Gurski: Emergencies Act ruling a reminder about free speech Specific Instances

Article content material

A quote apparently misattributed to Voltaire goes as follows: “I disapprove of what you say, however I’ll defend to the demise your proper to say it.” It’s a basis of our idea of freedom of speech.

This week’s Federal Court docket resolution that the federal government illegally invoked the Emergencies Act in response to the “Freedom Convoy’s” shenanigans in 2022 might strike some as a bombshell however actually it’s a welcome reminder that the legislation is the legislation and and that now we have elementary rights as enshrined within the Constitution.

Article content material

Article content material

Allow us to overview the info. A bunch of unruly yahoos parked 18-wheelers on Wellington Avenue, let off their horns incessantly, marched round with banners and flags, barbecued on the street, urinated in public, made a bloody disturbance of themselves and sure gave some Ottawa residents the center finger.

What they did NOT do as a bunch is interact in acts of great violence; threaten to kill individuals; or pose any actual hazard to the great individuals of the nation’s capital or throughout our nice land.  This was most definitely NOT a menace to nationwide safety and our personal spies on the Canadian Safety Intelligence Service (CSIS) even mentioned so overtly.

And but within the midst of this maelstrom of impoliteness and inconvenience, one which native legislation enforcement someway appeared powerless to disperse, the federal authorities introduced within the Emergencies Act to save lots of us all from annihilation by the hands of a canine’s breakfast of vaccine doubters, COVID deniers, Trudeau-haters and various hangers-on. The general public, uninterested in the entire shebang, welcomed a swift finish to the chaos.

Besides that the Canadian authorities can solely resort to this device if there’s a clear and current hazard to nationwide safety (Part 16 of the Act). That hazard occurs to coincide with the definition of a menace to nationwide safety as decided by CSIS, which, as already famous, mentioned there was none. So what offers?

Article content material

The Liberals now discover themselves in a multitude of their very own making. They instantly introduced their intention to attraction the Federal Court docket ruling and have additionally said beforehand that the Act is in want of revision. The underside line, nevertheless, is that the ruling says the federal government has trampled on Canadians’ rights to free speech below the Constitution. We’ve got a authorized resolution that the federal government broke the legislation.

Curiously, in his ruling Justice Richard Mosley didn’t disagree with the CSIS evaluation however added that the cupboard might have had different causes to invoke the Emergencies Act. What may these be? Intelligence from one other supply? (Um, that may be a CSIS matter, not a cupboard one; extra on that in a bit.) Political expediency?  Embarrassment? A need to finish what many Ottawans had grown uninterested in?

Extra importantly, the federal government has to make use of the legislation because it stands now, not because it needs it to be. We draft revisions to laws on a regular basis, however no authorities can determine to make use of these revisions earlier than the legislation is formally ratified.

The truth that CSIS took the bizarre step of going public with its view that the convoy posed no menace to public security is a vital level. My expertise at CSIS in counter-terrorism for 15 years tells me that the service would have completed its due diligence; investigated people it suspected may represent a menace to nationwide safety as outlined by part 2 of the CSIS Act; collected intelligence; corroborated it; assessed it; and concluded in the long run that there was no menace. Therefore no grounds to make use of the draconian Emergencies Act hammer. Can we not need CSIS to weigh in on threats slightly than unqualified politicians?

Article content material

Appeals apart, this ruling is vital. What paralyzed Ottawa within the first few months of 2022 might have been unwelcome and unpopular with its inhabitants, and the messages blasted advert nauseam incongruous and flat-out misinformation, however these selling them had a Constitution proper to take action. They need to solely have been forcibly stopped if a veritable menace to nationwide safety was looming: it was not, as CSIS helpfully advised the federal government. We aren’t speaking a few state of affairs analogous to the October Disaster of 1970, the final time the necessity to use extraordinary powers was evident.

The lesson in all this? Possibly it’s time for our leaders to brush up on their understanding of rights and democracy. And take heed to Voltaire.

Phil Gurski is President/CEO of Borealis Menace and Threat Consulting, and a former senior strategic analyst at CSIS. 

Article content material