Can you explain what these illegal orders were, within the purview of Sloly's role as police chief? Also, who is the second Ottawa police chief you're talking about? For that matter, who is the third one? Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform?
> Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform?
I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion about much of this, but at least on this one I don't think you need grounds to disbelieve stated reasons for resignation. I've personally witnessed many people resigning and giving reasons like "to focus on my family" or "to focus on my health" or something when in reality they were parachuting out before getting fired or were resigning for other reasons but didn't want to burn a bridge by telling the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if being untruthful (or only partially truthful) in resignations is more the norm than is being honest, and when talking about politics that probably goes up even more.
I stand corrected that it Sloly was the 2nd police chief during the protest, not sure how or when I warped that in my mind to thinking that he was the 2nd resignation.
My point still stands though and as you say: he was pressured to resign because he wouldn't do what the politicians were demanding of him - which is in line with your "failure to perform" claim.
The actions then done under the Emergencies Act to "clear" the Freedom Convoy from downtown were found to have been illegally invoked.
And you know crime in Ottawa went down during the Freedom Convoy too, right?
Have you put your shoes in the Freedom Convoy participants at all I wonder to balance your perspective? Do you care about the RCMP horses trampling and breaking bones of an elder disabled indigenous woman, who just moments before was basically preaching about love and peace?
I can find that video for you if you'd like, if you haven't seen it.
Otherwise it's not worth it to put anymore of my time to debate this one on one, when I'm responding to someone who tries to support their argument with "when most sources agree" without citing any sources, and where I can predict which sources you'll cite.
At some point they stopped being protestors and became occupiers. There is no Charter right to occupy—as the pro-Palestinian folks also learned [1] (which was simply re-iterating previous precedent, see perhaps [2]).
mlekoszek|1 year ago
freedomben|1 year ago
I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion about much of this, but at least on this one I don't think you need grounds to disbelieve stated reasons for resignation. I've personally witnessed many people resigning and giving reasons like "to focus on my family" or "to focus on my health" or something when in reality they were parachuting out before getting fired or were resigning for other reasons but didn't want to burn a bridge by telling the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if being untruthful (or only partially truthful) in resignations is more the norm than is being honest, and when talking about politics that probably goes up even more.
loceng|1 year ago
My point still stands though and as you say: he was pressured to resign because he wouldn't do what the politicians were demanding of him - which is in line with your "failure to perform" claim.
The actions then done under the Emergencies Act to "clear" the Freedom Convoy from downtown were found to have been illegally invoked.
And you know crime in Ottawa went down during the Freedom Convoy too, right?
Have you put your shoes in the Freedom Convoy participants at all I wonder to balance your perspective? Do you care about the RCMP horses trampling and breaking bones of an elder disabled indigenous woman, who just moments before was basically preaching about love and peace?
I can find that video for you if you'd like, if you haven't seen it.
Otherwise it's not worth it to put anymore of my time to debate this one on one, when I'm responding to someone who tries to support their argument with "when most sources agree" without citing any sources, and where I can predict which sources you'll cite.
loceng|1 year ago
[deleted]
throw0101d|1 year ago
At some point they stopped being protestors and became occupiers. There is no Charter right to occupy—as the pro-Palestinian folks also learned [1] (which was simply re-iterating previous precedent, see perhaps [2]).
[1] 2024 ONSC 3755
[2] 2011 ONSC 6862
stretchwithme|1 year ago
Did they attack anybody? Obstruct anyone's access to a building they had a right to access?
Or does someone just need to declare that someone is an occupier?
loceng|1 year ago
[deleted]