291–300 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, what about our Charter rights to fund terrorists? Seriously, there is a line between civil disobedience and uncivil disobedience, and they crossed it.
> terrorists Right, honking horns and blocking roads is pretty much the same as setting off bombs and murdering people for political ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Montreal police are some of the worst police in Canada and the Montreal prosecutors always take any arrests by police before a Judge even if there are glaring mistakes at play. I know of a cancer patient that wanted medical assistance in dying. The hospital didn't want to provide it to her and lied to the police about her threatening to take a life of a doctor. She in fact was explaining to the doctor she would be ab…
In this case, they apparently ignored several prior complaints until the guy videotaped this guy giving the man (who tried to run over his kids on several occasions) the finger and making a gesture (wrongly) described as "throat slashing." Of course, this nutjob is absolutely paranoid and was constantly driving in a reckless manner around small children who wanted to play in their neighborhood, some of whom he videot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume nothing of the sort. Their profile identifies them as a resident of the US, so I called 'em a Yankee. That they're spreading Republican FUD doesn't make them Republican. Anybody can repeat Fox "News" talking points. Hell, I'm sure I have at some time or another. Doesn't mean they necessarily agree with every single thing that comes out of Fibbin' Tucker's lying mouth.
Why do you assume they were influenced by Republican FUD for warning about the dangers of Incrementalism? I have heard many such “slippery-slope” arguments from people of all political persuasions (even though it is considered a logical fallacy). Saying they are “repeating talking points” also implies they have not thought deeply on the issue and considered multiple points of view before arriving at this conclusion -…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was adopted without quebec, but its not like it was done in secret. Quebec was present for the negotiations.
In secret, during the night, when the Quebec representatives were sleeping. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuit_des_Longs_Couteaux_(Qu%...
However, fair is fair - that was more secretive than i was aware, although i would still say that quebec was actively participating in the negotiations up to that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read the ruling. If anyone deserves the finger it would be this dude and his family. After one of them assaulted the victim, multiple threatened to hit their kids, they accusing his flipping the bird at them as being a death threat with a "throat slitting" gesture.
He first gave the finger, then I'm guessing gave him a two fingered chin flick. At least when they had the jack hammer confrontation.
So while the video in question is apparently not super clear in this particular "death threat", the only person who says he did anything neck related is the guy who also made numerous other claims directly contradicted by his own video. The same guy that - and the court notes - repeatedly lies about things that have happened whenever facts are inconvenient, even when the complainant's own video demonstrates the falsity of the claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Followed by: Such action, she said, would only be taken on donations made after Feb. 15’s emergency declaration and isn’t retroactive — adding such a case would be “very unlikely,” but definitely possible. The main solid takeaway from that article is that 206 accounts were definitely frozen .. accounts that very probably donations were flowing into. The rest of the article is weasel phrased, there are allegations of…
Who cares if it was "only after the emergency declaration"? Who cares if it wasn't "retroactive"? Who care if the government is sending updates on who they freeze? Those sound like a lot of attempts to say "oh, seizing people's assets without trial for the crime of a small donation only happened to a few people, so no big deal". Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest after the emergenc…
> "The right of the state supersede the rights of the individual"
The rights of people to go about their lives freely, specifically those living and working around the 'protest' site, and the residents and workers of the city in general, should supersede the rights of noisy assholes to block roads and blast their horns at all hours of day and night.
In general, you don't get to ruin everyone else's life for your cause. This is why most protests in western countries work with police and have a window of time during which streets are shut down etc. And why (for example) everyone cheered when an environment protestor in London was ripped away from a train he was trying to glue himself to at peak commuting time and given a kicking by the crowd (not that we should praise violence but really, think about what you’re doing).
You don't get to just shut down everyone else's use of a public space, or disrupt people's sleep with your airhorns, or block their access to transport and services, indefinitely. You absolutely have the right to be heard, but you don't get to hold the population or the government to ransom like that, and not expect society to take steps to stop you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can any sane person watch this video and say her behavior was "abhorrent?" I'm talking about the behavior that led to the protection order. She's trying to play the "thought crime" angle in order to get the protection order repealed and pretend that they're being victimized. It's disingenuous.
Arresting someone for “playing the thought crime angle” appears no different to me than arresting someone for a thought crime
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for many people there's nothing beautiful in a child's laughter, especially if they don't have children of their own, so they are only getting the annoyance of noise without the good parts. moreover, in my experience, when children play, 80% of their interactions is ugly insult-throwing, not laughter. Also, why should the wishes of a group (children) be more important than those of another (those who wish to enjoy so…
If you don’t want to be exposed to other people live somewhere you can’t see your nearest neighbour.
To the grand parent, if you're reading this: please get help. Your views on what activities are/aren't appropriate for children have no place in civil society.
9 year olds, dude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares if it was "only after the emergency declaration"? Who cares if it wasn't "retroactive"? Who care if the government is sending updates on who they freeze? Those sound like a lot of attempts to say "oh, seizing people's assets without trial for the crime of a small donation only happened to a few people, so no big deal". Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest after the emergenc…
Sending money to support something the government has decided is a criminal enterprise ... getting your accounts frozen would seem to be the least thing to be concerned about - if indeed this even happened, there seems to be vanishingly little evidence. By the date they're talking about, a state of emergency has been declared to try to do something about the situation. If you're still sending money after that, you ne…
The government never decided the Convoy was a "criminal enterprise". I have no idea where you go that from.
The government decided the protests were going beyond that allowed, but that had to do with the people protesting, not the people sending in $10.
What's amazing to me is how you just dismiss all this. "Oh well, some guy who Paypaled $10 to an organization (and did nothing else) deserves to get his account frozen. Sucks to be him if you he can't afford rent or food."
What ever happen to due process? What happened to restraints on the government. What even happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Canada like to point to the US abuses like Gitmo and say they are better, but I think they are worse. Canada does it with no concern at all, no self-reflection on consequences, no public outcry.
They say that democratic freedoms are fragile and now I know why. So many people are will to take them away from others without a thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares if it was "only after the emergency declaration"? Who cares if it wasn't "retroactive"? Who care if the government is sending updates on who they freeze? Those sound like a lot of attempts to say "oh, seizing people's assets without trial for the crime of a small donation only happened to a few people, so no big deal". Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest after the emergenc…
> Some blue collar guy trying to make ends meets hears about the protest .. > Now his bank account is frozen and he can't pay the rent. Where does your linked article say that happened though? The article does not say that the frozen accounts were donor accounts ( ie accounts of blue collar workers ). The part you highlighted was in response to a question about whether that might happen .. and the response was it's t…
Yet you skip over to the "well, I see no proof someone was affected so what's the big deal?"
I'm horrified by the fact it could even happen at all. That the government had the power to arbitrarily freeze someone's bank account with nothing more than a note from the RCMP. No evidence, no presumption of innocence, no right to argue in front of a judge.
Why aren't you horrified? Because it didn't affect you?
Next time it could be you.