Excellent comments, and speaks to the need for some serious guidance fm SCC re application of Vavilov to higher level public policy decisions (including sigificant GiC & LGiC orders). This analysis, coupled with FCC analysis in the plastics case, seem to indicate that this court at least, is moving toward equating reasonableness with correctness, contra Vavilov.
You say, "I suppose we’re expected to believe it was mere coincidence that blockade participants did not end their siege until the EA was invoked", but just because the protests ended after the law was invoked doesn't mean there is any causal link between those two events. As far as I understand the Ottawa protesters were cleared by a police operation that was organized by the OPS, not the federal government. It's hard to see why the EA was needed to carry out that operation.
Rouleau prefaced his conclusions by saying: “I did not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming and I acknowledge there is significant strength to the argument against reaching it,”
...and the significant strength of the argument against Rouleau's "reluctant decision" is what we heard expressed today.
Loosely interpreted, Rouleau's decision essentially granted any majority party to waive aside the Constitution whenever they feel threatened, as long as they truly BELIEVE they are being threatened.
It set a ridiculous and dangerous precedent. I am far more happy to live in a country governed by "the rule of law" as carefully expressed by Justice Richard Moseley.
Despite the fact that he is not a lawyer, I have always had respect for Mr. Macfarlane’s views on legal matters as expressed through his academic work, and still do. Unfortunately, in this article, freed from the constraints of peer review, he presents a breathless polemic that reads as much like the first draft of a column for an Ottawa community newspaper as it does a reasoned response to Justice Mosley’s judgment in this matter. It might have been better for all concerned had Mr. Macfarlane reflected somewhat longer, rather than proceeding to give a hot take on such a substantive court decision.
The protest convoy was initially all about the government imposing restrictive Covid policies. It was well into the protest before the manifesto bullshit came up. I think you pay too much attention to the media when you think that it meant much. (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/what-does-the-trucker-convoy-hope-to-accomplish-1.5758489) BTW what do you think you might have done had you been PM to ameliorate the situation? Would you have tried to open a dialog? Would you have talked to them like they were your fellow citizens and neighbours?
Well reasoned and written. Unlike today’s judgment.
Excellent comments, and speaks to the need for some serious guidance fm SCC re application of Vavilov to higher level public policy decisions (including sigificant GiC & LGiC orders). This analysis, coupled with FCC analysis in the plastics case, seem to indicate that this court at least, is moving toward equating reasonableness with correctness, contra Vavilov.
You say, "I suppose we’re expected to believe it was mere coincidence that blockade participants did not end their siege until the EA was invoked", but just because the protests ended after the law was invoked doesn't mean there is any causal link between those two events. As far as I understand the Ottawa protesters were cleared by a police operation that was organized by the OPS, not the federal government. It's hard to see why the EA was needed to carry out that operation.
Rouleau prefaced his conclusions by saying: “I did not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming and I acknowledge there is significant strength to the argument against reaching it,”
...and the significant strength of the argument against Rouleau's "reluctant decision" is what we heard expressed today.
Loosely interpreted, Rouleau's decision essentially granted any majority party to waive aside the Constitution whenever they feel threatened, as long as they truly BELIEVE they are being threatened.
It set a ridiculous and dangerous precedent. I am far more happy to live in a country governed by "the rule of law" as carefully expressed by Justice Richard Moseley.
Well written..a different examination of the findings..kudos!,
Despite the fact that he is not a lawyer, I have always had respect for Mr. Macfarlane’s views on legal matters as expressed through his academic work, and still do. Unfortunately, in this article, freed from the constraints of peer review, he presents a breathless polemic that reads as much like the first draft of a column for an Ottawa community newspaper as it does a reasoned response to Justice Mosley’s judgment in this matter. It might have been better for all concerned had Mr. Macfarlane reflected somewhat longer, rather than proceeding to give a hot take on such a substantive court decision.
THANK YOU, EMMETT!
Bravo
The protest convoy was initially all about the government imposing restrictive Covid policies. It was well into the protest before the manifesto bullshit came up. I think you pay too much attention to the media when you think that it meant much. (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/what-does-the-trucker-convoy-hope-to-accomplish-1.5758489) BTW what do you think you might have done had you been PM to ameliorate the situation? Would you have tried to open a dialog? Would you have talked to them like they were your fellow citizens and neighbours?
Really worth reading. Thank you for writing it.