By Alison@Creekside
A special meeting of the Public Safety and National Security Committee was held Monday, “Requested by Four (4) Members of the Committee to Undertake a Study of the Issues Surrounding Security at the G8 and G20 Summits.”
Will there be a parliamentary study on G20 security issues?
Well, first they had to agree to a motion to have such a study and they had only two hours to get over this seemingly insurmountable procedural hurdle. Let’s look in . . .
Dave MacKenzie, Con: Motion to commend the efforts of the police to protect Canadians. Violent mob, thugs, hooligans . . . violent mob of thugs and hooligans . . . violent mob of thugs, hooligans, and anarchists who set fire to police cars . . . mob of thugs, hooligans and anarchists . . . cowards packed with weapons . . . mob of . . .
NDP Paul Dewar: Is this a new motion? What about the motion to have a study?
Con Chair Garry Breitkreuz: No, this is just a discussion. Go ahead, Mr. MacKenzie.
Con Dave MacKenzie: Mob of thugs, hooligans, and anarchists . . . let’s wait for the ISU to do their study first.
Con Dean del Mastro: Summit a great success . . . thugs, hooligans and anarchists . . . anarchist groups . . . call for a study is just a cheap political stunt . . . Unlike the NDP-led coalition we stand for our police . . . There have been no allegations of PMO interference . . . NDP’s coalition is lining itself up with anarchist groups . . . We should trust the ISU and Toronto Police to do its final review — they have the expertise . . . We should condemn the actions of anarchists, not give them a public forum to defend their criminal deeds and I believe the motion Mr. MacKenzie has discussed does do this — condemn the actions of these hooligans. This is the view of the overwhelming majority of Canadians — 75%. Stand with our police, stand with the appropriate bodies, and condemn the thugs and hooligans.
Con Paul Calandra : How disappointing to be here to promote the agenda of the thugs and hooligans . . . hooligans and thugs . . . [omigawd, now he’s reading from the gov’s promotional G20 pamphlet] . . . growth prospects, make our financial systems stronger, going forward more work remains, transparency, we stand united with the people of Haiti, resist protectionism, blah, blah, blah, and finally . . . thugs, hooligans, and hooligans . . . .
Thugs, hooligans, and hooligans? Oh dear, an unfortunate and probably unauthorized variation. No drink for you.
Anyway, I’ll save you the suspense. After two hours of this “discussion,” and despite attempts by NDP Paul Dewar, Libs Andrew Kania and Mark Holland, and Bloc Maria Mourani to get around to the actual reason for convening this meeting — the motion to study G20 security issues — the committee adjourned without voting to have it.
a class action suit seems best.
Please. someone with legal and constitutional expertise, reply:
Is there a section in our Constitution (1982) to make it possible for the federal or a provincial government to suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Under what conditions, if so? During War, I would suppose, but no others seem probable.
If not, how does the Constitution provide for the Courts to uphold the inviolability of the Charter when it is breached by an Act of a Legislature? Who is responsible to bring the violation to the attention of the Court?
From what I am reading, it seems as if the Public Protection Act did not say one clear thing about the Charter, nor name it or its provisions. The Act merely enacts provisions that are in fact contrary to the Charter. When the contradiction/ violation of the Charter is plain, what are law-enforcement personnel expected to do? Obey the new Act or say “no thanks, it violates the Charter and we cannot obey your Act.”? It seems like the old problem of people in uniform having to follow orders when the orders are not legal. Germany knows the problem, and after WWII that defence (“I was just doing as I was ordered to do”) was not valid.
I cannot recall that in the USA, Americans have ever had a State or Federal Government declare a city area such as downtown Toronto to be in a zone where Constitutional rights do not apply. Guantanamo is not the USA. But I can easily recall many times someone in the USA took a Govt to court to argue violation of rights.
Who will have to take the Govt of Ontario, Canada, or Toronto, to Court? Does some individual or group have to make the first move, or is there a constitutional process that is initiated by a Court?
c h Jeanes