CPP416 - Swingers Canadian Patriot Podcast

This week, the panel discusses how the government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and a violation of the Charter. This comes as a complete shock to the government, as they thought the courts were more of a suggestion than a rule, but they plan to appeal the decision. There are of course no consequences for those government officials that violated your Charter rights.
Intro
Hello to all you patriots out there in podcast land and welcome to Episode 416 of Canadian Patriot Podcast. The number one live podcast in Canada. Recorded January 29th, 2024.
 
We need your help! To support Canadian Patriot Podcast visit patreon.com/cpp and become a Patreon. You can get a better quality version of the show for just $1 per episode. Show you’re not a communist, buy a CPP T-Shirt, for just $24.99 + shipping and theft. Visit canadianpatriotpodcast.com home page and follow the link on the right.
What are we drinking And 1 Patriot Challenge item that you completed
Gavin - Signal Hill and Pepsi Zero
Pierre - whiskey and pepsi
Andrew - Railway City Brewing - Elgin’s Finest Wee Heavy
Ian - Tea, cold
Liz - White Claw
Grab the Patriot Challenge template from our website and post it in your social media
Listener Feedback We’d love to hear your feedback about the show. Please visit  canadianpatriotpodcast.com/feedback/ or email us at feedback@canadianpatriotpodcast.com
A version of the show is Available on iTunes 
at https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/canadian-patriot-podcast/id1067964521?mt=2
Upcoming Events RESUL Four Day March May 9-12 2024
Strava https://www.strava.com/clubs/ragnaruck
News Ottawa's use of Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, violated Charter, court rules
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891
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."
Ultimately, there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act," he wrote.
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 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.
"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