resistance"). It all started with a police effort to take out a small barricade which defied a court order and ended up with a brigade deployed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

IDF continues to advance in Gaza

 

[Kirkhill]

It's a difficult question and I agree that these protests are a pain in the butt. One thing I suspect that lingers in the minds of most Attorney Generals and the police in a province is the Oka Crisis (or, as known by its alternate name "The Kanesataki Resistance"). It all started with a police effort to take out a small barricade which defied a court order and ended up with a brigade deployed.

Point taken but....

"In Canada, all people have the right to gather peacefully. There are however limitations to peaceful assemblies contained in various sections of the criminal code," said McFee.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does state that all Canadians have the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, with limits.

However, a spokesperson for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it all comes down to whether those limits are reasonable.

'Protests, to be effective, have to be disruptive'

"Courts have said generally that unless what they call a breach of the peace is taking place during a protests, which usually would involve some level of violence, that there should be the right to protest," said Cara Zwibel, director of the CCLA's Fundamental Freedoms Program.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, a protest can turn unlawful if it "disturbs the peace tumultuously" or provokes others to disturb the peace.

That is from the CTV Edmonton article I posted above.

For me the key element is this :

'Protests, to be effective, have to be disruptive'

It is not the business of the constabulary to ensure an effective protest. It is the business of the constabulary to eliminate disruptions.

Ottawa. In my view.

The Ottawa Police Service would have been right to insist the trucks clear the streets and lay off the horns.
They would also have been right to direct the trucks to park on the lawn at parliament hill and in any neighbouring government parking lots. Those are all public spaces.

Coutts and Windsor. Again in my view.

The RCMP and OPP would have been right to insist that the trucks keep to the verges and line the hiqhways.
They would also have been right to insist that the trucks keep the highways and the border crossings open.

Toronto

Keep the highways open.
Keep the protesters off of private property.
Direct the protesters to public spaces.
Keep the protestors from intimidating and disrupting the citizenry.

 

[brihard]

Ottawa. In my view.

The Ottawa Police Service would have been right to insist the trucks clear the streets and lay off the horns.
They would also have been right to direct the trucks to park on the lawn at parliament hill and in any neighbouring government parking lots. Those are all public spaces.

Ottawa Police and the municipality have absolutely no say over the use of Parliament Hill or federally own parking lots/lands. In a legal sense those are still private property, even if opened for certain public uses. Parliament in particular has a very distinct and special legal status, with unique control over its physical turf. Ottawa Police have jurisdiction for investigating normal crimes that happen to take place on Parliament Hill (drunk guy fights someone, say; or a protester assault a Parliamentary Protective Service member). They do not get to say how the physical property is used, anymore than they would for the grounds of NDHQ or CFB Uplands.

 

[Haggis]

Hell we allow our politicians to unilaterally re-write the constitution in ways they legally have no power to do so just because no one wishes to actually enforce the laws we have in place. All are signs of a declining democracy.

Wait, what??? Which part of the Constitution have politicians unilaterally re-written?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Wait, what??? Which part of the Constitution have politicians unilaterally re-written?

Quebec unilaterally re-wrote requiring politicians to swear a oath to the king to take office as 3 elected officials refused to. Quebec doesn’t have the legal authority to re-write that portion of the constitution.

Those politicians are now serving in spite of the fact they should be legally disbarred until they swear their oath.

At the end of the day, like the oath or not, there is a legal process to abolish it and Quebec did not follow it. Our current federal government has also allowed them to get away with it.

This is a dangerous precedent to set as what other parts of the constitution can we just ignore or illegally change to suit the preference at the moment?

 

[Remius]

Quebec unilaterally re-wrote requiring politicians to swear a oath to the king to take office as 3 elected officials refused to. Quebec doesn’t have the legal authority to re-write that portion of the constitution.

They still used a democratic process to do it. Passed a law that made it optional.

Experts are split on if they can or not. Someone can make a challenge.

Those politicians are now serving in spite of the fact they should be legally disbarred until they swear their oath.

Not according to the law they passed, they passed it so they could.

At the end of the day, like the oath or not, there is a legal process to abolish it and Quebec did not follow it. Our current federal government has also allowed them to get away with it.

Again debatable. They did follow a process. I am guessing it will be challenged at some point.

This is a dangerous precedent to set as what other parts of the constitution can we just ignore or illegally change to suit the preference at the moment?

Again, it was passed as a law. The law does not bind everyone only Quebec who chose to make the oath optional. One side says they can’t do it without approval of other provinces and the other side says it can as far as its provincial jurisdiction is concerned.

Time will tell if that law will stand or not.

 

[Kirkhill]

They still used a democratic process to do it. Passed a law that made it optional.

Experts are split on if they can or not. Someone can make a challenge.

Not according to the law they passed, they passed it so they could.

Again debatable. They did follow a process. I am guessing it will be challenged at some point.

Again, it was passed as a law. The law does not bind everyone only Quebec who chose to make the oath optional. One side says they can’t do it without approval of other provinces and the other side says it can as far as its provincial jurisdiction is concerned.

Time will tell if that law will stand or not.

All laws can, and should, be challenged on a regular basis. And changed as the situation changes.

 

[Quirky]

Temporary resident pathway opens for Palestinian extended family in Gaza

The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel, following Hamas’s terrorist attacks on October 7, has created a humanitarian catastrophe on an unprecedented scale in Gaza. Understanding that many Canadians are concerned about the safety of their loved ones in Gaza, in December, the Government of...

www.canada.ca

When your immigration policy is based on social media likes. I don’t think it will be long until we find out why Arab countries don’t want them. All well and good to be compassionate, but this government is very reactive to news cycles and nothing is thought out.

 

[Lumber]

Meanwhile:

Saudi Arabia still wants to normalize ties with Israel, meaning a key goal of Hamas' October 7 attacks has apparently failed

Hamas' plan to derail diplomatic talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia seems to have failed.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Eaglelord17]

They still used a democratic process to do it. Passed a law that made it optional.

Experts are split on if they can or not. Someone can make a challenge.

Not according to the law they passed, they passed it so they could.

Again debatable. They did follow a process. I am guessing it will be challenged at some point.

Again, it was passed as a law. The law does not bind everyone only Quebec who chose to make the oath optional. One side says they can’t do it without approval of other provinces and the other side says it can as far as its provincial jurisdiction is concerned.

Time will tell if that law will stand or not.

They didn’t use the proper democratic process to do it. Can a city declare all drugs are legal because the city council voted for it? Its a democratic process, so why should it matter?

We have rules in place as to how to amend our constitution. The constitution isn’t supposed to be easy to change, it is intentionally difficult. Letting this slide is a serious constitutional issue, along the same lines as provinces declaring they will not follow federal law.

At the minimum it should go to the supreme court to decide it as it can have far reaching effects one way or the other.

 

[Remius]

They didn’t use the proper democratic process to do it.

Yes they did. You just don’t think it is. They clearly think they can pass a law in their legislature (unanimously i will add).

Can a city declare all drugs are legal because the city council voted for it? Its a democratic process, so why should it matter?

Apples and oranges.

We have rules in place as to how to amend our constitution. The constitution isn’t supposed to be easy to change, it is intentionally difficult.

This is what is debatable. Is it something that lies in the purview of the province as it affects only them and their government? Or is it so something that requires the full gambit of constitutional rules. As a resident of Ontario I could care less. Not my province not my problem. I am sure though it will be tested. But I doubt anyone at the federal level will at this time. The Liberals and Conservatives want to keep Quebec happy right now so I doubt they will pick that fight. Someone in the province though I can see though trying.

Letting this slide is a serious constitutional issue, along the same lines as provinces declaring they will not follow federal law.

How? What will it change? What is the actual effect of making it optional? For the record I think an oath should be taken. But again, what is the actual ramification of making it optional?

At the minimum it should go to the supreme court to decide it as it can have far reaching effects one way or the other.

That’s where it will get challenged. But someone has to challenge it.

 

[lenaitch]

The Ottawa Police Service would have been right to insist the trucks clear the streets and lay off the horns.
They would also have been right to direct the trucks to park on the lawn at parliament hill and in any neighbouring government parking lots. Those are all public spaces.

So, hustling them from public space they own and have jurisdiction over to federal lands that they do not?

I expect to be able to go about my business unimpeded if I adhere to the laws.

Would you deny organized labour to picket their employer's place of business and restrict or delay public access?

 

[Kirkhill]

So, hustling them from public space they own and have jurisdiction over to federal lands that they do not?

Hustling Canadians from highways they are not allowed to obstruct to federal lands held in the name of all Canadians?

Would you deny organized labour to picket their employer's place of business and restrict or delay public access?

They can blockade their employer to their hearts' delight, just so long as they don't impede my ability to use the public pathway across the front of their employer's property.

 

[lenaitch]

Hustling Canadians from highways they are not allowed to obstruct to federal lands held in the name of all Canadians?

All public property is held in the name of all Canadians (the Crown); it becomes a matter of which level of Crown is responsible for the particular piece of property; and all public property has some manner of rules of occupation and usage. The front lawn of Parliament Hill isn't a free-for-all.

They can blockade their employer to their hearts' delight, just so long as they don't impede my ability to use the public pathway across the front of their employer's property.

I'm afraid the courts have said otherwise, many times. Obviously, rules apply.

 

[Kirkhill]

All public property is held in the name of all Canadians (the Crown); it becomes a matter of which level of Crown is responsible for the particular piece of property; and all public property has some manner of rules of occupation and usage. The front lawn of Parliament Hill isn't a free-for-all.


I'm afraid the courts have said otherwise, many times. Obviously, rules apply.

All laws can, and should, be challenged on a regular basis. And changed as the situation changes.

Many governments. One taxpayer. Especially at the Federal level.