That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone proving Godwin's law.
Which is meaningless considering the chart allows for almost everything inside of it to be either suspended (as per section 1) or outright ignored even outside of an emergency (not-withstanding clause). So yes it's not reassuring for an emergency law to have to follow the charter that explicitly allows for almost anything in cases where it's needed (such as government declared emergencies...).
The joys of having a "living constitution" where nothing is really set in stone and almost every right in the charter of rights can be just essentially ignored because of the very first section of said charter.
Subjecting a targeted group to repeated fear and uncertainty through changing rules seems to be more of the plan than an absurdity. A rule like this establishes precedent, even.
You put up this headline without any of the other political context and I am right there with you. But there is no shortage of context.
There argument would be more convincing if they linked to the actual requirements and not paranoid fear mongering sound bites. I think they need to work though this first before they just ignore the law.
The authority cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The authority is for a specific emergency health purpose, therefore these (otherwise illegal) restrictions which are being imposed under that specific authority must be justified.
Yea great point. A lot of headlines are portraying this as a sudden new practice rather than an attempt to formalize the rules governing existing practices.
While I agree, I marked the emergency vehicles as being in violation of the rule. My interpretation being that such a rule would not be enforced even though it was technically violated.
reply