[noetic_techy]

Exactly correct.

Anyone who is applauding this, just imagine the opposite political party in power using this against you or organizations you support. This is why no one should have been happy when executive orders became the norm in the US and congress did nothing. This is how you lose a senate and gain a Caesar, and look what happen to Rome eventually…

Debanking someone who can now no longer pay for thier own defense is crazy overreach. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[chmod600]

"imagine the opposite political party in power using this against you"

But that's just it, isn't it? We've stopped caring about improving the fairness and consistency of the process. We only care about the outcome of the most immediate issue today.

It's a lot easier to get people to agree on a fair process for choosing an outcome than to agree on a fair outcome. If you agree to a fair process and it results in an outcome you don't like, well, that's how it goes sometimes and maybe the next time it goes in your favor.

But people are too wound up and partisan right now. Even acknowledging that an unfavorable outcome was generated by correctly applying a process is enough to get you expelled from your tribe.

[Aurelius3]

>This is how you lose a senate and gain a Caesar, and look what happen to Rome eventually…

Canada will become the largest, longest lived empire of all time, spanning the entire Mediterranean world? That does sound like a dystopia.

[throw0101a]

> Anyone who is applauding this, just imagine the opposite political party in power using this against you or organizations you support.

It was the opposite political party, the Conservative under PM Brian Mulroney, who wrote the Emergencies Act in the first place.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act#Legislative_hi...

[mardifoufs]

That's a bit misleading, considering it was replacing the War measures act that was even worse. Mulroney's government didn't "create" the law, they just toned down the original (which is also why we don't call it "martial law" anymore but it's in the same vein). And IIRC, the only two PMs in Canada's history that actually enacted the war/emergency measures act outside of an actual war are... the two Trudeaus.

Actually it's funny since Mulroney never used it either even when it could have been justified. He was the PM during the Oka crisis [0], which was a full on armed conflict between the army and first nations nations that also lead to closed bridges & deaths. I can't imagine what we would call that nowadays if we call the truckers insurrectionists, terrorists, etc. I guess they understood the monumental consequences of enacting federal emergency measures liberally back then

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

(It lasted 77 days, involved at least fully 100 armed militants, blocked 3-4 bridges around montreal for sometimes weeks, killed police officers, involved a literal 5km frontline between the 2 sides and yet Mulroney was very worried about involving the federal government and even more so playing with emergency measures. Even better: the government actually talked with the protestors and didn't treat them like untouchable non-citizen foreign agents. The crisis was solved with negotiations)

[Nathanael_M]

While this is technically true, it leaves out important contextual information and could lead people to get a very wrong picture of the situation. It almost feels like an attempted "gotcha".

It was legislated by the Conservative party to replace the War Measures Act (created in 1914 in response to WW1), which was deemed too easy to abuse if someone wished to suppress civil liberties.

Before the Emergencies Act, there was a broader Act. It was replaced with a stricter Act. It was not used by those replacing it. In combination, these two acts have now been used four times: - WW1 - WW2 - The October Crisis (also known as the FLQ Crisis) - The current convoy protest

Its use was also considered during the early stages of COVID-19, but was unanimously opposed.

[nathanaldensr]

I think this proves GP's point. Some people are finally starting to reject the "red vs. blue" false dichotomy.

[YZF]

I'd have no problem with the opposite political party using the same powers under similar circumstances.

Fair enough?

[atom058]

Define 'similar'. It will be whatever is politically convenient.

What first will be an exception will soon become a rule.