A federal judge says the Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act in early 2022 to clear convoy protesters was unreasonable and infringed on protesters’ Charter rights.
In what’s already turning into a divisive decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley wrote that while the protests “reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order,” the invocation of the Emergencies Act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility.”
“I conclude that there was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires,” he wrote in a lengthy decision released Tuesday. “Ultra vires” is a Latin term used by courts to refer to actions beyond the scope of the law.
‘We will be appealing,’ Freeland says after court ruling on Emergencies Act
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland says that she remains ‘convinced’ that invoking the Emergencies Act in early 2022 was ‘the necessary thing to do.’ A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the government’s use of the act was unreasonable.
The Federal Court case was argued by two national groups, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and two people whose bank accounts were frozen. They argued Ottawa did not meet the legal threshold when it invoked the legislation, which had never been used before.
The federal government says it already plans to appeal.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022 after thousands of protesters angry with the Liberals’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine requirements, gridlocked downtown Ottawa for nearly a month and blocked border points elsewhere across the country. The protests gained international attention for bringing parts of the capital city to a halt.
The act gave law enforcement extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters and gave the government the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests. The temporary emergency powers also gave authorities the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove protesters’ vehicles from the streets of the capital.
Under the Emergencies Act, a national emergency only exists if the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” Further, a public order emergency can be declared only in response to “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.”
The act defers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s definition of such threats — which includes serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence.
Anti-COVID-19 vaccine mandate demonstrators leave in a truck convoy after blocking the highway at the busy U.S. border crossing in Coutts, Alta. on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2022. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)
The government cited the situation in the Alberta border town of Coutts when it invoked the act. In the early hours of Feb. 14, before the act was invoked, Mounties in Coutts seized a cache of weapons, body armour and ammunition.
Four men are now awaiting trial, accused of conspiring to murder RCMP officers.
Economic orders infringed on Charter rights: judge
Mosley said the situation created by the protests across the country did not meet the CSIS threshold.
“The potential for serious violence, or being unable to say that there was no potential for serious violence was, of course, a valid reason for concern,” he wrote. “But in my view, it did not satisfy the test required to invoke the Act, particularly as there was no evidence of a similar ‘hardened cell’ elsewhere in the country, only speculation, and the situation at Coutts had been resolved without violence.”
Mosley’s decision also examined one of the most controversial steps taken by the government in response to the protests — the freezing of participants’ bank accounts.
“I agree with the [the government] that the objective was pressing and substantial and that there was a rational connection between freezing the accounts and the objective, to stop funding the blockades. However, the measures were not minimally impairing,” he wrote.
The judge said the economic orders infringed on protesters’ freedom of expression “as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”
He also concluded the economic orders violated protesters’ Charter rights “by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts.”
The two men whose bank accounts were frozen also argued that their rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights were violated, but Mosley disagreed.
He also concluded that the government’s actions did not infringe on anyone’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Government plans to appeal
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director of the CCLA, said their win sets a clear and critical precedent for future governments.
“Emergency is not in the eye of the beholder. Emergency powers are necessary in extreme circumstances, but they are also dangerous to democracy,” she said. “They should be used sparingly and carefully. They cannot be used even to address a massive and disruptive demonstration if that could have been dealt with through regular policing and laws.”
Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said the decision is a “huge vindication for many people.”
“[Mosley] also mentioned that economic disruption cannot form the basis for the invocation of extraordinary measures such as those contained in the Emergencies Act, which I think would lead to a very disturbing precedent across Canada, for example in the event of labour strikes and disruptions,” she said.
The government has long argued the measures it took under the Emergencies Act were targeted, proportional and temporary.
Police move in to clear downtown Ottawa near Parliament hill of protesters after weeks of demonstrations on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2022. The public inquiry investigating the federal government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act in February begins today in downtown Ottawa. (Cole Burston/The Canadian Press)
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters at a cabinet retreat in Montreal on Tuesday that the government plans to appeal the decision, setting up a legal battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“We believed we were doing something necessary and something legal at the time,” she told reporters on Tuesday. “That continues to be my belief today.”
“This was an extremely tense time. The safety of individual Canadians was under real threat … Our national security was under real threat – our national security, including our economic security,” she said Tuesday.
Speaking alongside Freeland on Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc said that the situation at Coutts and other border crossings helped to inform the government’s decision to invoke the act.
“It’s not banal when the security services tell you that they found two pipe bombs and 36,000 rounds of munition and ended up laying criminal charges as serious as to commit murder,” he said. “So the context is important.”
Mosley said those findings were “deeply troubling” but suggested the threats were being dealt with by the police of provincial and local jurisdiction outside Ottawa.
The judge wrote that it may be “unrealistic” to expect the federal government to wait when the country is “threatened by serious and dangerous situations,” as the provinces or territories decide whether they have the capacity or authority to deal with the threat.
“However, that is what the Emergencies Act appears to require.” he said.
Rouleau commission reached different conclusion
A mandatory inquiry, led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau, reviewed the government’s use of the Emergencies Act in the fall of 2022 and came to a different conclusion.
After hearing from dozens of witnesses and reviewing thousands of never-before-seen documents, including cabinet ministers’ text messages, Rouleau concluded the federal government met the “very high” threshold needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, citing “a failure in policing and federalism.”
“Lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency,” he wrote.
Justice Minister Arif Virani said the government cited Rouleau’s conclusions when discussing the government’s decision to appeal Mosley’s ruling.
“[Rouleau’s] decision stands at odds with the decision that was rendered today and I think that is important and that also informs our decision to appeal,” Virani told reporters Tuesday.
Federal government met threshold to invoke Emergencies Act: report
The final report out of the Emergencies Act inquiry found the federal government met the threshold to use it, as convoy protesters choked downtown Ottawa and blocked border crossings in early 2022. Still, Commissioner Paul Rouleau calls out police and the Ontario government for missteps in their responses.
CSIS Director David Vigneault testified that he supported invoking the Emergencies Act, even if he didn’t believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy met his agency’s definition of a threat to national security.
In his final report, Rouleau argued that the definition of “threats to the security of Canada” in the CSIS Act should be removed from the Emergencies Act.
Rouleau, an Ontario Court of Appeal justice, said he reached his conclusion with some reluctance.
“I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming,” he said in statements he gave after his report was made public.
“Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at.”
Mosley heard arguments in court over three days last April. He wrote that at the outset of the proceedings, he felt the protests in Ottawa and elsewhere went “beyond legitimate protest and reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order.”
He said he reached his decision “with the benefit of hindsight” and a more extensive record of facts and law than cabinet had available to it when it made its decision.
Political reaction
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was quick to condemn the government and Prime Minister Trudeau personally.
“He caused the crisis by dividing people,” he posted on the social media platform X. “Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.”
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said that his party reluctantly supported the invocation of the act.
“The reason we were in that crisis was a direct failure of Justin Trudeau’s leadership and also other levels of government that failed to act,” he said during a caucus meeting in Edmonton.
Singh said his party will watch to see where the appeal goes.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
