Edit: it looks like you've been doing this repeatedly lately. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart? We'd be grateful.
Also, would you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines too.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Pretty sure you are just making things up now unless you have a source.
There were lots of arrests, lots of convictions, some fleeing to Cuba and subsequent detentions. Nobody in the Chénier cell the precipitated the crisis was let off on entrapment or, as far as I know, ever alleged entrapment. They regarded themselves as patriots and I believe they would have found the idea very offensive.
None of this of course has anything to do with Justin Trudeau and the fact that the FLQ members negotiated passage to Cuba seems to undermine this weird Castro thing too.
"In 1974, RCMP Security Service Corporal Robert Samson was arrested at a hospital after a failed bombing - the bomb exploded while in his hands, causing him to lose some fingers and tearing his eardrums - at the house of Sam Steinberg, founder of Steinberg Foods in Montreal. While this bombing was not sanctioned by the RCMP, at trial he announced that he had done "much worse" on behalf of the RCMP, and admitted he had been involved in the APLQ break-in."
Considering that the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms wasn't even in the constitution until 1982 (and up until then the constitution was controlled by the British parliament), I have no clue what he's on about with it being suspended in the 70s.
Incidentally, that (the charter being put into the constitution and the constitution being put under Canadian control) happened during Pierre Trudeau's term.
There's also the notwithstanding clause in the charter, which allows for the government to temporarily (for up to 5 years, subject to renewal) pass bills violating some of the charter rights so long as they declare they are doing so, but Pierre Trudeau, and Justin Trudeau, and in fact the federal legislature as a whole, have never used it.
Edit: Ah, someone else pointed out that he's talking about Trudeau invoking the war measures act... that didn't implicate any constitutional rights, because there basically weren't any. There was a bill of rights and freedoms at the time, but that was a normal law not constitutional, and apparently exceptions had been passed for the war measures act...
> Thats a very dishonest history of the rights of Canadians derived as subjects to her Majesty.
I assure you, it's not dishonest, it might be ill informed. I'm not a Canadian legal history scholar...
What, pray tell, constitutional rights did Canadians derive as subjects to her Majesty prior to 1982? Also how was the Canadian parliament able to bypass those rights when they didn't have authority over the constitution? Sources would be appreciated.
> And a very dishonest portrayal of the October Crisis
It's not a portrayal of that at all, it's a simple statement that an act and was invoked and a point of law without discussing the events that caused it to be invoked.
It’s very obviously a thing in the US, and you don’t need to look back into history to prove it. Every right guaranteed by the constitution can be suspended by the government, with the only limit being whatever SCOTUS thinks it should be. Given FISA courts are operated by the SCOTUS Chief Justice, it could be reasonable to conclude that SCOTUS hasn’t done a particularly great job of safeguarding those rights.
The US arguably makes some of the robust constitutional guarantees in the world, but they still pose little obstacle for a government that wants to subvert them. The illusion of civil liberties is even weaker in most of the rest of the world, where they’re often granted only by ordinary legislation, which can of course be changed by ordinary legislative processes.
The argument for this system is that the government must be able to suspend rights in response to an emergency, but the problem with that is that there’s always an emergency going on somewhere. The war on terror is already in its 4th presidential administration of being an emergency.
its easier in canada. the charter of rights and freedoms has weasel words in it that make it not absolute. In the US they ignore it, in canada the courts can declare infringements 'reasonable' based on the 'limitations clause'.
>1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So its basically more of a guideline when it matters.
No, its just explicit in Canada, where in the US it is, for the federal government, found implicitly in the tension between positive grants and negative restrictions in the Constitution, and, for States, the actual limits are only implicit in vague language (the 14th Amendment “Due Process” clause, into which much of the content of the Bill of Rights has been read in a form applicable against the States.)
> In the us there are grey areas. In Canada they can just ignore it if they can convince a judge to say it doesn't apply
You realize that those are just two different ways of saying the exact same thing, right?
> and the judges are political.
While the judicial branch in the US is sometimes distinguished from the elected “political” branches, federal judges and especially thise of the highest court which serves as the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional interpretation are very much tied into partisan politics; if that hadn't been clear before, all doubt of that was erased during the Reagan Administration (continuing similarly thereafter), and the further heightened judicial political drama of the Obama and Trump Administrations has bolded and underlined that for anyone who still somehow had doubts.
how does that interplay with the 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", where it seems the residual between positive grants and negative restrictions goes to the states/people?
