The better part of two years after it was used to end the COVID-related convoy protest, or occupation, in Ottawa, the Emergencies Act is still very divisive.
Was the protest/occupation a blow struck for freedom by outraged citizens who had had enough? Or was it an exercise in tormenting Ottawa residents with, among other things, locomotive horns, that was indulged by police far longer than it should have been?
The smouldering debate was blown into flame again last week by a judge who ruled that the federal decision to use the act didn't meet the necessary legal criteria. Both sides saw the decision as vindicating their priors: the Toronto Sun trumpeted that JUDGE RULING MAY HAVE SAVED CANADA, while in the Globe Andrew Coyne argued that "It is in fact a cautious and deferential ruling, reached with great reluctance, on narrow, technical and, in places, curiously reasoned grounds."
In an online poll this week, most of you said that the use of the Emergencies Act had been justified, but a close look at the data shows some very sharp and revealing divisions on the issue.
Women were much more likely to say it was justified:
There is a sharp division by age:
And education:
If we're willing to overlook North Bay, there does seem to be a north-south divide on the issue. (The sample size for any given community isn't high, and our cutoff is 40.)
Party or ideological affiliation plays a major role:
There is also a connection to financial security or insecurity:
Several cross-referenced questions seem to indicate that opponents of the Act's use tend more toward the libertarian right than the traditionalist right:
Supporters of the Act's use were more likely to also support the full liberation of Ukraine:
And want to move on from conventionally fuelled cars:
