# Conservative think-tank intimidating judges and officials



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There is a conservative think tank (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms) which, today, was revealed to have hired a private investigator to spy on a Manitoba judge. The judge was presiding over their case.

Their agent followed the judge around town, and checked on him at his own home and followed him to his cottage. All of this was admitted by the organization's laywer.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-chief-justice-followed-private-investigator-1.6099124



Here's the important part: the lawyer for the conservative think tank also said "the organization has hired private investigators to follow a number of public officials"

So this is a pattern of behaviour. These are the values of these conservative characters. Here is who is on the Board, so we can get an idea of the kinds of the people who make a habit of spying on and intimidating public officials:

Troy Lanigan, former CEO of Canadian Tax Payers Federation
Bud Smith, formerly of BC government, Social Credit Party (Conservative-aligned)
Disgusting people! Apparently this is what you get from a conservative think tank. The mindset is that, as rich business men (with church connections), *they are untouchable.* They will damn well do whatever they want.

They can spy on judges, intimidate them, and other public figures. Who else have they been intimidating?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Might want to check todays covid briefing video, threats against him as well.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Might want to check todays covid briefing video, threats against him as well.


You're kidding. But I don't know if the same organization is responsible for any of that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The president of the conservative organization, John Carpay, is the one responsible for having public officials followed.

Carpay was previously a Reform Party candidate, and was the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (lobbyist for the rich).

Now he's intimidating judges. What a resume.

These aren't just random guys. They are *conservative nuts*. Every citizen should find it extremely worrying that rich lawyers representing the rich think it's OK to harass and intimidate judges.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Where did you get the idea that it was a conservative think tank?
They don't advertise themselves as much, there is no interdisciplinary research, no meetings on policy issues.
Definition of a think tank:
A *think tank*, or *policy institute*, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture. 

It isn't a think tank. Nor is it conservative. They don't associate themselves to any party. Seems like bunch of libertarians.

Literally from their website 'about us':
*Founded in 2010 as a voice for freedom in Canada's courtrooms, the mission of the Justice Centre is to defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through litigation and education. We fight for Canada to become and remain a free society, where the equality of all Canadians and their individual freedoms are celebrated and respected. *

Sounds like it is just a bunch of lawyers protecting individual freedoms, in a way that seems too extreme.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

cainvest said:


> Might want to check todays covid briefing video, threats against him as well.


Lol demonize anyone that goes against their agenda. "Not to pit Manitoban against Manitoban he talks about." While adds on TV say you can tell a lot about a person wearing a mask & even more about those that do not, As well as adds showing people to police those to wear masks. Mass brain washing by the media for the public to demonize those that are not jabbed with the kill shot & for people to put pressure on people to commit suicide by taking the kill shot.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

james4beach said:


> There is a conservative think tank (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms) which, today, was revealed to have hired a private investigator to spy on a Manitoba judge. The judge was presiding over their case.
> 
> Their agent followed the judge around town, and checked on him at his own home and followed him to his cottage. All of this was admitted by the organization's laywer.
> 
> ...


 Public officials are making Nazi laws for the unwashed.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Where did you get the idea that it was a conservative think tank?
> They don't advertise themselves as much, there is no interdisciplinary research, no meetings on policy issues.
> Definition of a think tank:
> A *think tank*, or *policy institute*, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture.
> ...


 *... *if they're a bunch of libertarians, does this make the rest of the population who aren't members of this "Justice Centre" as conservatives or modified conservatives or fake conservatives? You know, the non-libertarians.



> Sounds like it is just a bunch of lawyers protecting individual freedoms, in a way that seems too extreme.


 ... protecting "whose individual" freedoms? Libertarians or Conservatives? The extreme part seems pretty obvious.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The president of the conservative organization, John Carpay, is the one responsible for having public officials followed.
> 
> Carpay was previously a Reform Party candidate, and was the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (lobbyist for the rich).
> 
> ...


 ... damian13ster says they're not a think tank by definition which seems to be not incorrect based solely on the organization's name "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms". Seems like a private club, hiding behind a (some) church(es) too.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> *... *if they're a bunch of libertarians, does this make the rest of the population who aren't members of this "Justice Centre" as conservatives or modified conservatives or fake conservatives? You know, the non-libertarians.
> 
> ... protecting "whose individual" freedoms? Libertarians or Conservatives? The extreme part seems pretty obvious.


What? Sorry but don't get a meaning of it.
If an organization brands itself libertarian, that doesn't mean every libertarian belongs to the organization.
Sorry, not sure what you are getting at.

Second one I also don't understand.
What are you talking about?
Individual freedoms - which means freedom of an individual. Doesn't matter what side of political or economical spectrum they are on. Doesn't matter whether they are Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, or Communist.
Kind of sounds like they are offering attorneys for people who believe their freedoms have been violated. Just a quick scan of their website though because frankly - don't care much


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> What? Sorry but don't get a meaning of it.
> If an organization brands itself libertarian, that doesn't mean every libertarian belongs to the organization.
> Sorry, not sure what you are getting at.


 ... in your post #5, you stated:



> _It isn't a think tank. Nor is it conservative. They don't associate themselves to any party. *Seems like bunch of libertarians*_.


 .. perhaps you want to first define what a libertarian means?



> Second one I also don't understand.
> What are you talking about?
> Individual freedoms - which means freedom of an individual. Doesn't matter what side of political or economical spectrum they are on. Doesn't matter whether they are Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, or Communist.


 ... correct but are they actually protecting freedoms of "all" Canadians as claimed, like you, me and any stranger/human John/Jane Doe down the street? Don't think so.



> Kind of sounds like they are offering attorneys for people who believe their freedoms have been violated. Just a quick scan of their website though because frankly - don't care much


 ... no doubt but it would be interesting to see who're the clients for these lawyers.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Definition of libertarian:
an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens. 

Well, you make some assumptions with no basis. 
I will admit that I don't know in which cases they will intervene and in which cases they would not, so I will not pass of judgment as I know it will be based on nothing but my own biases.

If you have a case in which you feel your individual freedom has been violated, or know someone that does, then refer them and you will find out whether they help out or not I guess.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Definition of libertarian:
> an advocate or *supporter of a political philosophy* that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.


 ... you just clarified your own confusion with my post. No?



> Well, you make some assumptions with no basis.
> I will admit that I don't know in which cases they will intervene and in which cases they would not, so I will not pass of judgment as I know it will be based on nothing *but my own biases.*


 ... then that makes you're no different than me with 1. making assumptions, and 2. I didn't have a bias per my 2nd statement on the clients' list suggestion.



> If you have a case in which you feel your individual freedom has been violated, or know someone that does, then refer them and you will find out whether they help out or not I guess.


 ... and what? 1. Waste my $$$$ and 2. hire these lawyers, knowing the "other" type of clients they represent. No thanks even I'm a billionaire.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Libertarians are basically an "all about me" kind of ideology.

What is strange about this example is they rail against government intrusion into their lives, and then hire investigators to intrude into other's lives.

I suspect the irony would be lost on most of them, but there is a public apology offered on their website.

Problem is if they had not be outed by the media they would still be doing it. So, they are sorry they got caught.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... you just clarified your own confusion with my post. No?
> 
> ... then that makes you're no different than me with 1. making assumptions, and 2. I didn't have a bias per my 2nd statement on the clients' list suggestion.
> 
> ... and what? 1. Waste my $$$$ and 2. hire these lawyers, knowing the "other" type of clients they represent. No thanks even I'm a billionaire.


No, I didn't.
Organization holding libertarian view doesn't make it a think tank for libertarians.
They don't do research and policy debates.
They simply provide service as attorneys to those who feel their individual freedom has been violated.

And libertarian is polar opposite to conservatives, at least on social issues.
Nor are conservatives in Canada libertarians when it comes to economic issues.
There is no relevant libertarian party in Canada, or pretty much anywhere in the world in fact.

1. I am not making assumptions because I know I don't have enough facts, so assumption would be based primarily on biases - that's why I am not making it. Think you misinterpreted the sentence. Direct quote: "* I will not pass judgment *as I know it will be based on nothing but my own biases "
And don't they work pro-bono?

sags, yes - they are all about personal responsibility and accountability
I think it goes too far, but you make it sound like personal responsibility is an evil thing


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We learned from the aftermath of the capital insurrection in the US, that many of these libertarian types can't hold a job, live with their parents, and own nothing of value.

All they have is a hat with horns on it, and whatever is left over from their last welfare cheque. A lot of them had to take the bus to get to the riot......LOL.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> We learned from the aftermath of the capital insurrection in the US, that many of these libertarian types can't hold a job, live with their parents, and own nothing of value.
> 
> All they have is a hat with horns on it, and whatever is left over from their last welfare cheque. A lot of them had to take the bus to get to the riot......LOL.


There was no capital insurrection, it was a protest that turned into a bit of a riot.
Sheesh to listen to the mainstream media the far right extremists in the US are heavily armed, where were all their guns when they "tried to overthrow" the government?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Libertarians are basically an "all about me" kind of ideology.


No, Libertarians are all about personal responsibility.

You're free to ignore them. The problem is that authoritarians don't like it when people opt out.
The whole socialist system depends on taking from the productive to give to everyone else.

If the top 10% left Canada, we'd love more than half our income tax revenue. T


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> There is a conservative think tank (Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms) which, today, was revealed to have hired a private investigator to spy on a Manitoba judge. The judge was presiding over their case.





damian13ster said:


> Where did you get the idea that it was a conservative think tank?
> They don't advertise themselves as much, there is no interdisciplinary research, no meetings on policy issues.
> Definition of a think tank:
> A *think tank*, or *policy institute*, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture.
> ...


I am pleased that Damian corrected the biased introduction to this thread supplied by James. Discrediting judges seems to be a useful legal move as long as they do not violated any laws.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I have not read the replies other than what Keith wrote above in post #19 but am also glad someone has straightened James out with his irrational and judgemental views of the situation. My view of the situation is simply that of intimidation of the justice system to press one's views. I see this as most likely a case of: a) religious fanaticism of indoctrinated souls pressing their agenda on the public, and if not that, b) libertarians objecting to anything that might constrain their personal beliefs. It is not really a left or right issue though religious doctrine is often associated with social conservatives.

Much of the defiance against public health orders is coming from church groups from across the political spectrum, and in my opinion, is mostly led by pastors and ministers who saw their sources of revenue/income threatened. Nothing should make them more special than any business that was shut down in the public interest.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> There was no capital insurrection, it was a protest that turned into a bit of a riot ...


Wanting to carry out a hanging is a protest?
Seems like a pretty violent action against authority/gov't which AFAICT fits the definition.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea but.........the leaders of the group just happen to be connected to the Conservative Party.

If it was people with thread bare connections to the Liberal Party......O'Toole would be calling for Parliamentary hearings and an RCMP investigation.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> ... Much of the defiance against public health orders is coming from church groups from across the political spectrum, and in my opinion, is mostly led by pastors and ministers who saw their sources of revenue/income threatened. Nothing should make them more special than any business that was shut down in the public interest.


I don't know about it being mostly religious types.

The paper dropped off on my door stop had farmers upset about restrictions on foreign workers, IIRC a naturopath arguing that Mother Nature is better than vaccines, anti-big Pharma types and a doctor to name a few.

I'm not sure what group the two seniors who were yelling at my teen age niece and her friend to take off their masks and refuse to get the covid vaccine. It took the teens a while to realise this couple meant them.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> There was no capital insurrection, it was a protest that turned into a bit of a riot.
> Sheesh to listen to the mainstream media the far right extremists in the US are heavily armed, where were all their guns when they "tried to overthrow" the government?


Your Youtube not working ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A lot of new video has been released during the court trials. It is pretty graphic and shows the violent extent of the insurrection.

They were in the Congress.........searching for Senators and the VP of the US for goodness sakes.

How far are you willing to go to defend the monkey brained idiots who participated ?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I don't believe anyone is defending those people.
World is not black or white.
You can believe they are idiots, and at the same time you can believe that it wasn't an attempt to overthrow government.

I understand the idea to sensationalize everything so you draw focus to stuff like that instead of actual issues. If party in power had no depth, education, and knowledge then creating outrage is a valid tactic. Destructive to the society, but valid for staying in power.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Given the evidence, perhaps not 'mostly religious groups' but they clearly are using their 'muscle' to justify what they believe is freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights. The thing is, no public health order has ever constrained freedom of religion, just gatherings. No different than any other gathering. If one's faith hinges on getting together like a flock of sheep muttering and singing stuff, that is more a house of cards than faith.

It is probably mostly about 'loss of income' rather than perhaps even libertarian-ism. Libertarian-ism is also really about the list of freedoms the individual wants for him/herself rather than freedoms in general. Hypocrisy for the most part and hence why these folk will always be fringe groups with their own house of cards.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> Given the evidence, perhaps not 'mostly religious groups' but they clearly are using their 'muscle' to justify what they believe is freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights. The thing is, no public health order has ever constrained freedom of religion, just gatherings. No different than any other gathering. If one's faith hinges on getting together like a flock of sheep muttering and singing stuff, that is more a house of cards than faith.
> 
> It is probably mostly about 'loss of income' rather than perhaps even libertarian-ism. Libertarian-ism is also really about the list of freedoms the individual wants for him/herself rather than freedoms in general. Hypocrisy for the most part and hence why these folk will always be fringe groups with their own house of cards.


I am yet to find a libertarian that wants freedom for themselves but not in general. What does that even mean?
Can you give some scenario?

*Libertarianism* (from French: _libertaire_, "libertarian"; from Latin: _libertas_, "freedom") is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.[2] Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power 

How does that equate to 'I get the freedom but you don't'?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

What I meant is each libertarian has a list of freedoms they personally want (everyone) to have, but it is from their individual points of view. They are willing to accept societal constraints in other things. No two libertarians likely have exactly the same list of desired freedoms except by coincidence.

One libertarian may feel the right to be nude in public is an individual right while another libertarian will accept that society has the right to limit where public nudity is permitted. I've had plenty of debates (arguments?) and fun playing with professed libertarians who cannot justify the conflicts they have within themselves. It leaves them frustrated and exasperated.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Given the evidence, perhaps not 'mostly religious groups' but they clearly are using their 'muscle' to justify what they believe is freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights. The thing is, no public health order has ever constrained freedom of religion, just gatherings. No different than any other gathering. If one's faith hinges on getting together like a flock of sheep muttering and singing stuff, that is more a house of cards than faith.
> 
> It is probably mostly about 'loss of income' rather than perhaps even libertarian-ism. Libertarian-ism is also really about the list of freedoms the individual wants for him/herself rather than freedoms in general. Hypocrisy for the most part and hence why these folk will always be fringe groups with their own house of cards.


Actually Libertarianism is about a list of freedoms the individual wants for all individuals.
Really unless there is an overwhelming reason, you simply shouldn't be allowed to infringe on a persons human rights.

Also regarding the public health orders, they've been highly politicized.
They use them to shut down churches and traditionally "right leaning" activities.
But left leaning activities and causes, are permitted, if not actively encouraged.

During Summer 2020, Trudeau was literally at the massive BLM protests encouraging them, and no action was taken, but a few people meeting to go to a drive in church, they're all over it.

The problem is the unequal protection of rights.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Here you go again with your filtered lens. Read my posts again.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> What I meant is each libertarian has a list of freedoms they personally want (everyone) to have, but it is from their individual points of view. They are willing to accept societal constraints in other things. No two libertarians likely have exactly the same list of desired freedoms except by coincidence.
> 
> One libertarian may feel the right to be nude in public is an individual right while another libertarian will accept that society has the right to limit where public nudity is permitted. I've had plenty of debates (arguments?) and fun playing with professed libertarians who cannot justify the conflicts they have within themselves. It leaves them frustrated and exasperated.


I think this applies to almost everyone - not just libertarians . Everyone has slightly different views on what is OK and not OK in society. 
I know some 'liberals' with very conservative views on some things, and conservatives with some very 'liberal views in some areas - and of course every range in between.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

twa2w said:


> I think this applies to almost everyone - not just libertarians . Everyone has slightly different views on what is OK and not OK in society.
> I know some 'liberals' with very conservative views on some things, and conservatives with some very 'liberal views in some areas - and of course every range in between.


Fair enough but 'labelled' libertarians take this to an extreme. Just like anything else, there is a broad spectrum of libertarian-ism, from the mild to the fanatical.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I am pleased that Damian corrected the biased introduction to this thread supplied by James. Discrediting judges seems to be a useful legal move as long as they do not violated any laws.


Does that extend to potential blackmail or extortion?

I think the standard for behavior is a bit higher than merely not violating the law.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> One libertarian may feel the right to be nude in public is an individual right while another libertarian will accept that society has the right to limit where public nudity is permitted. I've had plenty of debates (arguments?) and fun playing with professed libertarians who cannot justify the conflicts they have within themselves. It leaves them frustrated and exasperated.


Well I think that's a good argument, what realistically happens is that groups of like minded libertarians will cluster together and come up with their own societies with their own rules.
However if the rules are different from city to city, or neighbourhood to neighbourhood, it get really confusing really fast.

The problem is that we likely won't come up with a fair definition of what is "acceptable".
For instance toplessness is widely debated.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ... damian13ster says they're not a think tank by definition which seems to be not incorrect based solely on the organization's name "Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms". Seems like a private club, hiding behind a (some) church(es) too.


Club or whatever, it's entirely staffed by conservative (and ex Reform Party) people, including anti-tax advocates, and people associated with churches. They are also representing several evangelical churches.

Yes it's possible that this is more a matter of *religious fanatics* doing dangerous things.

It's not clear to me whether they are characterized more as religious fanatics, or general social conservatives. @AltaRed is attributing it more to their religious interests.



AltaRed said:


> I see this as most likely a case of: a) religious fanaticism of indoctrinated souls pressing their agenda on the public, and if not that, b) libertarians objecting to anything that might constrain their personal beliefs. It is not really a left or right issue though religious doctrine is often associated with social conservatives.


I agree that it could be about religious / fundamentalists pressing an agenda, but you are incorrect when you say it's not a left or right issue. Everyone associated with that organization is thoroughly conservative.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

You are a self-admitted troll now.

Just to show you how stupid your trail of thought is:
James Hodgkinson shot up political opponents at baseball game ---> Previously he volunteered working on Democratic Presidential Campaign --> he is a democrat through and through.

Do Democrats think it is acceptable to murder their political opponents in broad daylight? Well, that's interesting.

It isn't a think-tank
It isn't conservative.

It doesn't serve a function of a think-tank.
It doesn't hold conservative values. It holds libertarian values. Two completely different things.

You are just trolling now or do you seriously believe yours is a logical way of thinking?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I agree that it could be about religious / fundamentalists pressing an agenda, but you are incorrect when you say it's not a left or right issue. Everyone associated with that organization is thoroughly conservative.


Even assuming that's true, it doesn't hold that that organization, or their tactics is supported by, or representative of conservatives in general.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Even assuming that's true, it doesn't hold that that organization, or their tactics is supported by, or representative of conservatives in general.


Do you believe they are a fringe outlier (among the conservatives in this country) and would not have much support from other conservatives?

I certainly hope that's true.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Even assuming that's true, it doesn't hold that that organization, or their tactics is supported by, or representative of conservatives in general.


Get on with the program. You aren't allowed to have an individual outlook. Tribalism is the new reality now.
If you have one opinion that is shared by a certain group, then you automatically are a member of that group and automatically support all other opinions, individuals, and actions of every individual others determined to be a member of that group.
Just get into the box they put you in, have the label put on it and stay quiet.
Don't question it.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> Given the evidence, perhaps not 'mostly religious groups' but they clearly are using their 'muscle' to justify what they believe is freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights. The thing is, no public health order has ever constrained freedom of religion, just gatherings ...


To be clear, I don't know what group, if any is the largest. Just that there seems to be lots of variety.

And I think the churches upset at not being able to meet in person are being silly. With the tech of today, it's much easier than say during the Spanish Flu Pandemic.



AltaRed said:


> ... It is probably mostly about 'loss of income' rather than perhaps even libertarian-ism ...


Could be ... though several churches near me say that with keeping the heating/cooling adjusted for the lack of people, pushing off non-critical maintenance and a dedicated group of followers - their budgets are in better shape than had they been open. And that's despite handing out a lot more funds than usual to help people buy groceries, pay rent etc.

Cheers


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

So what do you make of police detectives investigating citizens on the orders of public officials? Is that intimidation and harassment as well? I would argue that it is worse since public officials have the power to arrest and harass in ways that private citizens don't.

Or are you suggesting that politicians are above the law and should be immune to being investigated?


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Actually Libertarianism is about a list of freedoms the individual wants for all individuals.
> Really unless there is an overwhelming reason, you simply shouldn't be allowed to infringe on a persons human rights ...


Interesting as there is a contrast between the individuals who call themselves Libertarians who push for mandatory covid vaccinations and those who describe themselves the same way who push for individual choice, no matter what.



MrMatt said:


> ... During Summer 2020, Trudeau was literally at the massive BLM protests encouraging them, and no action was taken, but a few people meeting to go to a drive in church, they're all over it.
> 
> 'The problem is the unequal protection of rights.


I guess so considering in my area - churches ran drive in services for most of 2020 where one was running three drive in services per Sunday. 

I'd have to check which ones but in addition to BLM protests there were anti-masking protests, anti-lockdown protests, anti-gun legislation protests and political protests that went ahead with no more than the usual small number of tickets/arrests.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eclectic21 said:


> I'd have to check which ones but in addition to BLM protests there were anti-masking protests, anti-lockdown protests, anti-gun legislation protests and political protests that went ahead with no more than the usual small number of tickets/arrests.


Out here in BC, there were many violations of public health orders by libertarians, religious and rightist groups without ticketing and arrests. There was a lot of leeway granted before continued systemic violations resulted in fines. At least one business owner (a gym) defied orders until Sheriffs had to lock off the facility. Considerable slack is granted to both extremes of the spectrum.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Of course no discourse on the mosques that have been operating at full capacity as they currently have immunity to criticism.

I'm not religious but do see the special treatment of Christians....off to the lions den with them!
The Great Raven would not approve.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I have not been aware of any special treatment for any denomination. Perhaps an old wives tale? 

AFAIK, the vast majority of religious institutions adhered to public health orders. Just a few 'radical' types did not.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Get on with the program. You aren't allowed to have an individual outlook. Tribalism is the new reality now.
> If you have one opinion that is shared by a certain group, then you automatically are a member of that group and automatically support all other opinions, individuals, and actions of every individual others determined to be a member of that group.
> Just get into the box they put you in, have the label put on it and stay quiet.
> Don't question it.


You can believe anything you want, but there is no guarantee you will be able to convince others to agree with you.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

An Officer of the Court hired a PI to spy on a judge.

That is the long and short of it. The rest is noise level.

Unacceptable.

With any luck the Bar Association in Manitoba will disbar Carpay. Hopefully the Alberta Bar Assoc. will follow suit.

He is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the profession and to our system of justice. 

And he knows it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

^ The one time Sags (who is on my Ignore list) and I agree (or at least Like) a post. Maybe we will be best buds soon.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL.........I think we agree on more that that but reach the same conclusions for different reasons.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> You can believe anything you want, but there is no guarantee you will be able to convince others to agree with you.


I don't try to convince people to accept any beliefs. That's pointless
I simply provide facts, and if I see blatant lies I straighten them out.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Where were you when every reporter, FBI agent, politician and government official in America was investigating Donald Trump and his family for the last 3 generations? Why was that ok but this isn't?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Do you believe they are a fringe outlier (among the conservatives in this country) and would not have much support from other conservatives?
> 
> I certainly hope that's true.


It matters how you define "conservatives"

I'm a textbook liberal, and you've suggested I'm nearly a far right extremist.

I think there are a lot of "conservatives" that are also liberals, which is why we can't support the socialist authoritarians of the Liberal party.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> An Officer of the Court hired a PI to spy on a judge.
> 
> That is the long and short of it. The rest is noise level.
> 
> ...


If there were concerns raised, I would have hoped the RCMP or other body would investigate.
But it's important to note that they don't monitor for conflict of interest very well.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> If there were concerns raised, I would have hoped the RCMP or other body would investigate.
> But it's important to note that they don't monitor for conflict of interest very well.


This is about professional misconduct. The facts are not in dispute. No laws have been broken to my knowledge.

This is not the end of it. There are two other associates of Carpay's group who are also having their professional conduct in this matter reviewed by their peer group(s).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> This is about professional misconduct. The facts are not in dispute. No laws have been broken to my knowledge.
> 
> This is not the end of it. There are two other associates of Carpay's group who are also having their professional conduct in this matter reviewed by their peer group(s).


Sorry, if the judge was doing something inappropriate the RCMP or other official body should have been investigating.

However if there is only suspicion they won't.

Remember there are many documented cases of politicians and senior bureaucrats having inappropriate or even illegal meetings. 
It is definately possible that there is a judge, somewhere, that is having improper meetings with people. If that is happening, it should be investigated. It's simply a question of who and when such an investigation takes place.

For example, I think it is completely appropriate to monitor the meetings of CRTC leadership, as they engage in private meetings with senior telecom executives, before making a decision that results in some telecoms getting billions of dollars in payouts. Who and how this should be monitored, I don't know.

Also I'm not particularly interested in this case, but it does raise some questions of appropriateness.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think Erin O'Toole should be investigated. I gotta sneaking suspicion he ain't earning his pay.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If Andrew Scheer had been investigated we might have known he was a Yank who used funds from the Conservative Party to pay for his kid's tuition, and that his job resume was a fake. Thank goodness for the media digging up all that stuff before the election.

We might have elected that guy. Imagine what a tragic mistake that would have been.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags said:


> If Andrew Scheer had been investigated we might have known he was a Yank who used funds from the Conservative Party to pay for his kid's tuition, and that his job resume was a fake. Thank goodness for the media digging up all that stuff before the election.
> 
> We might have elected that guy. Imagine what a tragic mistake that would have been.


Scheer never, ever had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected PM-minority or majority. His first interview with the French language media sealed his fate. To borrow a phrase from another unsuccessful Conservative leader....'just not ready'

And IMHO, Erin O'Toole is going down the same path. The only difference being that the knives are out even before the writ is dropped. The Tories always seem to eat their young. They cannot seem to help themselves. Could be because they are the furthest thing from a united Party.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I think Erin O'Toole should be investigated. I gotta sneaking suspicion he ain't earning his pay.


I think that there should be a certain level of monitoring and investigation of all senior politicians and bureaucrats at all times.
I think that someone (likely CSIS, or an independant body of parliment) should be monitoring O'Toole, Trudeau and Harper for questionable activities. The level of investigation should vary, but it should of course be there. FWIW they're all bound by secrets legislation.

I think that many politicians don't do much, but they've earned their positions, and thus their pay.
Just because you don't like what they're doing doesn't mean they're not earning their pay.


----------

