Truthfully there is serious merit to the case, because the argument isn’t really about guns it’s about the governments ability to declare criminal law via OIC and the seizure of property.
Theoretically if the government wins, it sets a highly dangerous precedent in that any government, minority or majority can rule via OIC and criminalize and seize property. So in effect a government could say “your gas cars are now a threat to the environment, via oic they are banned and only 5% of you will get compensation”
They could OIC new speech laws and hate speech and then straight criminalize their opponents. So this isn’t a shoe in for the government.
On the flip side, the LPC might want to drop the battle, because the Supreme Court could neuter the power of OIC’s and I don’t think they want that either
Even if the government wins this case everything you described would and could be challenged again.
Your fear mongering into OIC being used to criminalized speech and political ideas/opponents.
These rights are protected under the charter and OIC does not have the authority to override those.
Provincial notwithstanding clauses can do much more harm to your rights and even then it can’t override democratic rights, mobility rights and language rights.
I have to disagree here, because that is precisely what the government used OIC’s for under the guise of public safety.
Small example, Trudeau banned plastic straws and bags via OIC citing toxins and public health concern, this was struck down by the Supreme Court as no evidence was provided it was a public health concern.
Remember when you state that we are protected by the charter, we’re only protected per se after the violation occurs. So the government in effect right now has demonstrated criminal law and property seizure via oic is allowed. As long as they can cite a public concern of safety, they justify it.
For example, we need your homes for the Alto Rail, linking our economy is of public concern due to trade threats from the US, therefore we don’t have to offer you fair compensation, via OIC it is a criminal offence to impede economic development and you must forfeit your home or face imprisonment.
Sounds outlandish right….but the government is literately doing that right now, with people’s guns in the literal hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Businesses lost millions and went bankrupt, all via OIC and threat of imprisonment. Don’t they wont get excited and use it for more when given the chance
Right. What you’re saying is that if they win it gives free access.
I’m saying it doesn’t.
Your reply demonstrates my point. Feds attempt to abuse, court shuts it down. Ie your straw example.
Problem solved, court working as intended.
So no, if they win this it doesn’t suddenly give the federal government a blank cheque to step on all of your freedoms. If they abuse OIC authority, courts will shut it down.
I agree it would be nice if the federal government didn’t make attempts like this… but that’s not what’s being discussed.
Also you’re moving goal posts a little. You said SPECIFICALLY using OIC to criminalize political opponents.
And given how OIC works thats not possible, which means you don’t understand how these things work or you made a bold faced lie intended to inflame readers.
The governor general is not legally able to sign anything that criminalizes political opponents.
328
u/rastamasta45 12d ago
Truthfully there is serious merit to the case, because the argument isn’t really about guns it’s about the governments ability to declare criminal law via OIC and the seizure of property.
Theoretically if the government wins, it sets a highly dangerous precedent in that any government, minority or majority can rule via OIC and criminalize and seize property. So in effect a government could say “your gas cars are now a threat to the environment, via oic they are banned and only 5% of you will get compensation”
They could OIC new speech laws and hate speech and then straight criminalize their opponents. So this isn’t a shoe in for the government.
On the flip side, the LPC might want to drop the battle, because the Supreme Court could neuter the power of OIC’s and I don’t think they want that either