Brickbat: Out of the Woods (or Else)

Authorities in Nova Scotia fined Jeff Evely fined $28,872.50 ($20,826.27 U.S.) for violating a province-wide ban on entering the woods. Evely, a retired veteran, deliberately broke the rule to challenge the ban in court, arguing that the government was overstepping its authority and that the ban was unnecessary. This is not the first time Evely has tried to challenge such a ban: Courts dismissed a previous attempt because he had not been charged. His legal team believes that since he was fined, he now has the standing to legally challenge the ban. The Nova Scotia government enacted the ban to help prevent wildfires, and officials say it was recommended by experts.

Comments

[AT]

"I want to challenge this order in court, and the only way for me to do that is to get the fine. I'm not trying to make trouble for your guys," he told the official.

Which, of course, was a lie.

Such a back asswards way of doing things. Americans do the same thing. It's stupid, costly, has little chance of success, and is not the way to address policy issues.

This isn't a rights issue. It's a policy issue.

And the Courts don't exist to debate policy. Period. Not in America, and not in Canada either. And it's ludicrous how many people (usually on the left, but now the maga right is playing the same game) who vociferously scream about "Democracy!" seem to want to go that very undemocratic path.

They're the real fascists.

"It goes too far."

It probably does! Take it up with whatever your backwards maple-sucking moose-loving version of a congressman is. Provincial Assemblyman? I don't know what they're called.

arguing his rights were infringed

Curious to know what "right" he thought was infringed under whatever the Canadian version of the Bill of Rights is.

Again, this is why this kind of thing has little chance of success. By American standards, you can't point to an infringement. And even if you can - it's not a right that's so fundamental that the government needs to prove anything beyond a legitimate State interest. In this case, something about forest fires*.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston has said the ban was put in place following recommendations from experts.

Which means every single Leftist in western society should be 100% in support of it, and calling this Evely guy a nazi.

I didn't make the rules.

* Scott Tingley, manager of forest protection with Nova Scotia's Department of Natural Resources, has repeatedly noted that the vast majority of the province's forest fires — 97 per cent — are caused by humans.

Yikes. Yea, good luck on the judicial review.

[SQRLSY]

Hey AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian, that is a WAAAAAY long-winded bunch of babbling in order to say a MUCH shorter version of AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian: "I have NEVER met a case in which I disagree with SEVERELY PUNISHING those who break the Sacred Rules, and so, OF COURSE this 'Evely' guy (HE'S SNOT a Trump supporter, shit seems!) should be PUNISHED... For breaking the rules! I LOVE PUNISHMENT, WHICH FIXES ALL THINGS!"

[AT]

So you didn't read it.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance. Par for the course.

[SQRLSY]

I read every single power-tripping punishment-loving word-turd of shit, and snot ONCE did I read that Evely shouldn't be punished, or that sensible people should sympathize with him, and perhaps even admire him a bit, for standing up to power pigs and trying to protect the rest of us... From power-tripping, punishment-loving AuthorShitarians and TotalShitarians! After all, Evely KNEW twat the RULES were!

[AT]

So you didn't read it.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance. Par for the course.

[Chumby]

Ask the grey box about Stormy Daniels.

[SQRLSY]

Snot ONCE did I read that Evely shouldn't be punished, and YOU are SUCH a PervFected and Mind-Infected Punishment-Lover, that YOU cun't find that shit in Your PervFected shit, either! 'Cause shit ain't there... AND YOU LOVE PUNISHMENT!!!

[AT]

So you didn't read it.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance. Par for the course.

[SQRLSY]

AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian, You PervFectly Perverted PUNISHMENT Lover, I sure as shit hope You NEVER try to PervFectly raise any children, 'cause You would make a PervFected HELL out of their existence! Unless You change Your PervFected Ways... Which I doubt that You can do, because You have ZERO humility!

Ass Ye are PervFected (and Mind-Infected by PervFected, unjustified Pride), THIS here below applies to YOU!!! In spades!!!

Luke 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

[AT]

So you still didn't read it.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance. Par for the course.

[SQRLSY]

You could be PervFectly Replaced by a broken record player!

[AT]

Said the pot to the kettle.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

What a dumb unhinged rant.

The way to counter and get immediate injunctive relief from bureaucratic overreach is thru the courts. This was not a democratically enacted policy you dolt, his MP can't help, at least not anytime soon

[mad.casual]

And in the situation where the activist is attacking or endangering someone, destroying property, or disrupting the peace or a working system, there's a case to be had for the "Try an approach that doesn't break things or hurt people." but in this case it's the opposite.

AT is taking Fauci and The Science's side on these lockdowns. Even if the fires are largely caused by humans, forests don't just suddenly burst into flames because people walk through them. AT and the Canadian Government is infringing on the rights of normal, responsible, innocent people because it can't be bothered to control its forests and/or apprehend and charge arsonists.

[AT]

I actually didn't take a side. My point was that the Court isn't where you go to whine about inoffensive (meaning, not infringing your rights) policies you don't like.

[mad.casual]

I actually didn't take a side.

Next you're gonna tell me you didn't take a side reluctantly and strategically.

My point was that the Court isn't where you go to whine about inoffensive (meaning, not infringing your rights) policies you don't like.

Literally the opposite of what The Charter of The Forest and The Magna Carta as unified in The Confirmation of Charters says.

You may think or be stating... de rigueur... that the court won't fix policy but then... de rigueur... you aren't not picking a side.

[AT]

Next you're gonna tell me you didn't take a side reluctantly and strategically.

If anything, I sided against the State. I flat out said that the forest ban probably goes beyond its authority. But again, followed that up with, "Take it up with the legislature."

His gripe is that it's a bad law. Not that it's an unjust one.

Literally the opposite of what The Charter of The Forest and The Magna Carta as unified in The Confirmation of Charters says.

None of which apply.

[Medulla Oblongata]

The policy I read said that a person could enter any woods on his own private property but could not allow a guest to enter the woods with him. Seems arbitrary and capricious and infringes on the private property rights. Like so many of the COVID rules (like when you could go to home depot to buy a light bulb, but not be allowed to purchase seeds for a garden).

[AT]

Care to share a link to said policy?

[Medulla Oblongata]

https://theccf.ca/nova-scotias-travel-ban-under-fire-as-ccf-seeks-judicial-review/

HALIFAX — The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is urgently seeking a judicial review challenging Nova Scotia’s provincewide travel ban on entering the woods. The government’s August 5 proclamation makes it illegal to walk, hike, camp, fish, or even picnic in any wooded area of the province without a permit, including both Crown land and for guests on private property. Fines are $25,000 (plus HST).

https://nowtoronto.com/news/nova-scotia-just-banned-hiking-camping-to-crackdown-on-wildfires-but-some-people-think-its-overkill/

While private landowners are permitted to use their wooded areas, they aren’t allowed to invite guests into these areas.

[AT]

Interesting. I wonder what constitutes a "guest" under it.

Giving it the benefit of the doubt, it seems like it's geared towards keeping people not actively supervised by the property owner out of the forest.

I'm thinking about a stretch of land my buddy owns that he lets people go paintballing on. It's not a business or anything, and you don't need to go knock on his door when you want to go out there - just grab your gear and go have fun. He's cool with it. It's kind of a IYKYK type deal.

It sounds like it'd putting the kibosh on that for the immediate future. But if he like, invited over a bunch of friends to go with him when he uses his own land, I can't see that being an issue. Because at least then, he's there safeguarding his own personal interest in not seeing his property burned down.

It's vague and open to interpretation, to say the least. Which, of course, makes for poor policy.

[Fist of Etiquette]

The true north, strong and free.

[Chumby]

Deport all non-first people out of Canadia.

[SQRLSY]

Deport all invasive-species-humans from the entire New World! Starting with YOU, Chumpy-Humpy-Dumpy Simp-Chimp-Chump; DR... DeRanged... Stranger Danger!!! THE Moist DeRanged Stranger of ALL!!!

[SQRLSY]

ALL invasive humans in the entire New World are hatred-deserving, low-life scum and "rapefugees", after all!!!

[Medulla Oblongata]

Deport the Angles and Saxons from Britania!

[Stupid Government Tricks]

At least the Romans had the decency to self-deport, even if it did take them 400+ years.

[Chumby]

The bell beaker culture people want their land back.

[mad.casual]

officials say it was recommended by experts

Name them.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

The claim came from unnamed sources.

[Chumby]

Sources say that studies show.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

People familiar with the situation.