I’m not a lawyer …

… which is the same excuse that Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick used to excuse themselves for improperly applying political pressure on former Attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould in an effort to get her to bend the rules to help Prime Ministre Trudeau help SNC-Lavalin to avoid prosecution for criminal activities … I think that’s called obstruction of justice, but I’m not a lawyer,

Anyway, a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an injunction which, according to CBC News, “forbids any continued interference with the rail line under the threat of arrest, and [it] was served to demonstrators by CN police.”

OK, problem solved, right?

Well, maybe not, because today we learn, from the Wall Street Journal, that “Canadian National Railway Co. said [today] it would shut down large parts of its network unless anti-pipeline protesters thwarting rail traffic along two key corridors were removed.

Now, the CBC report said, on Saturday, that “RCMP tactical units are currently in the third day of an operation against three camps built [near Belleville, ON] … in support of the Wet’suwet’en Nation in British Columbia.

I guess the RCMP are involved because railways are a federal responsibility or because the blocked railway drossing is on a First Nation … is that right?

But, judges are judges, right? And police are police, right? And when a judge enjoins someone from doing something, as the judge in Toronto did to the Tyendinaga Mohawk members who were who still are blocking the railway then the police are required, by law, to enforce a judicial order, aren’t they? I’m not a lawyer, but that seems self evidently true on the face of it. But the court issued its injunction days ago and the lines are still blocked. What’s going on?

Now, dear readers, I’m actually confused here … I’m looking for your help.

Protesters bock a rail line. Trains are cancelled. The railway goes to court; the court agrees that blocking the rail traffic is an inappropriate action and issues and injunction saying something like ‘cease blocking the line or you’ll be hauled off to jail.’ The injunction is actually served by the railway police, a bona fide police service, but, evidently, the protesters decide to ignore it.

The police are still on-site, and, it seems, that a few arrests may have been made, but the blockade remains in place:

My question is: Why?

Why, after several days have the police not used heavy equipment to haul away the vehicles and destroy the blockade structures as the court said should happen? Don’t our courts and our Constitution mean anything?

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that we need a little bit of law and order out there.

Published by Ted Campbell

Old, retired Canadian soldier, Conservative ~ socially moderate, but a fiscal hawk. A husband, father and grandfather. Published material is posted under the "Fair Dealing" provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act for the purposes of research, private study and education.

3 thoughts on “I’m not a lawyer …

  1. Mohawks and Liberals are not too different in their links to the Quebec organized crime scene.

  2. The police are being rational and demonstrating that they’ve learned from previous experiences with First Nations protests. They _know_ that the government will not back them up if the situation does not go peacefully, and individual police officers will be “hung out to dry” as a result. Therefore, sensible police leaders are not willing to order their officers to take risks that once upon a time would have been “just part of the job”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: