P
paradiseunderthesun
Guest
法院驳回禁制令的判决书中，虽然有很多对我们很不利的东西，看的我泄气，但有一条很振奋人心：
[9] Mr. Datta has failed to establish irreparable harm. His claim to harm rests on a supposition
that his file will not be processed because it may be legislatively abolished before it is considered on
its merits. According to Mr. Datta, this would render an order for mandamus pointless. This
argument similarly rests on speculation and speculation does not constitute irreparable harm: see
Canada (AG) v United States Steel Corp, 2010 FCA 200 at para 7, [2010] FCJ no 902 (QL) and
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants v Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 669 at para 28, 391 FTR
100. It is also not obvious that the Court would be powerless to do justice between the parties in the
face of some unlawful act or unconstitutional legislation.
法院认为要伸张正义，并不需要什么禁制令。在不合法的法令（C38）面前，法院仍有伸张正义的能力。
红色部分some unlawful act or unconstitutional legislation指的就是C38，这说明C38的合法性是很可疑的！
CIC最近明显很得意洋洋，在禁制令被驳回才48小时的时间里，康尼通过媒体老调重弹，强调C38经得起司法考验，不怕来告。
世界日报从4月20几号持续到现在，批评CIC最多，康尼反而在这个时机去给世界日报发奖，大有收买媒体之嫌。
禁制令的失败以及这次的官司完全与C38无关，因为C38还没有通过，我们的官司并不在C38的笼罩之下，康尼却把禁制令被驳回同C38无漏洞挂钩，这是明显的偷换概念。
康尼在世界日报露出了如释重负的笑容，说明CIC对我们的官司并没有掉以轻心，他们害怕失败，一个小小的胜利竟让他们如此喜于言表，忍不住狂喜。
C38中的87.4本身就是心虚的表现，保守党其实很害怕控诉违宪的官司挑战，这会让他们卷入旷日持久的国际官司的旋窝。只要大家不放弃，官司的声势越浩荡，保守党越失颜面，如果最后要靠“但书条款”来赢官司，加拿大的国际声誉将受到前所未有的严重影响。
[9] Mr. Datta has failed to establish irreparable harm. His claim to harm rests on a supposition
that his file will not be processed because it may be legislatively abolished before it is considered on
its merits. According to Mr. Datta, this would render an order for mandamus pointless. This
argument similarly rests on speculation and speculation does not constitute irreparable harm: see
Canada (AG) v United States Steel Corp, 2010 FCA 200 at para 7, [2010] FCJ no 902 (QL) and
Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants v Canada (MCI), 2011 FC 669 at para 28, 391 FTR
100. It is also not obvious that the Court would be powerless to do justice between the parties in the
face of some unlawful act or unconstitutional legislation.
法院认为要伸张正义，并不需要什么禁制令。在不合法的法令（C38）面前，法院仍有伸张正义的能力。
红色部分some unlawful act or unconstitutional legislation指的就是C38，这说明C38的合法性是很可疑的！
CIC最近明显很得意洋洋，在禁制令被驳回才48小时的时间里，康尼通过媒体老调重弹，强调C38经得起司法考验，不怕来告。
世界日报从4月20几号持续到现在，批评CIC最多，康尼反而在这个时机去给世界日报发奖，大有收买媒体之嫌。
禁制令的失败以及这次的官司完全与C38无关，因为C38还没有通过，我们的官司并不在C38的笼罩之下，康尼却把禁制令被驳回同C38无漏洞挂钩，这是明显的偷换概念。
康尼在世界日报露出了如释重负的笑容，说明CIC对我们的官司并没有掉以轻心，他们害怕失败，一个小小的胜利竟让他们如此喜于言表，忍不住狂喜。
C38中的87.4本身就是心虚的表现，保守党其实很害怕控诉违宪的官司挑战，这会让他们卷入旷日持久的国际官司的旋窝。只要大家不放弃，官司的声势越浩荡，保守党越失颜面，如果最后要靠“但书条款”来赢官司，加拿大的国际声誉将受到前所未有的严重影响。
那我可真要注意“舆论导向”了！
