Canada extends ban.....we need US options!

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I used to do press releases for a government agency and they were checked and double checked for accuracy before being sent out.

That must have been "in a time long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away".

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

How would an honest statement like "Cruise vessels are banned from stopping at any ports in Canada."  That would more succinct wouldn't it?  And if your interpretation is correct (which it sounds likely that it is...) Why would he permit his office to release contradictory information?  I used to do press releases for a government agency and they were checked and double checked for accuracy before being sent out.  The average person relies on the accuracy of press releases and doesn't read the text of international treaties.  As far as executive summaries go, if I wrote one which was contradicted by the facts of a document, I would have been picking lettuce for a living after that.  I'm not 'hung up' on this, I am only looking for the truth and who and what to believe.  It's a pretty poorly executed government initiative when a government agency needs to be corrected by an anonymous person on the internet.

 

I am only guessing here, but since you seem determined to hold on to a misapprehension I'll take a stab it it.

 

Your suggested wording is perhaps succinct but would likely make it more difficult to enforce the ban. As the order is worded any vessel that does not fall into one of the exclusions can be expelled from Canadian waters. With your wording that could not happen until the ship actually tied up in a port. Also, your wording would permit ships to send tenders full of people ashore so long as the ship was not in a port.

 

The press release is entirely accurate and conformant with the orders. Your interpretation is not.

 

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

How would an honest statement like "Cruise vessels are banned from stopping at any ports in Canada."  That would more succinct wouldn't it?  And if your interpretation is correct (which it sounds likely that it is...) Why would he permit his office to release contradictory information?  I used to do press releases for a government agency and they were checked and double checked for accuracy before being sent out.  The average person relies on the accuracy of press releases and doesn't read the text of international treaties.  As far as executive summaries go, if I wrote one which was contradicted by the facts of a document, I would have been picking lettuce for a living after that.  I'm not 'hung up' on this, I am only looking for the truth and who and what to believe.  It's a pretty poorly executed government initiative when a government agency needs to be corrected by an anonymous person on the internet.

 

I am only guessing here, but since you seem determined to hold on to a misapprehension I'll take a stab it it.

 

Your suggested wording is perhaps succinct but would likely make it more difficult to enforce the ban. As the order is worded any vessel that does not fall into one of the exclusions can be expelled from Canadian waters. With your wording that could not happen until the ship actually tied up in a port. Also, your wording would permit ships to send tenders full of people ashore so long as the ship was not in a port.

 

The press release is entirely accurate and conformant with the orders. Your interpretation is not.

 

[Hawaiidan]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

I am only guessing here, but since you seem determined to hold on to a misapprehension I'll take a stab it it.

 

Your suggested wording is perhaps succinct but would likely make it more difficult to enforce the ban. As the order is worded any vessel that does not fall into one of the exclusions can be expelled from Canadian waters. With your wording that could not happen until the ship actually tied up in a port. Also, your wording would permit ships to send tenders full of people ashore so long as the ship was not in a port.

 

The press release is entirely accurate and conformant with the orders. Your interpretation is not.

 

Read the thing  The ship  would not be in transit  it would be anchored or moored to launch tenders,.. and stationary  to do so

  So no to tenders from a ship like that.   Ships can MOVE through the waters as long as the do not stop.    Again no stopping       

Seem pretty clear to me..

[broberts]

1 hour ago, Hawaiidan said:

Read the thing  The ship  would not be in transit  it would be anchored or moored to launch tenders,.. and stationary  to do so

  So no to tenders from a ship like that.   Ships can MOVE through the waters as long as the do not stop.    Again no stopping       

Seem pretty clear to me..

 

You may want to reread the post I was quoting and the entirety of my post. If that doesn't clarify what I said read the entire chain of quoted. Posts.