Peter Sankoff Profile picture
Feb 14 19 tweets 3 min read
1/ I'm reading this from the Globe and Mail, and I want to yell "fake news". Let's dissect. theglobeandmail.com/canada/article…
2/ "The Ambassador Bridge shutdown highlighted the impact that only a few determined protesters could have on a crossing that carries hundreds of millions of dollars in goods a day." I think it shows the impact of government/police refusing to take action.
3/ The "few determined protesters" were cleared out by a large police presence (probably 3x what was needed). Despite all the public defiance, there was no violent resistance. Big surprise. Try not giving in to their every whim next time.
4/ Do none of our leaders have kids? This was like a big public tantrum - and they decided to give in, over and over again. Finally a bit of discipline was imposed, and the whole thing ended.
5/ “You had a situation where you had about 200 people holding up the livelihoods and impacting the lives of several hundred thousand people on either side of the border,” the mayor of Windsor said. “The lawlessness had to end.”
6/ That was true days ago. 200 people. FFS. I've seen larger and more aggressive protests by students over closing their resident cafe. You can't paint this as anything more than a complete lack of will, combined with sympathy for the white protesters.
7/ "The mayor said it was time to think about how to prevent subsequent blockades, citing an increased police presence, tougher laws and gates that could be closed to restrict protesters congregating in certain areas as possible solutions."
8/ Now this is just pure stupidity. Increased police presence? For what??? Tougher laws? You didn't use the fucking laws you had! Why should we give you more!! Gates??? No way am I giving you more power to restrict legitimate people from doing legitimate thing.
9/ All this nonsense is turning me into an anti-government sympathizer. Listen. You don't get to completely fuck this up and then say you need more police and more power. Try using the powers you have first. FFS.
10/ "In a statement Sunday afternoon, Mr. Ford called anew on protesters in Ottawa to leave, while praising the Windsor police, Ontario Provincial Police and RCMP officers who worked to clear the Ambassador Bridge."
11/ I can only say this so many times. If you want to know why this went on this long, the answer is IN THE PREMIER'S OFFICE. Praise the police. Sure 200 of them took down 30-40 remaining protestors. And harassed journalists trying to document it. Hooray.
12/ "Elsewhere in the country, blockades continued at border crossings in Coutts, Alta., and Emerson, Man." More kowtowing, political decision making, waste of police resources, white privilege and paralysis caused by government inaction. It's maddening.
13/ "The local police have been criticized for failing to intervene appropriately, including this weekend, by Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair. However, Mr. Watson defended Ottawa police, saying the issue has been “a question of resources.”
14/ In Ottawa - as opposed to Windsor - I do think resources has been an issue AT TIMES (usually on weekends). But this is stupid. Again, an infusion of OPP and some actual will could have started a shutdown here too.
15/ "On Sunday, residents took matters into their own hands, standing in a major street to stop a convoy of trucks from entering Ottawa’s downtown, one of several counterprotests that had been organized in the city in recent days."
16/ Good for them. The irony of this is that the whole stupid convoy started because "protestors" believe they have to take back their country from a bunch of thugs ruining their lives. It's going to end largely because Ottawa residents are starting to do the same.
17/ And ironically again, the convoy has been a huge success. They set out, in part, to convince Canadians that governments did not have society's interests at heart. And that its laws and police forces were causing dissension. They succeeded.
18/ I'll bet that more Canadians have lost faith in government in the past few weeks than at just about any time in our history. A colossal shitshow with very few shining stars. And we're not done yet.
19/ My "fake news" claim was not so much about what was reported, but more about how all of it was portrayed. Government simply cannot be applauded here.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Peter Sankoff

Peter Sankoff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @petersankoff

Feb 14
1/ More on Windsor: CJ Morawetz is expected to publish the reasons for his decision to grant the injunction this week, but during the hearing Friday, he said the protesters’ right to freedom of expression had to be balanced against everybody else’s right to use the bridge.
2/ I don't want to say too much, because the reasons have not been published. But I don't really understand this either. Let's talk about freedom of expression for a moment.
3/ Protests? Super important. I support them. We need to have a way to voice our dislike of things. It's part of our democratic process. I support giving protesters a lot of room to say what they want. Absolutely.
Read 10 tweets
Feb 13
1/ Fictional thread: “Mr. Sankoff, you’ve just been appointed AG Ontario. What’s your first order of business?” “Well, I will stop 720 Bay from taking such crazy positions that the SCC stomps all over them!” [Cue laugh track].
2/ “what about charges for Randy Hillier?” Well, I think they are necessary. He’s made himself the leader of an illegal “protest” that has caused real harm, ignored legal limits and shown contempt for judges and the public alike. He should face the consequences.
3/ “But he’s a member of Provincial Parliament! You can’t do that!” A: Why? He is subject to the law just like anyone else.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 13
1/ So all of this falls on the executive. (Don’t @ me @GarethMorley3). What the hell is going on? Well, there would seem to be a few options. None of them good. Let’s figure it out.
2/ Option A. We don’t have the operational capacity to deal with any of this. To me, that’s scary. If we can’t deal with this, how can we deal with a bona fire crisis???
3/ To be clear there would seem to be an operational capacity issue at play here and a fair bit of incompetence especially in Ottawa.
Read 17 tweets
Feb 10
1/ I have a few thoughts about this dispatch as well. First, Matt has been a great source for information. Dispassionate and reasonable. He has pointed out things he’s seen whether they match narrative or not.
2/ So I have a few thoughts about his overall thesis: that police are not intervening because of fear of mass chaos event at Coventry. This fear seems reasonable (though not inevitable) given his reporting.
3/ My usual caveat applies: I am a law professor. I have absolutely no expertise in police operations whatsoever. I will assume Matt is correct and that this is a real threat.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 9
1/ Court of Queens Bench, Friday. Sankoff J. presiding (fictional obviously - no one is insane enough to appoint me to the bench). "Call the first case!" Clerk: "It's the AG Alberta v "Freedom Convoy"" Sankoff J: "Great, another family law case." [Cue laugh track].
2/ AG Alberta: "Your Honour (I love the sound of that), we're here asking for an injunction that will forbid the freedom convoy from operating near the border and blocking all our commerce." Freedom Convoy: "We oppose!"
3/ Sankoff J: "I'm confused. AG Alberta, what are you asking for exactly? Why do you need authority? You can enforce any time." AG Alberta: "Well, we believe that the police are independent, and we need judicial directions to ensure they act properly."
Read 7 tweets
Feb 9
The first rule of injunctions is that... you do not talk about injunctions. (Sorry. I couldn't resist. Tough day...).
No, the first rule of injunctions is that "the court will generally not grant an injunction for the purpose of enforcing moral obligations or as substitute for the criminal law or quasi-criminal law. There usually must be some property right or some other right infringed."
"When a statute provides a penalty for its breach but is silent as to whether a court may grant an injunction to restrain its contravention, a court must consider the statute as a whole, including its objects, to determine whether the court has such jurisdiction."
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(