THREAD: IMO this is the most jaw-dropping revelation to come out of #PEOC thus far. The PM's national security advisor took it upon herself to make up a new definition of 'security threat' because she didn't like the one that the law required. /1
https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/1593574893563453441
Thomas' argument is that the Emergencies Act was out of date. She's right: it was clearly drafted not only with the War Measures Act in mind, but with the possibility of violent secession of a province as the most likely unspoken threat. /2
Now, let's assume for a moment she's merely trying to be practical. The convoy represents a problem that needs to be solved. She looks to the law - the Emergencies Act - that she thinks is needed to solve it. She realizes she can't meet the test in law. So she gets creative. /3
But obviously, this would effectively change the law. That happens through Parliament, by passing new laws or regs. Even judges can (rightly) catch flak for being too expansive with redefining terms. Jody Thomas simply has no authority to do this on a whim /4
Furthermore, she's wrong in her assumption that the Act is the only way to solve the problem. How do we know this? Because we've already heard from Lucki and others who by Feb 14 had already formulated plans to clear the convoy without the Act. Thomas just didn't know! /5
At least now we can stop wondering how the government was ever going to prove it met the threshold contained in the Act. It isn't going to. It's going to claim it met a different threshold - one it made up as a substitute because it realized it couldn't meet the real one. /6
I have no doubt the usual apologists who care more about punishing the Bad People than legality will have some creative excuse about why this is all no big deal, but I hope most Canadians realize how outrageous this is. This is not a partisan issue. It's a RULE OF LAW issue. /7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
