"....as long as the actions are undertaken in good faith."
How would the law be able to define and interpret 'good faith'? Sounds like a long leash to give the state. And what can go wrong with giving the state a long leash? This notion should be stricken and abolished outright. No government should accord itself the right to 'good fatih'. Ironic given the secular nature of our society. Faith has little to do with it and as free citizens, we MUST challenge the state's authority.
It's odd to listen to lawyers defend losing rights or Charter protections under the guise of 'emergency'. '"We beat protestors in 'good faith' because we wanted to protect them from themselves and from spreading their germs - and hate - to others. We consider using mace as a weapon to have been appropriate in this context."
That being said, this was solid work and it's a shame the media didn't cover this.
"....as long as the actions are undertaken in good faith."
How would the law be able to define and interpret 'good faith'? Sounds like a long leash to give the state. And what can go wrong with giving the state a long leash? This notion should be stricken and abolished outright. No government should accord itself the right to 'good fatih'. Ironic given the secular nature of our society. Faith has little to do with it and as free citizens, we MUST challenge the state's authority.
It's odd to listen to lawyers defend losing rights or Charter protections under the guise of 'emergency'. '"We beat protestors in 'good faith' because we wanted to protect them from themselves and from spreading their germs - and hate - to others. We consider using mace as a weapon to have been appropriate in this context."
That being said, this was solid work and it's a shame the media didn't cover this.