Connect with us

World News

Canadian Dispatch: ‘The departure of the Freedom Convoy is good news’ – JURIST

Published

on

Law students from the University of Ottawa are submitting dispatches for JURIST on the “Freedom Convoy” protest in Canada’s capital that brought the city to a standstill for about three weeks. Here, reports 1L Mélanie Cantin. For residents and frequenters of downtown Ottawa, the departure of the Freedom Convoy is welcome news after a fourth consecutive weekend of protests. The incessant noise (even post court order), the harassment of healthcare workers, and the severe economic impacts the Convoy has had on the city and private businesses are finally coming to an end. During a press conference Saturday afternoon at Ottawa’s Lord Elgin Hotel, convoy spokesman Tom Marazzo confirmed that the truckers were going to “peacefully withdraw from the streets of Ottawa.” While this does not necessarily mean that all protesters will leave Ottawa immediately, the imminent departure of those officially affiliated with the Freedom Convoy will likely cause the movement’s presence in the nation’s capital to steadily decline. So far, things are developing as Marazzo said. Wellington Street (opposite Parliament) appears to have been cleared by the police, as have Queen, Bay, Lyon, Metcalfe and Kent. Kent is being cleaned up due to rubbish left at a now torn down protester camp. “Today, 24 days after this ordeal began, is the first day I have felt anything resembling peace since the Convoy changed my life,” he first said. University of Ottawa law student Elaine Tam speaking with JURIST. “I just saw the last truck being towed out of my line of sight from my window around 3:30 pm, and I cannot describe the relief that washed over me. […] I am left feeling completely drained and exhausted. […] My faith in our political institutions, as well as my trust in our law enforcement mechanisms, is now damaged beyond repair.” Tam lives a few blocks from Parliament and is a member of the proposed class action lawsuit brought by public servant and downtown resident Zexi Li and her attorney Paul Champ. The private nuisance lawsuit seeks damages from Convoy organizers and unnamed truckers in connection with excessive honking during the Ottawa occupation. Despite the apparent positive developments, yesterday Marazzo seemed confident in the Convoy’s “grassroots” power and its ability to reorganize. “This is one battle in a larger war for our freedoms,” he said. “This is not a white flag of surrender in any way. […] It’s time to regroup and reevaluate what the next step is for us.” I heard the same sentiment on Saturday afternoon when I interviewed Convoy media representative Dagny Pawlak for JURIST. “I would like to assure people that the movement is not over,” she said. “It is not a way or a way to die. […] We are definitely not close to achieving our goals and we will continue until those goals have been achieved.” When pressed for more details on what the next steps might be for the movement, Pawlak said many truckers were retreating “out and out of Ottawa” to reassess their strategies and be in a place “where they are not can find.” police brutality.” He declined to give details on the whereabouts of these gatherings, but large groups of trucks with Canadian flags and various signs were seen yesterday and today on Vankleek Hill and Arnprior. Rumors that the protesters were headed for a known ” base camp” of the Convoy in Embrun were also floating around on social media on Sunday afternoon. Pawlak confirmed that the Convoy was also waiting to hear more about the bail conditions of its organizers, who were arrested by police in the last few days. Key organizers Chris Barber and Tamara Lich were arrested on February 17, while organizer BJ Dichter reportedly left town that same day Barber was granted bail the next day, February 18. Lich had a bond hearing on Saturday and Judge Julie Bourgeois is expected to make a decision on his bail this Tuesday, which means that Lich is currently remains in custody. bail. Her hearing has been set for Tuesday. King was a key player in the United We Roll convoy and made headlines in December 2021 when he stated in a discussion of COVID-19 restrictions that “the only way this is going to be solved is with bullets.” Since then, he has been linked by various media outlets to the Convoy movement and is named as one of its organizers in the Li class action lawsuit. When I mentioned King in my interview with Pawlak, she categorically denied that Freedom Convoy had anything to do with him. “Pat King is a completely separate entity unto himself,” she stated. “He is not part of the organizers. He is not represented by our legal counsel. Pat King speaks for himself, not Freedom Convoy. […] I can assure you that Pat King is not affiliated with the overall message of the Freedom Convoy.” At this moment, some protesters remain in the center, but the police seem to have removed the last vehicles blocking the main streets of the center. 191 arrests have been made. Police also gave protesters a notice with a 4:30pm deadline today to vacate the Coventry Road protesters’ camp, stating at 4:55pm that an operation is underway “to ensure that the area is unoccupied. Interview with Convoy Media Spokesperson Dagny Pawlak:

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

Uzbekistan: Protests in autonomous republic over proposed constitutional reform – JURIST

Published

on

Protests erupted in Nukus, the capital of Uzbekistan’s autonomous republic of Karakalpakstan, on Friday over a proposed constitutional reform. According to a statement from the government of the region: Despite the policy of openness and free expression of will followed by the Republic of Uzbekistan, on July 1, 2022 in Nukus, a criminal group of people organized illegal actions expressed in an attempt to take over the state. administrative bodies of the Republic of Karakalpakstan. The demonstrators were protesting the planned removal of the section of the current constitution that allows Karakalpakstan the right to secede from Uzbekistan by referendum. This has caused outrage among the ethnic Karakalpak, who make up the majority of the population of Karakalpakstan. Karakalpaks from neighboring Kazakhstan held a round table discussion on the proposed change. One speaker, Rustem Matekov, stated that the day of the referendum on the new version of the constitution will be “the day of the funeral of the people of the Republic of Karakalpakstan”. However, the president of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, has challenged this view, saying: We, two peoples, have become one, we are blood relatives. Previously, the regions did not know the streets of Karakalpakstan or Nukus, but now we work as one people, the youth of Karakalpakstan achieve great results. […] I respect the Karakalpak people with all my heart and I can proudly say that I am a son not only of the Uzbeks, but also of the Karakalpak people. Removal is not the only proposal on the table. Other proposals include strengthening civil rights and extending the presidential term from five to seven years, which would allow Mirziyoyev to run again despite having served two consecutive terms.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court overturns lower court injunctions on state abortion laws – JURIST

Published

on

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court struck down three orders issued by lower courts in Arizona, Indiana and Arkansas that had invalidated abortion at the state level based on Roe v. Wade. This follows the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe last Friday. The now-overturned Arizona ruling had stopped a state law criminalizing abortions performed on fetuses with non-lethal genetic abnormalities, of which Down syndrome is one. The injunction targeted relevant portions of four clauses of Senate Bill 1457, which makes it a felony for a physician to perform an abortion “knowing that the abortion is sought solely because of a genetic abnormality of the child.” The law also requires the doctor to sign an affidavit stating that the abortion is not performed for this reason and to inform the patient of the illegality of abortions due to genetic abnormalities. Finally, it requires doctors to inform the State when a genetic abnormality has been detected. This law was challenged in Brnovich v. Isaacson in 2021, and the injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Arkansas’s 2019 ruling in Little Rock Planning Services v. Rutledge passed three laws that prohibited abortion in various circumstances. Arkansas Code, Title 20, Chapter 26, Law 493 prohibits abortions after 18 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for medical emergencies and pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Law 619 prohibits all abortions solely on the basis of having a reason to believe that the fetus has Down syndrome, with the same exceptions. Law 700 requires that the person performing an abortion be a doctor licensed in obstetrics and gynecology. The federal court order of these laws was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Indiana, a 2017 ruling in the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky had mandated a law that prohibited abortions before 20 weeks in several cases. . The law, Indiana Code Chapter 16-34-4, prohibits abortions before 20 weeks if the abortion was for demographic, sexual, or fetal disability reasons. Specifically, abortion is prohibited if sought because of the possibility of a genetically inherited disease, defect, or disorder, whether or not it has been screened for or any risk is present. This includes, but is not limited to, Down syndrome and any mental, physical and intellectual disabilities. Abortions related to the sex of the fetus, or its race, color, national origin, or ancestry, are also prohibited. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the injunction. The three laws imposed by the precautionary measures will take effect immediately. These cases will be sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Continue Reading

World News

US Supreme Court denies Alaska Airlines request for exemption from state labor laws – JURIST

Published

on

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge from Alaska Airlines Inc. seeking a waiver of a California law requiring in-flight meals and rest, upending an earlier decision that sided with the United States. flight attendants in a battle for federal and state jobs. laws. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its July 2021 decision Virgin America, Inc. v. Julia Bernstein, that the airline, which later merged with Alaska Airlines, had to comply with California state law in addition to federal regulations for flights within the state. Bernstein, a flight attendant, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of California workers, alleging violations of state labor laws. This included a law requiring workers to have a 30-minute off-duty meal and a break after working five hours. The federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 did not preempt state law requiring rest and meal breaks. The airline group argued that the state law had a “significant impact on airline prices, routes and services” as more attendants and staff would have to be hired to meet the state’s rest requirements. The rejection of the request of the airlines can have lasting consequences. for the aviation industry, as well as state and federal labor regulations. The court’s decision also follows the guidance of the Biden Administration, as the Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the flight attendants and instructed the court not to review the case or send it back to the appeals court.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022