Northern Light
Superstar
Rocco Galati who some of you may know as a Constitutional Lawyer and one who frequently likes to challenge mainstream or status quo assumptions............is at it again.
(he is best known for having overturned a Harper appointment to the Supreme Court, a first in this country)
He's suing the governments of Ontario and Canada and, interestingly, CBC, asking for injunctive relief from many of the current anti-Covid measures.
(the CBC argument is based on a being a public broadcaster and having a 'duty of care' to investigate claims/government etc.)
While my instinct is certainly not to support his stated goals overall..............(I support prudent public health measures).
The suit itself is interesting. He can be a bit of wing-nut, but he's a well informed wing-nut that demands others do their homework, and justify their choices. Something I can appreciate.
In particular, he's got 2 points that interest me. One is on a recent provincial bill, 195 which allows government to extend emergency measures by executive fiat, without legislative approval, for years to come.
He's not wrong to call that unprecedented, and in general, over-reach. I support the prudent measures, but agree that the bill goes too far in extending executive authority of an extreme type, indefinitely into the future.
He also raises the issue of the government declining to show what its scientific evidence is for certain choices. He specifically mentions masks, for which, I must say, I think there is good evidence.
But I agree the government itself has not presented conclusive studies on which it has drawn for its choices. Surely if the evidence is at it seems to be, there is no harm in releasing the same for public review; and not doing so can foster paranoia and backlash.
What's below shows a very conspiratorial worldview, to which I am loathe to give credence. However, if it demands government do a better job of justifying its actions, I can't be in complete opposition either.
(he is best known for having overturned a Harper appointment to the Supreme Court, a first in this country)
He's suing the governments of Ontario and Canada and, interestingly, CBC, asking for injunctive relief from many of the current anti-Covid measures.
(the CBC argument is based on a being a public broadcaster and having a 'duty of care' to investigate claims/government etc.)
While my instinct is certainly not to support his stated goals overall..............(I support prudent public health measures).
The suit itself is interesting. He can be a bit of wing-nut, but he's a well informed wing-nut that demands others do their homework, and justify their choices. Something I can appreciate.
In particular, he's got 2 points that interest me. One is on a recent provincial bill, 195 which allows government to extend emergency measures by executive fiat, without legislative approval, for years to come.
He's not wrong to call that unprecedented, and in general, over-reach. I support the prudent measures, but agree that the bill goes too far in extending executive authority of an extreme type, indefinitely into the future.
He also raises the issue of the government declining to show what its scientific evidence is for certain choices. He specifically mentions masks, for which, I must say, I think there is good evidence.
But I agree the government itself has not presented conclusive studies on which it has drawn for its choices. Surely if the evidence is at it seems to be, there is no harm in releasing the same for public review; and not doing so can foster paranoia and backlash.
What's below shows a very conspiratorial worldview, to which I am loathe to give credence. However, if it demands government do a better job of justifying its actions, I can't be in complete opposition either.
