This is going to end brilliantly! (Trucker protest)

[Keith&Co.]

People have the right (or at least they used to) to peaceful protest. Tyrant Trudeau should get the guillotine, prick. And you take the side of the tyrant, sounds about right.

What, are you going to quiz me about what laws I don’t like? Behave yourself.

In the US and Canada: people have the right to legally protest. There is no right in either country's set of laws that allows "peaceful protestors" to block roads and bridges.

This. The First Amendment is about the message, not about the medium that carries the message. The only time you get any say about the medium is when it's basically necessary to the message and even in those cases the courts balance the two.

Blocking isn't inherent to the message here, there's no justification for it.

The First Amendment, and what is said about it in any court ruling, are utterly irrelevant in Canada.

But...but...but...some of them're AMERICANS! They have RiGhTs, yOu knOW!

 

[blastula]

The First Amendment, and what is said about it in any court ruling, are utterly irrelevant in Canada.

You might think so, but....

No bail decision yet for Tamara Lich, convoy protest organizer - CBC

He also questioned whether the Emergencies Act — which was debated Saturday in the House of Commons — was implemented legally, at times confusing the numbered amendments found in the U.S. Constitution with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honestly? I thought it was a peaceful protest and based on my first amendment, I thought that was part of our rights," he told the court.

"What do you mean, first amendment? What's that?" Judge Julie Bourgeois asked him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The First Amendment, and what is said about it in any court ruling, are utterly irrelevant in Canada.

You might think so, but....

No bail decision yet for Tamara Lich, convoy protest organizer - CBC

He also questioned whether the Emergencies Act — which was debated Saturday in the House of Commons — was implemented legally, at times confusing the numbered amendments found in the U.S. Constitution with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honestly? I thought it was a peaceful protest and based on my first amendment, I thought that was part of our rights," he told the court.

"What do you mean, first amendment? What's that?" Judge Julie Bourgeois asked him.

JFC! Are you kidding me?!

I remember an episode of Law and Order and one lawyer was bitching about extradition to Canada because they didn't even have a Bill of Rights and I was thinking... umm... Constitution Act of 1982? Okay... I get it, I'm like 1 of the 25,000 Americans that knows that thing exists. Regardless, that probably would have been a better thing to reference than the First Amendment while being before a Canadian judge. But apparently I might be a little more in the know in Canadian foundational governing documents than the fringe alt-right in Canada.

It really does tell you one thing, Fox News and the like has infected Canada.

I think this part might get more interesting.

Dwayne Lich has been proposed to act as her surety, meaning he would have to report if she breached any bail conditions.

In his testimony, he said he flew to Ottawa on Feb. 2 on a private jet at a cost of $5,000, paid for by a "nice gentleman" named Joseph that he'd only recently met.

"But he told me that my plane ride was taken care of, which was a miracle," he told the court.

 

[Elixir]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People have the right (or at least they used to) to peaceful protest. Tyrant Trudeau should get the guillotine, prick. And you take the side of the tyrant, sounds about right.

What, are you going to quiz me about what laws I don’t like? Behave yourself.

In the US and Canada: people have the right to legally protest. There is no right in either country's set of laws that allows "peaceful protestors" to block roads and bridges.

This. The First Amendment is about the message, not about the medium that carries the message. The only time you get any say about the medium is when it's basically necessary to the message and even in those cases the courts balance the two.

Blocking isn't inherent to the message here, there's no justification for it.

The First Amendment, and what is said about it in any court ruling, are utterly irrelevant in Canada.

True, but I'm saying that the First wouldn't have protected it even in the US.

I don't know what Canada's rules are on such things.

 

[Bomb#20]

JFC! Are you kidding me?!

I remember an episode of Law and Order and one lawyer was bitching about extradition to Canada because they didn't even have a Bill of Rights and I was thinking... umm... Constitution Act of 1982? Okay... I get it, I'm like 1 of the 25,000 Americans that knows that thing exists.

Mmm. Are you one of the like 15,000 Americans who know the thing has a clause in it that says oh by the way the government doesn't have to follow this if it doesn't want to?

Regardless, that probably would have been a better thing to reference than the First Amendment while being before a Canadian judge. But apparently I might be a little more in the know in Canadian foundational governing documents than the fringe alt-right in Canada.

It really does tell you one thing, Fox News and the like has infected Canada.

Oh for the love of god. This has jack squat to do with the alt-right or with Fox News, and everything to do with the U.S. entertainment industry being world champions at exporting culture. Courts all over the worlds have been complaining about their citizens thinking American constitutional protections apply to them because of some TV show they saw. It's been going on for decades.

 

[Bomb#20]

I actually don't approve of those kinds of totalitarian tactics. They sound like such a good idea when they're happening to someone you disagree with, but when it's your own bank account that's been frozen because the wrong person heard you say something "politically incorrect", you start to wonder whether your government really ought to have the right to manipulate you through the seizure of wealth in a world that requires it for survival. ...

Well, they are breaking the law. There are many communities in the US where the local police will confiscate the assets of villains when caught breaking laws. This conflict won't stop until the trucker protestors are held accountable.

Indeed, revenge and retribution must dished out until the working class is utterly subdued. Assets are usually seized in cases of fraud, for protesting, not so much. And fascists Trudeau could have ended this by backing down on his dumb and unnecessary vaccine mandates, prick.

Yea, I totally disagree. A democracy can't have every popularly passed law challenged by protestors illegally blocking roads and stopping transport and economic activity.

Popular law? Debatable.

According to memory, you weren't too favorable to BLM protestors blocking bridges in order to request reform of police departments. Am I wrong?

No, you’re not wrong and I don’t agree with what the truckers are doing either but I disagree their livelihoods be stolen from them by the state in retribution.

I've heard that the Canadian vaccine law has 80% approval rate. But I don't know for sure. The issue here is that people disagree. We settle disagreements with laws and the courts. There are many many laws that I don't like. It's not perfect, but there is a system for me to try to get a law changed. There are many people who disagree with a woman's right to choose. Would you say that we should allow pro-life truckers to physically block a health care center that offers abortions?

The trouble is, settling disagreements with laws and the courts is precisely what isn't happening there. There are many many laws that Justin Trudeau doesn't like, and evidently the system for him to try to get them changed is he just does whatever he pleases and the parts of the Canadian government that ought to serve as a check on his power fall over and play dead.

A layer cake of constitutional violations

... The federal government has no jurisdictional basis for any of this. Which is to say that we’re in a huge crisis of the rule of law. It has done something that it has no constitutional power to do. What the Emergencies Act does is empower the federal government to take over powers, assigned under the Constitution, to the provinces. And it can only do that if very stringent conditions are met. ...
In essence, what the government has done is falsely asserted that conditions exist that allow it to declare a state of emergency. And in making that false declaration, it has assumed powers to itself that it doesn’t have under the Constitution of Canada.​

 

[Harry Bosch]

I actually don't approve of those kinds of totalitarian tactics. They sound like such a good idea when they're happening to someone you disagree with, but when it's your own bank account that's been frozen because the wrong person heard you say something "politically incorrect", you start to wonder whether your government really ought to have the right to manipulate you through the seizure of wealth in a world that requires it for survival. ...

Well, they are breaking the law. There are many communities in the US where the local police will confiscate the assets of villains when caught breaking laws. This conflict won't stop until the trucker protestors are held accountable.

Indeed, revenge and retribution must dished out until the working class is utterly subdued. Assets are usually seized in cases of fraud, for protesting, not so much. And fascists Trudeau could have ended this by backing down on his dumb and unnecessary vaccine mandates, prick.

Yea, I totally disagree. A democracy can't have every popularly passed law challenged by protestors illegally blocking roads and stopping transport and economic activity.

Popular law? Debatable.

According to memory, you weren't too favorable to BLM protestors blocking bridges in order to request reform of police departments. Am I wrong?

No, you’re not wrong and I don’t agree with what the truckers are doing either but I disagree their livelihoods be stolen from them by the state in retribution.

I've heard that the Canadian vaccine law has 80% approval rate. But I don't know for sure. The issue here is that people disagree. We settle disagreements with laws and the courts. There are many many laws that I don't like. It's not perfect, but there is a system for me to try to get a law changed. There are many people who disagree with a woman's right to choose. Would you say that we should allow pro-life truckers to physically block a health care center that offers abortions?

The trouble is, settling disagreements with laws and the courts is precisely what isn't happening there. There are many many laws that Justin Trudeau doesn't like, and evidently the system for him to try to get them changed is he just does whatever he pleases and the parts of the Canadian government that ought to serve as a check on his power fall over and play dead.

A layer cake of constitutional violations

... The federal government has no jurisdictional basis for any of this. Which is to say that we’re in a huge crisis of the rule of law. It has done something that it has no constitutional power to do. What the Emergencies Act does is empower the federal government to take over powers, assigned under the Constitution, to the provinces. And it can only do that if very stringent conditions are met. ...​

In essence, what the government has done is falsely asserted that conditions exist that allow it to declare a state of emergency. And in making that false declaration, it has assumed powers to itself that it doesn’t have under the Constitution of Canada.​

Buddy! I barely feel competent commenting on law and the US constitution in the United States! A place where I've lived for 55 years! No way in hell am I going to read a few articles and debates and then start commenting on how a law in Cananda should be interpreted and commented on! My issue here is simple: we live in dangerous times for democracies; groups are attempting to overthrow it constantly; if we want freedom to continue, we cannot allow aggrieved groups to break the law and flout the system. If the Canadian truck drivers don't like a law that their government has installed, then fine, organize and legally try to change it. That's how it works.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to memory, you weren't too favorable to BLM protestors blocking bridges in order to request reform of police departments. Am I wrong?

No, you’re not wrong and I don’t agree with what the truckers are doing either but I disagree their livelihoods be stolen from them by the state in retribution.

I've heard that the Canadian vaccine law has 80% approval rate. But I don't know for sure. The issue here is that people disagree. We settle disagreements with laws and the courts. There are many many laws that I don't like. It's not perfect, but there is a system for me to try to get a law changed. There are many people who disagree with a woman's right to choose. Would you say that we should allow pro-life truckers to physically block a health care center that offers abortions?

The trouble is, settling disagreements with laws and the courts is precisely what isn't happening there. There are many many laws that Justin Trudeau doesn't like, and evidently the system for him to try to get them changed is he just does whatever he pleases and the parts of the Canadian government that ought to serve as a check on his power fall over and play dead.

And if any of this occurred to impede a protest, there would be an argument here. The trouble is, portions of Ottawa, the city, was shut down by people breaking all sorts of ordinances and eventually laws. The Federal Government did little for 3 weeks of this action. The locals were sick of it... and a city can't be allowed to be occupied indefinitely. The whole idea the protest was "legal" is so unbelievably ignorant. They came, they made their message heard through the gross inconvenience of a city over a period of three weeks.

The protest really fucked up when the protest went to block a major economic hub in the Detroit-Windsor bridge.

To think Trudeau was acting like a tyrant is just ridiculous. People in Ottawa thought the Police and the Federal Government acted way too slow.

 

[TSwizzle]

To think Trudeau was acting like a tyrant is just ridiculous.

Trudeau is acting like a tyrant.

 

[TomC]

To think Trudeau was acting like a tyrant is just ridiculous.

Trudeau is acting like a tyrant.

In what way?
I see him acting more like a wimp. The Canadian people were expecting a little more action against their enemies blocking the roads, and a little sooner.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

To think Trudeau was acting like a tyrant is just ridiculous.

Trudeau is acting like a tyrant.

Yes, Fox News is claiming Trudeau is acting like a tyrant (while defending Putin, BTW) and you being the good little toady you are get to repeat it here.

 

[TomC]

To think Trudeau was acting like a tyrant is just ridiculous.

Trudeau is acting like a tyrant.

Yes, Fox News is claiming Trudeau is acting like a tyrant (while defending Putin, BTW) and you being the good little toady you are get to repeat it here.

Imagine if the same thing were going on the USA, except the truckers were supporting BLM. There'd be teargas and tow trucks, capable of moving a semi tractor, all over the place.

And that's now, during the Biden administration. Two years ago Trump would have been calling in air strikes and tanks.
Tom

 

[TSwizzle]

My issue here is simple: we live in dangerous times for democracies; groups are attempting to overthrow it constantly; if we want freedom to continue, we cannot allow aggrieved groups to break the law and flout the system. {snip}

We do live in dangerous times for democracies but you should worry more about the creeping authoritarianism from the likes of Trudeau (Newsom, Nicola Sturgeon and others) riding roughshod over freedom under the guise of "temporary emergency" powers.

 

[TomC]

My issue here is simple: we live in dangerous times for democracies; groups are attempting to overthrow it constantly; if we want freedom to continue, we cannot allow aggrieved groups to break the law and flout the system. {snip}

We do live in dangerous times for democracies but you should worry more about the creeping authoritarianism from the likes of Trudeau (Newsom, Nicola Sturgeon and others) riding roughshod over freedom under the guise of "temporary emergency" powers.

Why them?
Trudeau is a weinie. That's why his country was under attack for weeks before he did anything important. I'm far more concerned about the creeping authoritarianism of people like Trump and McConnell.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The problem here is that there are a vast number of people who have no clue that there's a difference between 'freedom' and 'selfishness'.

They really believe that:

a) They should be allowed to behave in selfish and antisocial ways; and
b) That calling antisocial and selfish behaviour 'freedom' flips it from something to be ashamed of, to something to be proud of.

And the neo-fascists are more than happy to use this pride in selfishness as a hook to obtain support for putting neo-fascists into positions of power.

Clive Palmer (Australia's wannabe Trump) is spending a fortune on billboards. They carefully don't confuse people with any actual ideas, much less any information to inform voters of what (if anything) Clive stands for, or what policies or ideas he would pursue if elected.

They just say "freedom forever", and let the idiots project onto that whatever policy each individual fool might hope would be implied by that empty slogan.

Personally I would rather not have the 'freedom' to spread infectious diseases to my neighbours, if that implies giving up the freedom from having my door kicked in by law enforcement at 2am and being dragged off to jail for believing in the 'wrong' kind of politics. But apparently plenty of people are quite OK with this, because they're smugly confident that their politics is the 'right' (often far right) kind.

"First they came for the socialists, and I was smugly gleeful, because I have been told that hating socialism is a cause for pride in my support for 'freedom'...", as Niemöller might have said had he been able to see seventy years into the future.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to say fucking moronic shit like "you should worry more about the creeping authoritarianism from the likes of Trudeau". Jesus fucking Christ.

 

[Harry Bosch]

My issue here is simple: we live in dangerous times for democracies; groups are attempting to overthrow it constantly; if we want freedom to continue, we cannot allow aggrieved groups to break the law and flout the system. {snip}

We do live in dangerous times for democracies but you should worry more about the creeping authoritarianism from the likes of Trudeau (Newsom, Nicola Sturgeon and others) riding roughshod over freedom under the guise of "temporary emergency" powers.

I agree with you my friend. Trudeau waited too long allowing the Truckers to illegally block access roads/bridges. Agree with you that these truckers took away people's freedom to access hospitals, homes, and earn a living. Let's hope that Trudeau has learned his lesson and will not allow illegal protests to continue taking away people's rights!

 

[Patooka]

Why them?

Because TSwizzle gets all his research information from the fucking Daily Mail. The proto-Joe Rogan if you will.

 

[ZiprHead]

Muriel Bowser Warns D.C. to Brace for Trucker Convoy Chaos

The preparations came as the Pentagon is expected to deploy National Guard troops to Washington, D.C.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Bomb#20]

The trouble is, settling disagreements with laws and the courts is precisely what isn't happening there. There are many many laws that Justin Trudeau doesn't like, and evidently the system for him to try to get them changed is he just does whatever he pleases and the parts of the Canadian government that ought to serve as a check on his power fall over and play dead.

A layer cake of constitutional violations

Buddy! I barely feel competent commenting on law and the US constitution in the United States! A place where I've lived for 55 years! No way in hell am I going to read a few articles and debates and then start commenting on how a law in Cananda should be interpreted and commented on!

Fair enough. I grew up in Canada; its government's commitment to rule of law is tenuous.

My issue here is simple: we live in dangerous times for democracies; groups are attempting to overthrow it constantly; if we want freedom to continue, we cannot allow aggrieved groups to break the law and flout the system. If the Canadian truck drivers don't like a law that their government has installed, then fine, organize and legally try to change it. That's how it works.

And if any of this occurred to impede a protest, there would be an argument here. The trouble is, portions of Ottawa, the city, was shut down by people breaking all sorts of ordinances and eventually laws. The Federal Government did little for 3 weeks of this action. The locals were sick of it... and a city can't be allowed to be occupied indefinitely. The whole idea the protest was "legal" is so unbelievably ignorant.

The legality of what the truckers were doing is evidently a big issue to you guys. Why is the legality of Trudeau's response such a non-issue?

They came, they made their message heard through the gross inconvenience of a city over a period of three weeks.
...
To think Trudeau was acting like a tyrant is just ridiculous. People in Ottawa thought the Police and the Federal Government acted way too slow.

On what planet is speed of response the measure of tyranny? Trudeau could have ordered in the police and had the trucks towed away and the truckers who were breaking laws arrested at any point in those three weeks, without needing to invent a fake emergency and grant himself extra-legal powers so he could order the banks to freeze the accounts of people who'd donated to their cause. If Trump had ordered banks to stop doing business with BLM donors and justified it by calling some BLM riot an emergency, I don't think you'd be okay with that.