Court has ruled Emergencies Act during Trucker convoy was unconstitutional
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
Ummmm...no...I don't prove things to you any longer because of your penchant for disputing proof and distracting to something else when you fall on your face.
You want to debate?
You prove it and let me judge your info.
You were bullshitting and are officially called out as a bullshitter.
Ummm not quite. Just not falling for your usual distraction tactics which are legendary as bullshit.
Maybe at some point you'll understand how debates work and you can stop your bullshit distraction tactics.
At the very least, they are your death knell for when you've lost an argument...which you have again.
1622 is not even close to every single Canadian. I bet you they only polled people in Trudeau's riding.
You're a bullshitter, you made a claim about poll sizes and are now running away from your claim.
Are you suggesting that the sample size they used for 40,000,000 million people should not have been larger?
Yes or no answer please.
For the record, I said it needed to be larger in my response to you that you are claiming is bullshit.
I'll wait.
Yes or no answer please...not just your usual answering a question with a question.
Can't answer? Then we'll just end this debate with you losing another one. The choice is yours.
Its really quite funny when you get cornered, declare you won't answer, claim I didn't answer something then declare you won a debate.
Its a daily activity for you, don't you get tired of it?
You don't understand how polling works in Canada.
Whoops.
At first I thought you were just trying to troll pole vs poll but now I think maybe you just aren't that bright.You just seem to "keep bringing up the pole"
You just described yourself. Lol!
I asked you what's the proper sample size for a population of 40 million?...you can't answer.
That question implies I understand how polling works.
You distraction implies you lost another argument.
No, skoob.
I posted a poll then you tried to make fun of it based on the poll size. Then when I challenged you on what sample sizes you think are normal for polls you went into troll mode.
Where you still are now.
I asked you if a sample size of 1600 for a poll of 40 million would be accurate and you didn't answer.
instead, you troll by answering questions with questions and then distract to blur your failure.
Every time. Everyone here sees it. Everyone here knows it. Your distraction is legendary.
You just don't like it when people use your tactics on you. Then you start crying and calling people trolls.
I can write your script because it's so predictable.
The bank freezing is the one that needs to be ridden down the hardest, in my opinion.
I agree with the judge in paragraph 358:
Of particular concern from a section 1 justification perspective is that there was no
standard applied to determine whether someone should be the target of the measures or process
to allow them to question that determination. As described by Superintendent Beaudoin in cross-
examination, it was all informal and ad hoc.
Freezing bank accounts can be justified, but the way it was done was a shit show and that can't be ignored.
It was, in fact, more of an ad hoc clusterfuck than I originally thought. Some kind of update to the law specifying how that can be done in the future and what safeguards would be put in place to prevent it spilling out of control are necessary.
Lots of people are going to disagree with that last part - including Justice Mosley.
I had and continue to have considerable sympathy for those in government who were confronted with
this situation. Had I been at their tables at that time, I may have agreed that it was necessary to
invoke the Act. And I acknowledge that in conducting judicial review of that decision, I am
revisiting that time with the benefit of hindsight and a more extensive record of the facts and law
than that which was before the GIC.
He acknowledges that this legal analysis isn't one that was even possible at the time, but should still be undertaken because it serves the public interest for a court to review what actions were taken and weigh in on their effects.
And they - or another government - may have to do so again, which was a major reason Justice Mosley weighed in.
