Liberals invoke S.39, refuse to provide evidence

[Armourall]

Here comes another one.

The thread didn't take a nosedive. There's an abundance of uncomfortable truth in here.

These keyboard warriors want us to go along with them and fight to the end and will post in any forum regardless of what the initial discussion was just to show how "tough" they are. They will be the first ones to hide if things start to happen. These guys are such a joke. I'd ignore, but I've already done that to this particular idiot four times already.

[hsatimmy]

Here comes another one.

The thread didn't take a nosedive. There's an abundance of uncomfortable truth in here.

nice join date.

take a gander at the rules and take a deep breath

[Nic3500]

I know, I know, I am late reading this thread...

That means that the government can dictate any law, any time, without the justice system being able to validate and question that law?
The same tactics could be used to force any law, without evidence, without oversight. I thought there was a balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative powers? (sorry, that last part might be a poor translation on my part of "législatif et le judiciaire").

Let's say a coucou takes power, he could pass a law using his majority, get it through the Senate, and shield it from federal judges as well?

I often joked in the past that the Canadian system was to elect our next dictator, it looks like that more and more. Does S.39 apply to the Supreme Court as well?

[bogusiii]

I know, I know, I am late reading this thread...

That means that the government can dictate any law, any time, without the justice system being able to validate and question that law?
The same tactics could be used to force any law, without evidence, without oversight. I thought there was a balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative powers? (sorry, that last part might be a poor translation on my part of "législatif et le judiciaire").

Let's say a coucou takes power, he could pass a law using his majority, get it through the Senate, and shield it from federal judges as well?

I often joked in the past that the Canadian system was to elect our next dictator, it looks like that more and more. Does S.39 apply to the Supreme Court as well?

The short answer seems to be yes, and this is, or will be, the precedent setting case that makes it permanent. That is why this is such a big deal.

I'm not sure about the Supreme Court but I expect they would be left in the dark if the government ducked under Sec.39. I'd like to hope the SCC is not as willing to accept that as this lower court was.

[Ershwin]

I know, I know, I am late reading this thread...

That means that the government can dictate any law, any time, without the justice system being able to validate and question that law?
The same tactics could be used to force any law, without evidence, without oversight. I thought there was a balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative powers? (sorry, that last part might be a poor translation on my part of "législatif et le judiciaire").

Let's say a coucou takes power, he could pass a law using his majority, get it through the Senate, and shield it from federal judges as well?

I often joked in the past that the Canadian system was to elect our next dictator, it looks like that more and more. Does S.39 apply to the Supreme Court as well?

The supreme Court gave a pretty wide range of applications to s.39 so yes it probably didn't exclude itself from it.

Also whatever the laws are the liberals will just change them to fit their agenda. Look at what I posted a few posts up, a country that prevents you from leaving it's border for anything other than the most heinous crime just doesn't give a damn about your rights or your morals.

[captainamazing]

The short answer seems to be yes, and this is, or will be, the precedent setting case that makes it permanent. That is why this is such a big deal.

I'm not sure about the Supreme Court but I expect they would be left in the dark if the government ducked under Sec.39. I'd like to hope the SCC is not as willing to accept that as this lower court was.

Sec.8 of the Charter protects us from arbitrary Seizure of property. That being said if sec 39 is allowed to stand
then the seizure isn't arbitrary and their argument is taken at Prima Facie. If it fails upon further lawsuits and we see that they are doing this for woke points with the anti gunners we have a good Sec 8 argument.

But then again Canada's Supreme courts are filled with liberals with a tenuous grasp on the concept of civil service.

[Ershwin]

Sec.8 of the Charter protects us from arbitrary Seizure of property.

The charter isn't going to protect you from anythinf, it's right there in its first section "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

My money is on the narrative that a truly free and democratic society shouldn't be subject to a few violent individuals who want to own weapons designed to kill a maximum amount of people in the shortest bla bla bla

[BattleRife]

I'd like to hope the SCC is not as willing to accept that as this lower court was.

Please take note that this lower court has not yet ruled on the case, so it is premature to say that they accepted the S.39 claim willingly. Yes, they agreed the government has the right to claim cabinet confidence on this pocket of evidence, but it remains to be seen if the court agrees to accept that the evidence has any meaning now that it is hidden.

It should also be noted that the courts have ruled in the past that S.39 should only be used when there is genuine confidence that needs protecting, the government cannot use the privilege willy-nilly just to avoid scrutiny. If the judge thinks that is what is going on here, she may become annoyed.

[JTF#]

this is your first post saying stuff like that? would you happen to be with the RCMP ?

It's sad that you wouldn't protect and support anyone that was chosen first. Not even that guy with kids that said he wasn't going to comply.

I think there's a real concern here and no one is joking around or trying to be tough.

This is about coming together for defense. It makes sense to protect registered gun owners that refuse to comply because they are like a buffer. Large groups of gun owners can protect the community and stop tyranny. Dig in, fortify your home, buy CBRN gas masks, stock up on food and water, get comms, body armor etc

How and when people converge on an area under siege needs to be figured out, but get everyone in a certain location and they can just overwhelm by sheer numbers. I think if there were enough of us together to help out the first unlucky one, there wouldn't be any firefights.

[JTF#]

This is my first post. You fit the description.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...1#post18361248

The RCMP wouldn't suggest we do something that actually defeats anyone that obeys orders to disarm us.