You believe that the possibility of economic harm to businesses is in itself justification for the invocation to Emergency act?
You believe that the possibility of economic harm to businesses is in itself justification for the invocation to Emergency act?
Isn’t this also missing the point? Is what a judge thought before the case was heard relevant? Surely a court case involves presenting facts from both sides and arguing the case and not prejudging the case as if they were there before the start and before the case was heard. I think technically the judge would have to recuse himself.
What is the legal definition of “unreasonable”?
What I am unclear about, as a non Canadian, is what the ruling means. For instance is there anything about the ruling, as it stands, to prevent or impede the government, in any way, from invoking the emergency act in future as long as they have a majority in parliament? If the ruling has no teeth why does the government care about it. Why even appeal it?
So you are fluent in Russian language?
I know that the election process is gamed to some degree even if it’s not Trump style.
Trying to get straight answers out of candidates or parties is near impossible and I’ve tried. They simply ignore my emails and if in person, at the market stalls, they do the same.
That doesn’t sound so temporary. Also not sure what freedom of speech has to do with freedom to spend money. I got a bit lost there.
However it does seem to explain how it was overruled during the Ottawa protests.
You’re a foreigner but all your lemmy posts are about Canadian politics and your link is to a campaign video for Pierre Poilievre?
Correct. I am from and in New Zealand. I joined up on lemmy.ca because you seem to be affiliated with more communities than what the NZ lemmy is.
You no longer have public health care?
Is that a high crime area?
As I understand it it was still only a police response and the army was not called in. Why couldn’t the municipalities just call in the police of their own accord?