# Children as human shields



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

One of the things that's shocked me the most about these radicals occupying Ottawa, is how they are using their own children as human shields. There's even footage of some of them holding up children towards police.

I think it's child abuse in so many ways. First, to hold them in that dangerous environment for weeks. Next to leave them in harm's way after police clearly communicated that their presence is illegal.

How can someone endanger their own child like that? Really disgusting, and I'm scared for those children.

Does anyone know if churches encouraged the parents to do this? Was this the advice of religious fundamentalist groups?

And shouldn't these kids be in school?


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

I bet HappilyRetired will approve of this.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I have been streaming newsworld most of the day. 

The folks interviewed on the street still hanging in are the ones that have drank their own kool-aid for too long.

It is nice to see a bunch of rigs voluntarily finally leaving the scene. But many more to go.

Folks whining about auto glass being broken, after they would not exit the vehicle at police request.Boo Hoo They are there illegally per the current laws after all.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

If protests are about those kids actually having the future, why kids should not participate.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Ukrainiandude said:


> If protests are about those kids actually having the future, why kids should not participate.


That is most absurd thing I have heard all day. Pre-teens are impressionable and defer to the authority of their parents. Just like they are programmed/influenced by their parents in religious beliefs, racism, gender prejudices and politics too. None of them can rationally exercise independent judgement. They are there because their unhinged parents took them there.

That said, so is the original post. Human shields? Really, James, I expect better of you.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> That is most absurd thing I have heard all day. Pre-teens are impressionable and defer to the authority of their parents. Just like they are programmed/influenced by their parents in religious beliefs, racism, gender prejudices and politics too. None of them can rationally exercise independent judgement. They are there because their unhinged parents took them there.
> 
> That said, so is the original post. Human shields? Really, James, I expect better of you.


Do you? Really?
The guy claimed protesters brought essentially tanks to downtown Ottawa. Any voice of reason is gone. Canada is divided and now there is nothing but extremism - level-headed people are fringe minority. Just as Liberal Party wished in their platform


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

AltaRed said:


> That said, so is the original post. Human shields? Really, James, I expect better of you.


Yes, they did, as the Ottawa Police mentioned.

Human shields because the goal is to block police operations.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494718932212662284


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> That said, so is the original post. Human shields? Really, James, I expect better of you.


I will acknowledge that they may not be intending to use the children as literal "shields", but at times it really looks like it. The only possible alternative explanation would be that the parents are so delusional and mentally unbalanced, that they don't realize they are hiding behind the bodies of their children.

Two examples in the coverage so far. One was a 12 year old being held up, directly across from approaching police, where some of the police even had riot gear and equipment. Why was the 12 year old being held up? It's possible the protester was thinking "please think of the future of my child" but it really looks like a human shield.

Someone (Shotsbyhill on instagram) had footage showing people holding up a *baby* at the front line, against approaching police. Social media believes the baby is 2 months old, a girl named Sophia.

What else do you call a child being put at the front line of a confrontation against massive numbers of armed police?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I will acknowledge that they may not be intending to use the children as literal "shields", but at times it really looks like it. The only possible alternative explanation would be that the parents are so delusional and mentally unbalanced, that they don't realize they are hiding behind the bodies of their children.
> 
> Two examples in the coverage so far. One was a 12 year old being held up, directly across from approaching police, where some of the police even had riot gear and equipment. Why was the 12 year old being held up? It's possible the protester was thinking "please think of the future of my child" but it really looks like a human shield.
> 
> ...


You can't even bother posting the links so we can verify?
Seems kinda sus.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is no place in these kinds of protests for children. This is an occupation, not a Sunday march down Wellington in support of a cause where afterwards the family goes to DQ for an ice cream and then home. Parents who made those decisions to hole up with their children in downtown Ottawa for the long haul may wear that the rest of their lives. Clearly they will be judged by much of society for their poor judgement. I don't watch the video shite going on in Ottawa so have no real idea just how children are being presented to the press or law enforcement but there is no 'good' outcome no matter how it is done.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

james4beach said:


> I will acknowledge that they may not be intending to use the children as literal "shields"


I'm not sure I agree. I think the folks that brought minors knew that having a bunch of kids around would restrict what the police would be likely to do and made a calculated choice to bring their kids. It was not an accident than minor children were present in the occupation.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The children have been there from the beginning. Up until yesterday the "occupation" was pretty much one big party, with no violence, with music, bouncy castles, dancing. Hardly a threatening environment for children. 
Who knew there will be basic dictatorship introduced and police will turn violent?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

AltaRed said:


> None of them can rationally exercise independent judgement.


And this judgment better be based on what Canadian MSM feeds to Canadian, correct? Children must learn from their parents who provide for them, not from politicians who divide the country based on political nonsense.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> police will turn violent


The strategy used by the police to end this is the most peaceful there can be. They move very slowly, they keep saying that they have to leave, they never hurt anyone, they don't hit anyone, they give all the information and the operation may take up to 72h because they are in no rush and they don't want to see an escalation.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494738413555265541


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> Up until yesterday the "occupation" was pretty much one big party, with no violence, with music, bouncy castles, dancing.


It doesn't make it right.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Children must learn from their parents who provide for them


I'm pretty happy that some of my friends whose parents are drug addicts, prostitutes, criminals, conspiracy theorists, abusers, gamblers, racists didn't "learn from their parents who provide for them".


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> It doesn't make it right.


It has never been right. Protests are meant to be temporary inconveniences to those who have a need to live, work or shop in the specific area.

It becomes an occupation if goes beyond that calendar day and restricts the public from exercising their rights to work, play and shop in those public places. The trucks should have never been allowed off truck routes into the downtown to begin with as that is already against municipal bylaws. The Ottawa police chief had his head so far up a dark place that the sphincter was around his neck once he turned over the downtown to a wide range of occupants from the innocent to extremists. It became problematic as soon as the trucks took over the streets.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

MrBlackhill said:


> The strategy used by the police to end this is the most peaceful there can be. They move very slowly, they keep saying that they have to leave, they never hurt anyone, they don't hit anyone, they give all the information and the operation may take up to 72h because they are in no rush and they don't want to see an escalation.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494738413555265541













__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494859572133171200

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494895755349438466

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493662000592924676
Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The first and only acts of violence in this protest came from government. Of course, vast majority of police officers are doing a good job. There are couple of bad apples though so now any police man who is in the group is associated and supports abuse, beatings, kicking people on the grand and trampling disabled grandmothers.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm pretty happy that some of my friends whose parents are drug addicts, prostitutes, criminals, conspiracy theorists, abusers, gamblers didn't "learn from their parents who provide for them".


Parents are often the worst possible examples for raising their children.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm pretty happy that some of my friends whose parents are drug addicts, prostitutes, criminals, conspiracy theorists, abusers, gamblers, racists didn't "learn from their parents who provide for them".


We don’t get to choose parents. And must except who we got. Also I doubt that those you listed were providers, if kids relied on food banks and school breakfasts they don’t have to learn from those parents.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> Of course, vast majority of police officers are doing a good job. There are couple of bad apples


That's my point. The vast majority of police officers are doing a good job. And the main orders to them is to act peacefully. This is a huge operation and everything has been put in place to make it as peaceful as possible and as transparent as possible. Obviously, as you say, there are a couple of bad apples and I don't support their ways.

But the "protesters" who are standing their ground are ALL bad apples because they don't understand that they are not being part of a protest, they are being part of an illegal activity. And they've been told many, many times.

Again, I'm not against the right to protest. And I'm not against their cause. I'm against their ways, because they are illegal.

And I know you've been posting about other protests which have turned badly. I'm also against their ways.

I'm in favor of any protest, no matter the cause, as long as they are legal.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

If legality is the standard, we would have a problem with MLK Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, the 14th Dalai Lama, among others. Of course, some people do have a problem with one or more of these figures and everyone is entitled to their opinion. The bigger picture to me is not who is right or wrong here, but that volatility is on the menu in more ways than one.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm in favor of any protest, no matter the cause, as long as they are legal.


It's very clear that "legal" depends how politically convenient the protest is.


Who was arrested for this violent protest, including property damage?
Heck they even gave in to the terrorists demands.

















Pressure mounts for Ryerson University to change its name. What will it take for that to happen?


A Ryerson University task force reviewing the legacy of the school’s namesake said Monday it would not speed up its work despite calls for immediate action.




www.thestar.com






But in Ottawa we have people protesting something they disagree with, but without the violence, without the property damage, but for some reason it's illegal.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I'm in favor of any protest, no matter the cause, as long as they are legal.


As long as "your guy" gets to decide what ones are legal.

11 months in India, legal
a few weeks in Ottawa, illegal.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Exactly. You don't judge a protest by legality if the person who is being protested decides whether the protest is legal or not. That is ridiculous


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

This issue is not whether the protest is legal or illegal. The issue is how many Canadians support it. Obviously not enough, therefore the protesters must go home. 

They had 3 weeks to allow supporters to expand the protest. It did not happen. Time to go home. 

Their message was a good one, it was heard, and it will linger for the rest of the pandemic. Thank you. Now go home.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

OptsyEagle said:


> This issue is not whether the protest is legal or illegal. The issue is how many Canadians support it. Obviously not enough, therefore the protesters must go home.
> 
> They had 3 weeks to allow supporters to expand the protest. It did not happen. Time to go home.
> 
> Their message was a good one, it was heard, and it will linger for the rest of the pandemic. Thank you. Now go home.


That is also not a standard to use. This is precisely why human rights are inalienable. So that majority can't decide to abuse minority. Right to protest is a right. Standing in front of Parliament is the single best possible setting of a protest.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> As long as "your guy" gets to decide what ones are legal.


No, this makes no sense. The government isn't above the Supreme Court of Canada.

We have laws in Canada which have to be respected, no matter the government.

And we're in Canada, not in India, what's the point with the comparison with India?

The Canadian government is NOT above laws.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The Canadian government is above laws. The Section 1 of the charter pretty much assures that, given how slow legal system is in Canada, and if they don't even want to care about legal system, there is Section 33.
Canada has single worst human rights protection among developed countries. Only country with "notwithstanding" clause on human rights. It wasn't a problem for the masses, since mostly they weren't aware of it, but now that we have a government that incites division and breaks human rights - the sad reality comes to light.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> It's very clear that "legal" depends how politically convenient the protest is.
> 
> But in Ottawa we have people protesting something they disagree with, but without the violence, without the property damage, but for some reason it's illegal.


I find it amusing how the same people who cheer on authoritative actions against those who want freedom of choice for vaccines would likely also cheer on freedom of choice for abortion etc. Most people are sheep for whatever their party touts

Imagine if conservatives froze bank accounts because they perceived a protest demonstrated against something politically charged they disagree with. The left would set Ottawa on fire not bring hot tubs and bouncy castles


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

damian13ster said:


> Right to protest is a right. Standing in front of Parliament is the single best possible setting of a protest.











Peter MacKay and Vern White: What's happening in Ottawa is not freedom, it’s anarchy


What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest, but illegal activity that is a national security…




nationalpost.com







> The right of protest is integral to — and strengthens — our democracy. Citizens have the right to make their voices heard loud and clear every day and not just at the ballot box.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The current leadership of the CPC has revealed to the public who they really are and it will have long lasting effect.

They stand for mob rule by a group of anarchists, white supremacy racists, drunks, drug addicts, and low life criminals.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

People like @sags just conveniently turn a blind eye to protests from one side

They lack the ability of self awareness


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> You can't even bother posting the links so we can verify?
> Seems kinda sus.


 ... it's all over the news with pics on there.

In fact, one hooligan from the hill-billies was posing with 2 kids (age 6/8?) in front of him and his truck like a proud dad trying to prove that he's making an "honest living" ... in protesting against his government to which he pays his taxes to (and then his kids are gonna to pay their taxes to) ... unless they vote in Pollievre as PM of Canada whom they don't have to pay taxes then.

Another hoolie stated getting fined and arrested will be a "badge of honour" for his ... hear this .... grandkids ... grandpa fought for their lives so they don't have to pay taxes. LMAO.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> That's my point. The vast majority of police officers are doing a good job. And the main orders to them is to act peacefully. This is a huge operation and everything has been put in place to make it as peaceful as possible and as transparent as possible. Obviously, as you say, there are a couple of bad apples and I don't support their ways.
> 
> But the "protesters" who are standing their ground are ALL bad apples because they don't understand that they are not being part of a protest, they are being part of an illegal activity. And they've been told many, many times.
> 
> ...


 ... the Ottawa cops were far too lenient to the point seen as inept ... by residents of Ottawa!


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Yeah, border blockades and highway blockades are illegal. Under existing law. And there are means to deal with it. Ambassador bridge, coutts, emerson. all cleared without emergency powers and without violence 

Like Mr. Matt says. It is politically beneficial to break human rights, to inflame, divide,vilify, stigmatize, and abuse protesters on parliament hill.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

m3s said:


> I find it amusing how the same people who cheer on authoritative actions against those who want freedom of choice for vaccines would likely also cheer on freedom of choice for abortion etc. Most people are sheep for whatever their party touts
> 
> Imagine if conservatives froze bank accounts because they perceived a protest demonstrated against something politically charged they disagree with. The left would set Ottawa on fire not bring hot tubs and bouncy castles


 ... I also find it amazing for someone who works/worked(?) for the Feds in some military division has so much angst against it, like ready to chomp its head.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The repercussions from the failure of police action is going to shape future responses.

The Canadian public is shocked by the absence of police action....not by the use of too much of it.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> As long as "your guy" gets to decide what ones are legal.
> 
> 11 months in India, legal
> a few weeks in Ottawa, illegal.


 ... laughable ... how about you first vote your "guy/gal" in and let him/her play 'dictatorship' since that falls into your definition of what's legal.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

@Beaver101 is like a little yappy lapdog

Nonsense little chirps and then hides behind the sheep if anyone looks at them


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

m3s said:


> @Beaver101 is like a little yappy lapdog
> 
> Nonsense little chirps and then hides behind the sheep if anyone looks at them


 ... the truth must hurt so it's the name-calling tactic. 

Keep it up - and I'll really go yappy ... only I prefer not to be hp's (humble-pie) lapdog.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

m3s said:


> I find it amusing how the same people who cheer on authoritative actions against those who want freedom of choice for vaccines would likely also cheer on freedom of choice for abortion etc. Most people are sheep for whatever their party touts


So it's okay to be against abortion and also okay to have you 4 year old as a human shield.

Conservative logic baffles me.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The current leadership of the CPC has revealed to the public who they really are and it will have long lasting effect.
> 
> They stand for mob rule by a group of anarchists, white supremacy racists, drunks, drug addicts, and low life criminals.


I thought the CPC was planning to vote against the Liberal motion, not stand by them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The repercussions from the failure of police action is going to shape future responses.
> 
> The Canadian public is shocked by the absence of police action....not by the use of too much of it.


Canadian police in general don't handle protests/illegal protests well.

Look at the rail blockades, or Caledonia, or the Ryerson protests, or the terrorist attacks on pipelines out west (that happened *THIS WEEK*).


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

fstamand said:


> So it's okay to be against abortion and also okay to have you 4 year old as a human shield.
> 
> Conservative logic baffles me.


Like I said most people are sheep to their party. I didn't say either of those things

The logic of anyone who constantly knee jerks to one side is very poor


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Keep it up - and I'll really go yappy ...


Ok

Why are you on a forum about money but never discuss the money topics?

Did you stumble in here one day and got lost?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

damian13ster said:


> That is also not a standard to use. This is precisely why human rights are inalienable. So that majority can't decide to abuse minority. Right to protest is a right. Standing in front of Parliament is the single best possible setting of a protest.


But that is not the world anyone lives in. I was reading everyone referring to Gandi and MLK and their illegal protests and the support and success that came from them. I will add that the persecution of Apartheid, in South Africa, is also gone now mainly due to illegal protests. The common element in the success of illegal protests and the failure of others will always be determined by the number of people that support them.

I just wanted to point out that difference here. What is right and wrong will be told by the historians. The present requires democracy. I support the underlying message of the protesters. I just don't support their protest anymore. It is undemocratic at this stage. They have to go home.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

m3s said:


> Ok
> 
> Why are you on a forum about money but never discuss the money topics?


 ... first, what's it to you? Freedom of speech is okay for you but not for others who don't agree with your whinies.

And then here're the reasons (like I have to explain to you , remember this is an undemocratic country to you) of you either 1. don't (care to) look, 2. will be bored out your mind if you did, and 3. stucked preaching in the cryptocurrency business. I just posted in a Personal Loan thread.



> Did you stumble in here one day and got lost?


 .. sounds alot like you ... either this or trolling like you caught the bad bug circulating around here.

Btw, why don't you ask the same question of your fellow members damianster13 and HappilyRetired - why don't they post in the financial section? Selective and hypocritical much?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

OptsyEagle said:


> But that is not the world anyone lives in. I was reading everyone referring to Gandi and MLK and their illegal protests and the support and success that came from them. I will add that the persecution of Apartheid, in South Africa, is also gone now mainly due to illegal protests. The common element in the success of illegal protests and the failure of others will always be determined by the number of people that support them.
> 
> I just wanted to point out that difference here. What is right and wrong will be told by the historians. The present requires democracy. I support the underlying message of the protesters. I just don't support their protest anymore. It is undemocratic at this stage. They have to go home.











The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world


Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.




www.bbc.com





All it takes is 3.5%. They just need to be willing to do more than sit behind keyboards. You do not need > 50% to successfully defeat authoritarianism and human rights abuse.

The findings also show that nonviolent protests have much higher rate of success. And this is precisely why Trudeau works so hard to make the situation as inflamed and as violent as possible.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

The markets and investing cannot be properly understood without some political and/or philosophical insight. If you buy an oil company, your investment will largely be under the control of global sentiment toward fossil fuels. The winds of change blow strong on the markets.

Trading is exclusively affected by politics and sentiment. This doesn't matter to me, as I could care less about trading, but it is a legitimate concern for a lot of forum members.

That leaves us with some unsavory conversations and a lot of acrymony. There is simply no other way. I would contend, this is a good thing but it is also clearly beyond the ability of a lot of people to deal with.

For what it's worth, I appreciate the folks who control the site for letting the fires burn, at least a bit.

A good strategy for dealing with flame wars like this is to have your son or daughter post something inflammatory before you do, drawing some of the fire from your posts.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

damian13ster said:


> The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world
> 
> 
> Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
> ...


That I will agree on but that did not happen and they knew that by the first weekend. The 2nd weekend yelled it loudly to anyone who has any understanding of how protests can ever work.

Again, their protest was not useless by any measure. It was a message that needed to be sent. They did it well and admirably on the first weekend. After that they lost more then they could gain. 

That is my point.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

OptsyEagle said:


> That I will agree on but that did not happen and they knew that by the first weekend. The 2nd weekend yelled it loudly to anyone who has any understanding of how protests can ever work.
> 
> Again, their protest was not useless by any measure. It was a message that needed to be sent. They did it well and admirably on the first weekend. After that they lost more then they could gain.
> 
> That is my point.


I don't see how they lost more than they could have gained if you believe they had nothing to gain.
At least now the world knows that Trudeau is petty dictator. Revealing that is valuable


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

TomB16 said:


> A good strategy for dealing with flame wars like this is to have your son or daughter post something inflammatory before you do, drawing some of the fire from your posts.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

damian13ster said:


> I don't see how they lost more than they could have gained if you believe they had nothing to gain.
> At least now the world knows that Trudeau is petty dictator. Revealing that is valuable


Read it again. 

What I said was:
They gained a tremendous amount on the 1st weekend and when it was identified that not enough Canadians were going to join them in support, it all went downhill for the protesters after that by stubbornly maintaining their protest.

If it was better organized it could have worked out a little bit better but their demands were never going to happen directly, in any case. They should have known that as well. I suspect a few had delusions of different outcomes but they were delusions.

Anyway, it is difficult to stand on the side of both support and unsupport, and not confuse everyone along the way, so I will leave the rest of this debate with you all. Good luck. Stay safe.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

True.
Ultimately, knowing that state has unlimited power and Canada has weakest human rights protection among developed countries the question simply remained:

Is it worth to potentially sacrifice your freedom, economic security, an health to stand up to dictatorship, even if unsuccessfuly, or not.

And the question is purely ideological one so obviously answers will be different for everybody.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Those charged with criminal offenses will have a criminal record entered on CPIC, regardless of conviction or other resolution of the charges.

CPIC records are shared with the US border and a criminal record prohibits travel to the US unless the person previously obtains a waiver.

I suspect the people being arrested haven't given much thought to the long term consequences of a permanent criminal record.

I know people who 20 years after they got a criminal record for a minor incident were turned away at the US border on a family trip to Disneyland.

It happens every day and the US border patrol doesn't care if we think it is fair or not.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Or they did, just believe fighting authoritarianism is more important than inconvenience that comes with it


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The number of arrests has increased as the remaining hundred or so people are refusing to leave and fighting with the police.

The consequences of criminal charges are much more than an "inconvenience".

It will make it more difficult for them for them getting a job, traveling or moving to the US and many other countries, getting a rental unit.

They know not what they do and will regret it when they find out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting there is still one outstanding member of the organizers not arrested yet.

He told the mob to "hold the line" and then drove away before the other organizers were arrested.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> ...
> The consequences of criminal charges are much more than an "inconvenience".
> 
> It will make it more difficult for them for them getting a job, traveling or moving to the US and many other countries, getting a rental unit.
> ...


You know, they'll simply blame their criminal records on Trudeau stating if he had listened to them there wouldn't have been so much trouble. Government by mob rule.

Don't take the Right Wingers on this forum too seriously. Unless one or more of them outrightly state that I am wrong, I don't think they really want a January 6th-like armed insurrection to over turn our government or even to hold another early election that nobody wants.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

All kudos to James4B who has posted numerous times in the past that Canada is not exempt from domestic terrorism.

The question for Canadians now is what do we do about it. No doubt the concept of protesting will have to follow a prescribed legal format.

There is no doubt It will involve legal permits in prescribed areas only. Canadians aren't going to put up with this type of scenario again.

It will also be up to the police and courts to make examples of those who break the laws.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> There is no doubt It will involve legal permits in prescribed areas only. Canadians aren't going to put up with this type of scenario again.
> 
> It will also be up to the police and courts to make examples of those who break the laws.


People want anyone who disagree with their political ideology to be criminalized for setting up a hot tub and bouncy castles. Yet ignore violent protests happening at the same time

"Attackers disabled lighting and video-surveillance equipment during their raid on a remote Coastal GasLink work site in northwestern B.C. and commandeered heavy equipment to inflict damage estimated to be in the millions of dollars, the company said Friday"

Nothing to see here


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Tostig said:


> You know, they'll simply blame their criminal records on Trudeau stating if he had listened to them there wouldn't have been so much trouble. Government by mob rule.
> 
> Don't take the Right Wingers on this forum too seriously. Unless one or more of them outrightly state that I am wrong, I don't think they really want a January 6th-like armed insurrection to over turn our government or even to hold another early election that nobody wants.


The Jan 6 trespassers weren't armed. The FBI stated that a long time ago. You're either lying or misinformed.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

HappilyRetired said:


> The Jan 6 trespassers weren't armed.











Yes, Capitol Rioters Were Armed. Here Are The Weapons Prosecutors Say They Used


An NPR review of federal charges against people involved in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot shows they were armed with a wide variety of weapons, contradicting a false claim that rioters were not armed.




www.npr.org






> Yes, Capitol Rioters Were Armed. Here Are The Weapons Prosecutors Say They Used


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Tostig called it an "armed insurrection". I guess they could have clarified and said that walking around waving flagpole is considered to be an armed insurrection by some people. Or that people who never even entered the Capital building are included with those who entered.

And then we have that steaming pile of BS from NPR who said that the coincidental unrelated death of Sidnick of a stroke the NEXT DAY was related to the event. But they ignored that and said this: "Sicknick died on Jan. 7, but officials have not yet made public details about the exact cause of his death." NBC, CBS, CNN and others all said he died of natural causes following a stroke. Nice "journalism" NPR. 

There are several more inaccuracies, vague claims, and unproven allegations in that article but I can't be bothered to waste my time pointing them out.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

HappilyRetired said:


> The Jan 6 trespassers weren't armed. The FBI stated that a long time ago. You're either lying or misinformed.


I'm guessing you would not want the January 6th incidence to occur in Canada either. Or would you?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Tostig said:


> I'm guessing you would not want the January 6th incidence to occur in Canada either. Or would you?


I wouldn't want it to happen. But I also wouldn't want the government to keep some people that merely trespassed in jail for an entire year to punish them because they backed the wrong party.

Bases on Trudeau's recent actions, I certainly hope that people that should have been given parking tickets aren't put in jail for a year under highly exaggerated charges. He's petty enough to do it.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

HappilyRetired said:


> I wouldn't want it to happen. ...


Good.

The rest is just noise and bravado.


----------



## wayward__son (Nov 20, 2017)

We storm the Bastille or we leave to eat cake apparently


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I wish to point out that I didn't see much in the way of violence out of the freedom rally. I will rally against a government crack down on rallies. We need to be able to protest to preserve the integrity of the democracy.

Someone's fear of violence must not infringe on the right to demonstration.

I can't say I'm happy about the account freezing tactic, however.

Having said that, the rally had plenty of time to make itself heard. They even managed to shut down a significant amount of commerce for a while. That will hurt a ton of people. I imagine rally goers are pleased with that aspect, since that was the entire purpose of shutting down the border.

Overall, I'm happy people were allowed to demonstrate and I'm happy the government moved in to restore trade and traffic. It seems like a reasonable compromise that would not have been allowed in Nazi Germany so that analog is ridiculous.

And conspiracy guys, keep in mind the government has an obligation to defend the rights of workers and companies, also. Who is going to compensate the people who were laid off in the border shut down? Probably no one.

As for the human shield accusations, I don't see anything wrong with bringing a child to a demonstration, as long as it has a high chance of being peaceful. This one was marginal but I don't read any reports of dead or injured children. It wasn't a great parenting decision but I've seen worse. The wish to shield children from life is a philosophical point of view, not an objectively correct position.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Tostig said:


> Good.
> 
> The rest is just noise and bravado.


Don't mind him. He's so hell bent on CBC's "all fake news" that apparently his made up stories are the real stuff.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The rioters and their financial supporters will be held to account, as they should be.

Criminals are always sorry when forced to face the consequences of their actions.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You can't even bother posting the links so we can verify?
> Seems kinda sus.


There's been video of it in the coverage. Here's one example, source:

A few seconds into the timestamp I linked to, you see the perspective from inside the crowd, with the line of police approaching. There is a woman with a young child in a stroller and what looks like a second child walking beside her. She's moving away from police.

There are your human shields. That woman was located at the front line of the protest, with oncoming police. Really disgusting.

Keep in mind this is after the police action began (the round-up), as police as also blaring warnings that you must leave or will be arrested.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

If the police were to attack this woman and her children with clubs, that would be disgusting.

From what I can tell, police did a great job handling the situation.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I'd like to point out that any time you have a group of thousands of people, you have some bad actors who need to be arrested and beaten with clubs. It could be a football game and it holds true. It is basic statistics.

This should not stop people from protesting, as long as they are peaceful.

In the case of the freedom rally, law enforcement also needed to take into account the rights and safety of Ottawa residents and also the workers affected by the border blockades.

Gotta say, diffusing that bomb was no small feat. I don't criticize law enforcement at all. That's odd because I normally do. Lol.

Kudos to the boys in blue.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> Don't mind him. He's so hell bent on CBC's "all fake news" that apparently his made up stories are the real stuff.


Oh, you think that CBC is accurate and unbiased?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

HappilyRetired said:


> Oh, you think that CBC is accurate and unbiased?


The police themselves said that children were inappropriately being put at the front lines. The media (like the CBC footage I posted above) only confirms it.

Aren't you one of these right wing guys who's all about the police, Blue Lives Matter, and law & order?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

james4beach said:


> The police themselves said that children were inappropriately being put at the front lines.


Police saying something doesn't make it fact. Being a sworn member does not make their opinions any more valid than anyone else.

Also, the term "front lines" is decidedly inflammatory.

How are we going to have a civil discussion as a nation if people on both sides are pouring gas on the fire?

Nobody's account was "seized". This wasn't a war. These people had a legitimate beef. Unfortunately for them, they are a minority and will not be given control of the situation. I oppose the rally but I'm glad they had the opportunity to make themselves heard.

On the other hand, I still don't know what the rally was about. It started as anti-vaccine and border testing for truckers. It evolved into something that I think was little more than venting of frustration. Maybe that was a worthwhile purpose, assuming that was the driver?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The organizers made their demands clear in public.

They demanded the immediate resignation of the government and would replace them with their own chosen government.

Any discussions with people holding that agenda would serve only to give them the public exposure and legitimacy.

No political leader, especially the PM of Canada should ever meet or negotiate with anarchists.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

sags said:


> They demanded the immediate resignation of the government and would replace them with their own chosen government.


I don't view that as the demands of the entire group and its supporters. If that were the case, I would be ok mowing them down in a hail of bullets.

On the other hand, such demands are symbolic of mental illness. I'm not against a severe response to terrorism, I just don't think anger solves anger.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> Also, the term "front lines" is decidedly inflammatory.


It's not inflammatory, it's a technical description. When the police began to clean up the illegal occupation, they formed rows of police, and approached (in a tightly spaced line) towards the people disregarding the law.

This creates a point where people clash: where the front line of the police meets the lawbreakers.

And that spot is where children were seen, as in that footage I posted. It's probably the most dangerous place imaginable. When I watched the video again, I actually noticed one more child. There's the young child in the stroller, plus two children walking beside the woman. The approaching line of police are just a few feet away.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

TomB16 said:


> On the other hand, such demands are symbolic of mental illness. I'm not against a severe response to terrorism, I just don't think anger solves anger.


It's kind of hard to separate mental illness from terrorism. Many terrorists and extremists have some kind of a mental problem.

I think it's fair to describe some of the groups who organized this whole thing as domestic terrorists. They even set up a command center and kept releasing videos with threats and ultimatums. However, this doesn't describe all protesters... what's so messy here is that MANY types of protesters existed.

I agree with @TomB16 that many people here had legitimate protest demands, and weren't trying to anything crazy like overthrow the government.

But many of the organizers and people in charge of money were anti-government extremists, and that's a big deal.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I know a lot of people who are anti-vaccine, anti-government, covid deniers. Yes, I am aware they have a myopic view that is miles from objectivity.

Despite the difference of opinion, I can still be friends with them. If I knew they were trying to violently overthrow the government, I could not be friends with them.

There are a ton of anti-vaxers who are also Canadians. People with emotional strength are able to listen, as well as talk. Listening to someone is not the same as agreeing with them.

Also, there is no way the entire freedom convoy wants to overthrow the Canadian government. That is also a myopic regime.

I'm anti-Rally and I'd like Quebec to secede from Canada but that doesn't mean everyone who is against the rally stands for pushing Quebec off the labrador shelf and watching the province sink into the Atlantic like a giant accent grave.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

sags said:


> The rioters will be held to account, as they should be.





TomB16 said:


> I'm anti-Rally and I'd like Quebec to secede from Canada but that doesn't mean everyone who is against the rally stands for pushing Quebec off the labrador shelf and watching the province sink into the Atlantic like a giant accent grave.


Great another xenophobe.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

damian13ster said:


> View attachment 22830
> 
> 
> 
> Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The first and only acts of violence in this protest came from government. Of course, vast majority of police officers are doing a good job. There are couple of bad apples though so now any police man who is in the group is associated and supports abuse, beatings, kicking people on the grand and trampling disabled grandmothers.


For the record, despite this useless thread rambling on, that pic has been totally discredited by at least 3 different videos of the incident. This appears to be the work of a right wing columnist, Joe Warmington, of the Toronto Sun (among others most likely). It was taken after the man in the brown coat backed into the horses. He fell...lol and there was no trampling. Both the man and woman got back up and continued their protesting. Amazing how people can be suckered into material that needs to be fact checked first.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> That pic has been totally discredited by at least 3 different videos of the incident. This appears to be the work of a right wing columnist, Joe Warmington, of the Toronto Sun (among others most likely). It was taken after the man in the brown coat backed into the horses. He fell...lol and there was no trampling. Both the man and woman got back up and continued their protesting. Amazing how people can be suckered into material that needs to be fact checked first.


Fake news from right wing media? Blasphemy 😇


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> For the record, despite this useless thread rambling on, that pic has been totally discredited by at least 3 different videos of the incident. This appears to be the work of a right wing columnist, Joe Warmington, of the Toronto Sun (among others most likely). It was taken after the man in the brown coat backed into the horses. He fell...lol and there was no trampling. Both the man and woman got back up and continued their protesting. Amazing how people can be suckered into material that needs to be fact checked first.


The woman is in hospital with dislocated shoulder - supposedly. And there are multiple videos of the incident. Unless they all were framed as well, which I guess is a possibility in 21st century, then the picture is legit.

Maybe you seen different videos. Maybe there is one that saw the old lady charging at the police or chasing after horses?
Every single one I have seen has her standing, stationary, in one place, in front of a police line, and then being run over/pushed to the ground/trampled (whatever you prefer) by police


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I saw 3 different videos of the incident. None of them showed the woman knocked or pushed over from her scooter but they did show the man in the brown coat backing into the horses. Those who know mobility scooters know they are top heavy due to weight of the individual and easily tipped. There is no report of a woman going to hospital for a dislocated shoulder. There is a report of a woman going to hospital for a heart condition. 

Even Sara Carter of Fox News walked her sensational story back this afternoon.

I don't think that anyone of substance is saying the picture is not legit. It was presented in the wrong context and sensationalized with fake commentary. No one was trampled.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> I saw 3 different videos of the incident. None of them showed the woman falling (or pushed over) from her scooter but they did show the man in the brown coat backing into the horses.
> 
> There is no report of a woman going to hospital for a dislocated shoulder. There is a report of a woman going to hospital for a heart condition. Even Sara Carter of Fox News walked her sensational story back this afternoon.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494872458075148288
Now, the news are sketchy sadly because honest journalism is just about dead so who knows whether reports are true or not (sadly, same can be said about main stream media and Ottawa Police account)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1495217451235217408








Critical Update on Disabled Woman Reported ‘Dead’ After Being Trampled by a Horse at Freedom Convoy Protest | The Paradise News


The disabled woman reported by some journalsits to have been killed in a Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa after a police horse trampled her is fortunately




theparadise.ng


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I am sure Paradise News out of Nigeria is trustworthy.

BTW1 - It is entirely possible the man in the brown coat is the one who actually knocked her over, not the horses.

BTW2 - I agree the police story is nonsense too of course... It was not a bicycle thrown at the horse

It certainly was not a trampling but indicative of people believing what they want to believe without fact checking.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> I am sure Paradise News out of Nigeria is trustworthy.
> 
> BTW1 - It is entirely possible the man in the brown coat is the one who actually knocked her over, not the horses.
> 
> ...


I don't know. Looks like horses were going in pairs, between a line of police and protesters. And then one jackass tried to become a third in line and ended up pushing both the man in brown and the elderly woman.
You can clearly see it in 34s of the video. He ran over the woman with a horse. Intentionally? Can never determine that. But if it wasn't intentional then it was pure incompetence and frankly not giving a **** whether you hurt someone or not.

Maybe the photo in hospital is staged, or maybe not. Without going yourself there is no way to verify. There are reports though from multiple sources, including family and friends of the woman. You can deny them, think they are fake; however, saying that there is no report of the woman going to hospital is clearly false.


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

joining this thread a little late.. but you know what I think is child abuse? Kids sports being cancelled for the last year (keep in mind the over paid maple leafs and raptors and all other pro sports team get to continue playing, heaven forbid we cant watch sports) so if you want to talk about human shields YES it is wrong to use kids as human shields, as it was wrong to shut them out of their schools and sports to keep them locked up for the last two years..

So peaceful protesters bringing their kids to ottawa for a few weeks was wrong? Well my kids have been forced to stay home from school on and off for the LAST TWO YEARS, whats the difference????...so please dont tell me these people in ottawa are some form of child abusers, as it is evident its the government in Ottawa who is the one doing the child abuse!


----------



## The Black Wizard (May 16, 2017)

james4beach said:


> One of the things that's shocked me the most about these radicals occupying Ottawa, is how they are using their own children as human shields. There's even footage of some of them holding up children towards police.
> 
> I think it's child abuse in so many ways. First, to hold them in that dangerous environment for weeks. Next to leave them in harm's way after police clearly communicated that their presence is illegal.
> 
> ...


Agree with the convoy or disagree with them but please get your facts straight. If you are going to accuse them of using kids as human shields and others accuse them of violence I expect to see video evidence of it. I have seen none, anywhere. I actually believe that the Ottawa police account is propaganda and is quite dishonest. If you have been watching legacy media they aren't telling the truth, try watching live streams online. I'm black and watched the BLM protests in 2020 and they were violent. They tore down statues and instigated actual violence in the US they burned buildings down. But all I hear is how violent the convoy is....so I call BS. The prime minister refused to meet and talk with the truckers. They aren't terrorists, supremacists they are Canadian citizens and their voices deserve to heard especially on an issue that impacts their livelihoods like mandatory vaccines. Trudeau said he won't meet with them because he doesn't agree with them but had no problem meeting BLM and kneeling. Poor leadership, a leader leads the entire country not a specific group. 

Do you own research. If people can't figure out what is truth vs propaganda than they would make poor investors as they can't establish actual facts. 

Agree with me disagree with me but if you to recite that they are violent or using children as shields from the media without actual evidence of such, you aren't paying attention to what's actually happening.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)




----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Also, there are kids in about 25% of the trucks. How do you deal with the police operation to remove the trucks when there are kids inside? There may be parents inside refusing to get out and police having to break their windows while a kid is inside? Or maybe they leave the kids alone in "safety" in the truck with doors locked while the police operation is ongoing to tow those trucks so that the police has to deal with kids left alone in trucks?

Human shields in the sense that they are using their kids to block police operations. And as soon as the police will be taking action to take a kid to safety, some protesters will post a video claiming the police is being aggressive towards a kid.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

What's this kid with a red toque doing in the front line of the operation?

I'd have to find the original audio, but I guess the police officer is talking to the woman about the kid.











http://imgur.com/a/kCWFkik


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I wonder how many people decry children standing up for their rights thought it was okay for the green movement to take advantage of a mentally ill teenager as a spokesperson?


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> I wonder how many people decry children standing up for their rights thought it was okay for the green movement to take advantage of a mentally ill teenager as a spokesperson?


@MrMatt You know this counter argument doesn't hold. No matter the cause, no matter if you are left or right, you don't leave kids in the middle of a police operation. You don't leave kids in the middle of an illegal activity.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> @MrMatt You know this counter argument doesn't hold. No matter the cause, no matter if you are left or right, you don't leave kids in the middle of a police operation. You don't leave kids in the middle of an illegal activity.


 ... gotta fortify the army of low-lifers and their followers, you know. Having kids is a cost so gotta make use of that cost.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Only a low life would support bringing kids to a violent protest.

CMF poster low lifes.......I command you to reveal yourselves.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

That kid is as tall as all the adults around it. You think she is not aware of what the protests are about?
Not sure what kind of kids you want to raise, but if teenagers are aware of human rights, and active in civics enough to choose to go and demonstrate against breaking them then how is that a bad thing?

Again, the only people that ended up in hospitals so far in 3 weeks were ones moved down by far-left nutjob in a car, and victims of police brutality/incompetence.

Not a single person got physically hurt by protesters, and if there was one, then the media and Ottawa Police propaganda would jump on it and you would never stop hearing about it


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> That kid is as tall as all the adults around it. You think she is not aware of what the protests are about?
> Not sure what kind of kids you want to raise, but if teenagers are aware of human rights, and active in civics enough to choose to go and demonstrate against breaking them then how is that a bad thing?
> 
> Again, the only people that ended up in hospitals so far in 3 weeks were ones moved down by far-left nutjob in a car, and victims of police brutality/incompetence.
> ...


 ... you're an assinined joke. If you had a kid brother, a legal minor, do you want him to participate in this kind of thing? Yes, says the brain-washing machine.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> @MrMatt You know this counter argument doesn't hold. No matter the cause, no matter if you are left or right, you don't leave kids in the middle of a police operation. You don't leave kids in the middle of an illegal activity.


The only reason the Ottawa protest was declared illegal is Trudeau saw a political advantage.
There have been hundred of protests, that were larger or more violent that weren't declared illegal.

I agree, the protestors should have gone home. But Trudeau should have tried to meet with protest leaders and understand why so many Canadians don't agree with him, and are willing to spend millions in order to show up and physically say so.

it's important to note that this protest pulled in more donations than the Liberal party did last quarter. (3rd quarter, not sure if 4th quarter numbers are out)








Liberal movement achieves new record for quarterly grassroots fundraising support | Liberal Party of Canada


Ottawa, ON - The Liberal Party of Canada achieved the strongest quarterly fundraising results in its history in the third quarter of 2021, with 57,146 Canadians contributing $7,648,138 to support Justin Trudeau and the Liberal team’s successful 2021 campaign to keep Canada moving forward.




liberal.ca


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Only a low life would support bringing kids to a violent protest.
> 
> CMF poster low lifes.......I command you to reveal yourselves.


Only a low life would accuse Jews of supporting Nazis, and then walk away when pressed for an apology.

Also, where was the violence? Just asking because it looks like the ones using force are the police, and the the protestors are simply resisting. It's called civil disobedience.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> The only reason the Ottawa protest was declared illegal is Trudeau saw a political advantage.


That is just your opinion.



MrMatt said:


> There have been hundred of protests, that were larger or more violent that weren't declared illegal.


Maybe because those protests themselves weren't illegal, but the actions from the protesters were illegal (violence). I don't know. Anyways, protests are declared illegal based on the application of law, not on political aspirations. I've also seen left-wing peaceful protests declared illegal instantaneously simply because the organisers didn't provide the plan, the path that the protesters would take while walking the streets. It's simply the application of the law.

And it's not because you haven't seen active violence that this isn't a passive aggressive protest with lots of damage: access to infrastructures was blocked, commerces had to close, commercial routes were blocked.

No wonder why there's a class action lawsuit suing convoy organizers, donors, truckers for *$306 million*. That's a lot of damage.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> And it's not because you haven't seen active violence that this isn't a passive aggressive protest with lots of damage: access to infrastructures was blocked, commerces had to close, commercial routes were blocked.


I never said it wasn't passive aggressive.

Someone claimed it was a violent protest. I pointed out there have been almost no reported instanced of protestor violence.
Soemone claimed it was an isurrection. I pointed out that nobody has shown any evidence of illegal or forced entry.

Quite simply most of the verifiable claims about the protestors have turned out to be false or at least no supported.

1. that the desecrated statues, no evidence
2 That they were racist, no evidence
- There were some people waving racist flags, both protestor leaders, protestors and others asked them to leave.
3. That it was an insurrection attempt. No evidence
4. That they were violent. not much evidence.
5. That it was too dangerous for government officials to meet or negotiate with them. Provably false.

Now I'm not going to defend all their actions, or even their actual objectives. But a lot of the attacks being leveled at them seem not to be true, or they seem not to be supported by the evidence presented.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

^Says the Mr. Passive Aggressive king of CMF.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Black Wizard said:


> Agree with the convoy or disagree with them but please get your facts straight. If you are going to accuse them of using kids as human shields and others accuse them of violence I expect to see video evidence of it.


I posted it and so did @MrBlackhill


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

fstamand said:


> Great another xenophobe.


Until the federal government stops sending fully half of Canadian tax revenue to a province that has just under one third of the Canadian population, I am going to use you as a human shield.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Zipper said:


> ^Says the Mr. Passive Aggressive king of CMF.


 ... this is a new one to me.  He's already known as a spin-master in my books.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> The only reason the Ottawa protest was declared illegal is Trudeau saw a political advantage.


What nonsense and you know why it was declared illegal. It certainly wasn't Trudeau who declared it. It was Ottawa Police, and soon after, the province, which said it's illegal.

Canadians have the right to protest, but gatherings which "seriously disturb the peace" are not legal. This is written into the law.

Let's recap:

On *February 6*, Ottawa declared a state of emergency. The protests had grown to become unlawful in quite a few ways already by this point, including blocking streets and occupying the downtown center and blocking government buildings. It was causing severe disruption to Ottawa. This was absolutely disturbing the peace, meaning it's not a legal protest. Police were already overwhelmed with investigations into mischief, hate crimes, property damage, and other violations. Streets were blocked and people wouldn't move vehicles. All of this is illegal... you know, that "law & order" thing that Conservatives pretend they admire?

By *February 7*, Ottawa Police had clearly communicated that the protest is unlawful activity, and this is also when GoFundMe shut down, which was *due to reports from Ottawa police*. At this point in time, the police were clearly telling the protesters that this was unlawful and they must leave and go home.

From February 7, any people participating in and contributing to the Ottawa and border events were clearly participating in illegal activity. This is when a couple people at CMF got banned, one of them for promoting fundraising for the illegal effort.

A few days later, *February 11*, the Conservative Premier of Ontario declared a provincial state of emergency. He described the gatherings as illegal occupations. The reason this was escalated was the occupation of Ottawa (completely overwhelming law and order in the city) combined with multiple border disruptions, which started to hurt the flow of goods, stopping trade with the US.

Then on *February 14*, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, lending support to provincial and city resources. The province was unable to deal with the event, and needed more resources. Plus with events in Alberta at another US border crossing, the extremist behaviour (which was coordinated and foreign funded) was now causing disruption in multiple locations across the country.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Offend the regime by speaking your mind and you'll pay the price.

The good news is that maybe enough people have finally woken up. And that scares leftists everywhere. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook ban anyone who dares to ask valid questions about Covid. Many forums are banning people for having inconvenient opinions that don't coincide with The Agenda.

The left sees their totalitarian power grab slipping away and they can't do anything about it. They can't put everyone in jail. They can't freeze every bank account. They can't fire everyone who thinks differently.

Maybe one day those who demanded that protestors be jailed without due process and their lives ruined will be the ones held accountable.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> What nonsense and you know why it was declared illegal. It certainly wasn't Trudeau who declared it. It was Ottawa Police, and soon after, the province, which said it's illegal.
> 
> Canadians have the right to protest, but gatherings which "seriously disturb the peace" are not legal. This is written into the law.
> 
> ...


*Feb 13* Ontario clears the border blockade without the Emergencies Act, by using existing laws.



> Then on *February 14*, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act, lending support to provincial and city resources. The province was unable to deal with the event, and needed more resources. Plus with events in Alberta at another US border crossing, the extremist behaviour (which was coordinated and foreign funded) was now causing disruption in multiple locations across the country.


The reason Ottawa wasn't cleared was
1. Canadian Police tend to let protests end on their own, they almost never forcibly stop protests.
2. I think Trudeau wanted to invoke the emergencies act to attack political opponents, the justice minister said so.

I think all the major protests were winding up or already cleared when they invoked the Emergencies act, except Ottawa. Where the Mayor was able to successfully negotiate, and the Police Chief resigned. I wonder if he resigned because of political pressure to act in a certain way? 

Trudeau has been trying to grab more power for years, he saw an opportunity, he took it.


FYI, even today the actual charges being laid in Ottawa are existing public order charges, it's not an emergency, never was.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Alberta to challenge use of Emergencies Act after asking for federal help to deal with Coutts protest

Above article is behind a paywall but title says it all - a moron for a premier. Glad it's not for Ontarians.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

It was predictable too.
Article from 2014:








Why Canada Will Become a Dictatorship Under Trudeau


The leader of that party does what he wants, when he wants, and no one dares question him. Would a Prime Minister Trudeau arbitrarily whip the vote and outlaw certain moral questions? Could Prime Minister Trudeau be trusted to make decisions for the good of the country, not just for his personal...




www.huffpost.com


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> *Feb 13* Ontario clears the border blockade without the Emergencies Act, by using existing laws


While other border blockades appeared, and around this time, a cache of weapons was seized in Alberta, and some people tried to kill RCMP officers.

That showed coordinated actions, continued threats to border crossings and to police. The border crossings continued to be under threat even after one was cleared. The OPP and RCMP were unable to handle their respective areas.

If things had been brought under control by Feb 13, I would agree that federal powers are unnecessary. But clearly, police nation-wide were unable to contain the event.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> While other border blockades appeared, and around this time, a cache of weapons was seized in Alberta, and some people tried to kill RCMP officers.
> 
> That showed coordinated actions, continued threats to border crossings and to police. The border crossings continued to be under threat even after one was cleared. The OPP and RCMP were unable to handle their respective areas.
> 
> If things had been brought under control by Feb 13, I would agree that federal powers are unnecessary. But clearly, police nation-wide were unable to contain the event.


The vote is today. What exactly is the emergency today that needs suspension of democracy?
Cars parked 100km away from Ottawa?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Emergency Act was confirmed hours ago by a free vote in Parliament. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.

The Conservatives voted against Canadians and democracy and supported the anarchists by joining with the separatists.

Not a good day for the traditionally honorable and rightfully proud Conservative legacy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> While other border blockades appeared, and around this time, a cache of weapons was seized in Alberta, and some people tried to kill RCMP officers.
> 
> That showed coordinated actions, continued threats to border crossings and to police. The border crossings continued to be under threat even after one was cleared. The OPP and RCMP were unable to handle their respective areas.
> 
> If things had been brought under control by Feb 13, I would agree that federal powers are unnecessary. But clearly, police nation-wide were unable to contain the event.


I heard some weapons were seized, but never heard about attempts to kill RCMP officers. 
Care to support that?
I disapprove of uttering threats, but I didn't see anyone trying to kill anyone.

Similarly I never heard that the OPP was unable to handle the border crossings. Care to support that?

I wonder if people notice you often make claims without supporting evidence, or you'll extrapolate 

The only place that seems unable to control itself is Ottawa. 
I would suggest that since everywhere else was able to handle the situation, and the mayor was able to negotiate with them, The problem was with the Feds.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Emergency Act was confirmed hours ago by a free vote in Parliament. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.
> 
> The Conservatives voted against Canadians and democracy and supported the anarchists by joining with the separatists.
> 
> Not a good day for the traditionally honorable and rightfully proud Conservative legacy.


The NDP voted to give more power to someone they said was a failed leader, and who's failed leadership contributed to this problem.

They don't need the Emergencies Act to clean this up.

Also, why do you keep calling it the Emergency Act? Just a pet peeve, but it's kind of odd.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ But it's there in case the hilly-billies return. Not just Ottawa but attempting elsewhere encampment.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_They don't need the Emergencies Act to clean this up.

Also, why do you keep calling it the Emergency Act? Just a pet peeve, but it's kind of odd. _

The Emergency Act would cover multiple emergencies. At least that is the English I was taught.

I might send an email to Justin and get him to fix that redundancy error by the Harper Conservatives, when he isn't busy quelling resurrections of course.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Drone footage shows 125 vehicles, many of the big rigs that left Ottawa, massing together on a farm 100 kms north of Ottawa.

The insurrectionists don't appear to have surrendered yet. They are gathering in clusters in various locations. They are being watched closely.

One wonders who is directing and financing their activities. Law enforcement now have the resources to find out thanks to the enacted anti-terrorism law.

Tamara Lich was denied bail and will be held in custody until her trial likely in about 9 months to a year unless she pleads guilty.

It was predictable because of the crazy stories she and her husband told the judge.

Maybe when the truckers hear the news about Lich, they will decide they best go back home while they still can.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I don't understand why people follow fruitcakes like Tamara Lich. I've seen it. Someone with kooky ideas grabs a megaphone and the next thing you know, a bunch of people are carrying signs with demands to remove the letter "Q" from the English language.

Bad ideas seem to be received better than good ones, sometimes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> *Drone footage shows 125 vehicles, many of the big rigs that left Ottawa, massing together on a farm 100 kms north of Ottawa.
> 
> The insurrectionists don't appear to have surrendered yet.*
> 
> ...


 ... I'm guessing these hilly-billies don't have jobs to attend to - after a 3 weeks cross-country vacation. Now what with their leaders disappearing one by one? Who's gonna to be the next Jim Jones of Peoples Temple Barn?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

TomB16 said:


> I don't understand why people follow fruitcakes like Tamara Lich. I've seen it. Someone with kooky ideas grabs a megaphone and the next thing you know, a bunch of people are carrying signs with demands to remove the letter "Q" from the English language.
> 
> Bad ideas seem to be received better than good ones, sometimes.


If you think that's bad, just wait until you find out that 31% of Canada willingly voted for a dictator that imprisons people who disagree with him.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

It's starting to look like the alt-right lunatics are going to be more difficult to stop than it originally looked. It appears Mr. Trudeau was right to invoke it. Perhaps he had some intelligence to which we are not privy.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> I don't understand why people follow fruitcakes like Tamara Lich. I've seen it. Someone with kooky ideas grabs a megaphone and the next thing you know, a bunch of people are carrying signs with demands to remove the letter "Q" from the English language.
> 
> Bad ideas seem to be received better than good ones, sometimes.


 ... plausible explanation. These people "need and craves" for the attention - to be so willing to be brain-washed. And social media fuels that.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> If you think that's bad, just wait until you find out that 31% of Canada willingly voted for a dictator that imprisons people who disagree with him.


We voted against fascism.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

The people I know why are into this stuff are desperately lonely. In each case, they are good people but they feel all alone in the world.

They develop some pretty wild ideas. They aren't stupid. They are intelligent, but myopic and ignorant.

The further down the rabbit hole they go, the more they are shunned by friends and family. Being shunned seems to push them further down the hole.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

TomB16 said:


> It's starting to look like the alt-right lunatics are going to be more difficult to stop than it originally looked. It appears Mr. Trudeau was right to invoke it. Perhaps he had some intelligence to which we are not privy.


Exactly what the former Police Chief of London Murray Faulkner said.

The government is given intelligence gathered by law enforcement that isn't shared with the Opposition for fear of leaks.

The CPC are making assertions that have no basis in fact.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> We voted against fascism.


And yet here it is.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

I don't think you understand what fascism is.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> I don't think you understand what fascism is.


The dictionary definition is oppressive, dictatorial control.

When you lock up people without bail who speak out against you, threaten to seize their assets, and go after those who supported them, that qualifies as fascism.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

People get locked up without bail all the time.

If the person can offer no credible assurance to the judge they won't continue to re-offend or present a danger to society or are a flight risk.......they aren't released on bail.

One of the important parts of bail is providing a surety who will ensure the bail conditions are kept.

Lich provided nothing to provide any assurances to the judge.

She retains the right to re-apply for bail if she can provide the above assurances to the court.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> The dictionary definition is oppressive, dictatorial control.
> 
> When you lock up people without bail who speak out against you, threaten to seize their assets, and go after those who supported them, that qualifies as fascism.


You left out it's ultra right wing against democracy.

I don't see antifa going against Trudeau?
Maybe it's just a question of adjusting your perception?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> You left out it's ultra right wing against democracy.
> 
> I don't see antifa going against Trudeau?
> Maybe it's just a question of adjusting your perception?


I haven't seen any right wing conspiracy against Trudeau. All I have seen is people question his leadership. Calling it a threat to democracy is a lie.

Antifa won't go against Trudeau because he supports their far left lawlessness.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> I haven't seen any right wing conspiracy against Trudeau. All I have seen is people question his leadership. Calling it a threat to democracy is a lie.
> 
> Antifa won't go against Trudeau because he supports their far left lawlessness.


It's the judge that decided to keep that terrorist detained. Why would you think it came from Trudeau?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> It's the judge that decided to keep that terrorist detained. Why would you think it came from Trudeau?


The only terrorist I'm aware of was given $10 million of our tax dollar from Trudeau.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is embarrassing for Canadians to be the origin of these kind of riots.

It reveals how they degenerate when government allows them to remain in place.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-zealand-protests-convoy-mandate-1.6360246


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> The only terrorist I'm aware of was given $10 million of our tax dollar from Trudeau.


How much tax money do you think this hillbilly convention cost us?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> How much tax money do you think this hillbilly convention cost us?


Hillbilly? Someone else called them meth heads. Plus many other insults. Lefties are full of hatred for anyone who dares to think differently.

It cost way more than it should have because Trudeau failed miserably every step of the way. And it will cost even more while he takes revenge on innocent Canadian citizens.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> Hillbilly? Someone else called them meth heads. Plus many other insults. Lefties are full of hatred for anyone who dares to think differently.
> 
> It cost way more than it should have because Trudeau failed miserably every step of the way. And it will cost even more while he takes revenge on innocent Canadian citizens.


I'm not too happy to clean up after these meth heads myself.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I heard some weapons were seized, but never heard about attempts to kill RCMP officers.
> Care to support that?


Conspiracy to commit murder, from the article: "Daroux said RCMP members were the targets of the alleged conspirators."

That's 4 people charged with conspiracy to murder police.

Just your harmless far-right buddies eh MrMatt? These guys are all class... holding cities hostage, terrorizing citizens, seizing the border crossings, destroying local businesses, destroying city infrastructure, trying to kill cops, organizing to overthrow the government.

Your kind of guys! Want to tell us more about how sweet and harmless they are?

Why do you even defend these people? What _motivates_ you @MrMatt ?


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

Meth is a hell of a drug.

It's more than time to ban guns. they serve no purpose.
I hope Trudeau can slide a gun ban in his 2026-2030 mandate.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

james4beach said:


> Conspiracy to commit murder, from the article: "Daroux said RCMP members were the targets of the alleged conspirators."
> 
> That's 4 people charged with conspiracy to murder police.
> 
> ...


He didn't defend them, he said that he never heard about attempts to kill RCMP.

And from that you went on that momentous rant. Are you sure that you're okay? Maybe you should seek some professional help.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

fstamand said:


> I'm not too happy to clean up after these meth heads myself.


You and james seem to be perfect examples of the average Liberal.

Keep the comments coming, it's quite revealing.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Anyone who has used the term "sheeple" in a non-ironic context needs psychiatric help.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

fstamand said:


> Meth is a hell of a drug.
> 
> It's more than time to ban guns. they serve no purpose.
> I hope Trudeau can slide a gun ban in his 2026-2030 mandate.


Now that we live under authoritarian government there is more need for civilians to be armed than ever.
Of course the restrictions that exist such as not being able to take it out of property, needing to register, psych evaluation, etc. are just common sense and imho necessary


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> You and james seem to be perfect examples of the average Liberal..


Thanks for the compliment. I knew you had it in you.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

It's always a good feeling when you insult someone and they think that they're being complimented.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

HappilyRetired said:


> It's always a good feeling when you insult someone and they think that they're being complimented.


How can it be an insult when it's true and I'm proud of being a leftie.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Fifteen years ago, my wife and I considered semi-retiring to the US. Our family freaked out. "No healthcare!" It clearly would have been fine.

The point being, we would have done well in a lower tax, higher salary, less services, environment.

A few years after that, Tom Mulcair was in the lead in a Canadian election with a promise of $15 daycare. We don't have children. A Mulcair government would have undoubtedly raised our taxes. But, guess what,... We would have done just fine.

People get so wrapped up in political philosophy, it makes political conversation uncomfortable.

Give me someone who is honest and reasonably engaged in the job of managing the country and I will be fine, regardless of the party affiliation.

Ok, boys. There is some fresh meat to attack. It's my turn in the barrel. 😁


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _They don't need the Emergencies Act to clean this up.
> 
> Also, why do you keep calling it the Emergency Act? Just a pet peeve, but it's kind of odd. _
> 
> ...


But it's the "Emergencies Act", not the "Emergency Act".





Emergencies Act


Federal laws of Canada




laws-lois.justice.gc.ca


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Conspiracy to commit murder, from the article: "Daroux said RCMP members were the targets of the alleged conspirators."
> 
> That's 4 people charged with conspiracy to murder police.


Okay, just to be clear, there was no attempted murder.



> Just your harmless far-right buddies eh MrMatt?


No, they're not, again, like the Liberals you attribute a position to me that I don't hold. Much easier to demonize your "opponent" when you avoid the facts.
I'm not a Jewish Nazi supporter either, in case you were wondering.
I do not support violence, or the threat of violence.



> These guys are all class... holding cities hostage, terrorizing citizens, seizing the border crossings, destroying local businesses, destroying city infrastructure, trying to kill cops, organizing to overthrow the government.


Again a whole bunch of things I stand against. I was against them when BLM and George Floyd protests did them, I was against them when the rioters tore down historic Canadian statues this summer, and I'm against ALL the illegal actions of the convoy protestors.
However I simultaneously support the right for the peaceful protests on those exact same issues.



> Your kind of guys! Want to tell us more about how sweet and harmless they are?
> 
> Why do you even defend these people? What _motivates_ you @MrMatt ?


I've been clear, from the beginning, that I personally disapprove of protests in general, however I support the right of people to peacefully protest.
But lets be clear I've consistently supported enforcement of the law against those who commit crimes. I think it actually undermines the movement when protestors commit crimes.

Why do I even defend peaceful protestors? Because we have rights in Canada and it's an important part of the way our democracy works. The real question is why don't you?
I've never supported political violence, and stand categorically against it. (I think we had this discussion during Kenosha riots and the Portland riots)

The issue I really have is that people don't want to discuss the issues. Here you're trying to suggest I support the worst of these protests, rather than discussing the issues at hand.

1. I think that a peaceful protest should be allowed.
- I'm not sure what aspects of the Ottawa protest weren't peaceful. But it appears they were limited, and most of it was exaggeration. Someone claimed there was an insurrection attempt, others claim attempted murder of law enforcement. (no evidence was ever provided to support the claims)
If there were illegal or violent acts, they should of course be prosecuted.
2. I think invoking the Emergencies act wasn't justified, and I don't think they've explained the case very well.
- I pointed out all the other protests in Canada were quickly and easily removed using tools already available to law enforcement.

If they simply invoked the Emergencies act to ONLY demand the services of Tow Trucks in the Ottawa area to remove the large trucks, and nothing else, I actually would have supported that. It seems that was something they couldn't do under existing legislation, and would have been sufficiently limited in scope.

As long as you attack people at a personal level, for simply trying to discuss issues, and questioning claims, you're part of the problem.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> 1. I think that a peaceful protest should be allowed.
> - I'm not sure what aspects of the Ottawa protest weren't peaceful.


It's amazing you keep repeating this. Those protests stopped being peaceful back in early February, at which point they were clearly disturbing the peace and causing severe disruptions to the city.

That makes them unlawful protests. Canadian law *does not* allow any kind of protest.

Calling for the overthrow of government, blocking the roads, making it impossible to get around, impossible for businesses to operate, causing constant noise which disrupts all residents, and then intimidating the residents --- NOT peaceful protest.

One of the main organizing groups released a whole document (Memorandum) outlining their desire to overthrow and replace the government with their own people.

Maybe you should read up on Canadian laws to understand what kind of protest is allowed and not allowed. The link I provided to the justice site also cites some relevant case law.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

There is one difference between the two of you.

You stick a label on group of tens of thousands people based on few individuals.
He considers people individually.

If I am protesting peacefully, and someone next to me is breaking a law, then I should be allowed to continue my protest peacefully, and someone next to me should be charged with whatever crime they are committing. 
Why is such concept so hard to grasp?


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

damian13ster said:


> There is one difference between the two of you.
> 
> You stick a label on group of tens of thousands people based on few individuals.
> He considers people individually.
> ...


When a protest is declared illegal, and they give you like 12 chances to leave, maybe it's time to gtfo.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> It's amazing you keep repeating this. Those protests stopped being peaceful back in early February, at which point they were clearly disturbing the peace and causing severe disruptions to the city.


There are laws to address those actions, and they should have been employed.



> That makes them unlawful protests. Canadian law *does not* allow any kind of protest.


I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on on how Canadian law works.
For example, I'm on the side of the Ottawa Polices interpretation.
A peaceful protest is permitted as long as you don't break other laws








Demonstrators


Know your rights and limitations as well as police duties in the event of public demonstrations, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for protest.




www.ottawapolice.ca





I showed where a relevant law enforcement agency stated, in writing, you have the right to protest.
Can you show me the prohibition on protest?



> Also According to Ottawa police Protests and demonstrations are allowed, as long as they comply with other laws.


Wait didn't you just say "Canadian law *does not *allow any kind of protest"
Please clarify your position, are lawful protests allowed or not allowed?



> Calling for the overthrow of government, blocking the roads, making it impossible to get around, impossible for businesses to operate, causing constant noise which disrupts all residents, and then intimidating the residents --- NOT peaceful protest.


We're using two different definitions of peaceful.
I'm using peaceful as "not involving war or violence"
You're using "free from disturbance",
But I love how you're attacking the protestors for making it "impossible for businesses to operate", when they're protesting rules that "make it impossible for businesses to operate".



> One of the main organizing groups released a whole document (Memorandum) outlining their desire to overthrow and replace the government with their own people.


Ok, and I disagree with that position. 



> Maybe you should read up on Canadian laws to understand what kind of protest is allowed and not allowed. The link I provided to the justice site also cites some relevant case law.


Maybe you could link the the relevant law you feel conflicts with my position on legal vs illegal protests.
I've linked to the definition I hold (which is the SAME as that of the Ottawa police).

In a single post you've both claimed there are measures for legal protests and that Canadian Law does not allow for any type of protest. I'm very confused on your position.

I think that the observation on individuals vs groups is accurate. That's the fundamental difference between a Classical Liberal and a Modern Social Liberal.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> We're using two different definitions of peaceful.
> I'm using peaceful as "not involving war or violence"
> You're using "free from disturbance",


We should use both definitions.

For instance, if I was a shopkeeper, I'd prefer a weekend protest where some idiots smashed the windows of my shop over a full month protest where I'm out of business.

Intention vs outcome.

In the first case, the shopkeeper is super mad to have his windows shattered, he repairs it the following day, it cost him $10,000, he calls insurance.

In the second case, the shopkeeper has nothing requiring reparation, but he lost 20+ days of business revenues, which could be worth $100,000+, plus his employees lost 20+ days of work, plus he may have lost some of his inventory if he was selling food, etc.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> That makes them unlawful protests. Canadian law *does not* allow any kind of protest.











‘We’re all together in this.’ Parents and kids join teachers on the picket line in show of support


Elementary school teachers buoyed by support from parents and students as they kick off a week of rotating strikes across the province.




www.thestar.com




Per your claim that Canada does not allow any kind of protest.
What do you think about parents using children as human shields in this protest?
Young children in the freezing cold, denying children access to blocking access to education

I personally think it's wrong, but I think children should be free to protest a cause they feel is just.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> We should use both definitions.
> 
> For instance, if I was a shopkeeper, I'd prefer a weekend protest where some idiots smashed the windows of my shop over a full month protest where I'm out of business.
> 
> ...


You know that's exactly the point.
Some businesses have been shut down for many months due to government.
Oh and where did the protestors shut down businesses for over a month?
But here it's a national emergency because some businesses in a limited area had issues for 3 weeks.

finally, the person smashing the window should be held accountable and have to pay restitution.
As well, the illegal blockade of traffic should have *NEVER *been permitted, but as I pointed out, Canadian police are often reluctant to act against protests. Be it the Caledonia housing development, rail blockades or here.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> As well, the illegal blockade of traffic should have *NEVER *been permitted, but as I pointed out, Canadian police are often reluctant to act against protests. Be it the Caledonia housing development, rail blockades or here.


For a very rare occasion, I agree with the mrmatt


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

fstamand said:


> For a very rare occasion, I agree with the mrmatt


 ... but then you wonder why the police (start with Ottawa's) didn't act against the protests EARLIER or not until the Emergency Act had to be invoked (unfortunately by Trudeau). And please don't tell me it's because its chief police Sloly was resigning.

Anyhow, will be interesting to read up on that hacked donor list - a list of who's who.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Anyone who has used the term "sheeple" in a non-ironic context needs psychiatric help.


 ... says not the labeller but rather the sheep person needs professional help. More brain-washing needed or super-heavy duty (meths?) I guess.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> You know that's exactly the point.
> Some businesses have been shut down for many months due to government.
> Oh and where did the protestors shut down businesses for over a month?
> But here it's a national emergency because some businesses in a limited area had issues for 3 weeks.
> ...


I agree with all of this, I'm mostly pointing out the little debate about "peaceful". It was not peaceful.

Or we should use better words.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I agree with all of this, I'm mostly pointing out the little debate about "peaceful". It was not peaceful.
> 
> Or we should use better words.


That's fair, but the typical phrasing is "peaceful protest", I typically take that to mean only incidental property damage, and very limited isolated incidents of violence (nonconsensual physical contact that may result in injury)

I know a guy who always got frustrated when discussions turned into debates on definitions of words.
But I think considering the drastically different views this important as many of us don't agree on the definitions of some words.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Any peaceful protest should be allowed in designated protest areas, such as large parks etc.

Protests shouldn't be allowed to block roads, rail lines, airports, or even the sidewalk in front of someone's home or business.

You want to protest......get a permit, put down a deposit for the cost of policing and cleanup, and go to a park and protest away.

We had a couple of religious idiots standing in our downtown with megaphones yelling insults at women who were wearing skirts or shorts.

It was allowed to go on for far too long before the police finally removed them. It had reached the point where passers by were going to take their own action.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Every year thousands of people travel out into the desert for the "Burning Man" festival and protest.

The build a giant wooden structure and set it on fire. Who in their right mind would say it was okay to do that in downtown Toronto ?

People have the right to assemble in peaceful protest, but not the right to do it anywhere they want and however they want.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Yeah, like in front of hospitals. A bunch of morons.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I used to run large baseball and hockey tournaments and I wasn't allowed to just takeover all the baseball diamonds or hockey arenas in the city.

I had to rent the facilities when they were available and have insurance for liability and damage. I had to organize security and cleanup of the facilities.

Protests should have the same requirements. With rights comes responsibility.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> I used to run large baseball and hockey tournaments and I wasn't allowed to just takeover all the baseball diamonds or hockey arenas in the city.
> 
> *I had to rent the facilities when they were available and have insurance for liability and damage. I had to organize security and cleanup of the facilities.
> 
> Protests should have the same requirements. With rights comes responsibility.*


 ... that would be ideal. Why didn't the experts (lawyers, politicians) think of that? 

But wait ... that'll be labelled as a tax grab. Plus ... oppression of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of <fill-in-the-blank>, and human rights ... made in commie Canada.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Every year in Port Dover, Ontario there are Friday the 13th bike rallies. People from all walks of life drive their motorcycles to Port Dover and hold a festival.

You got 1% outlaw bikers and retired folks on scooters, and they all get along just fine. 

They mostly self regulate each other and I have never heard of any major problems.

The town welcomes them and their business. Everyone knows the rules and lots of people come out to participate and watch the bikes and festivities.

There are huge bike rallies in the US that bring visitors from all over North America.

If they can do it peacefully without causing a lot of problems for the people in the town, why do political protestors find it so difficult to do the same ?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Every year in Port Dover, Ontario there are Friday the 13th bike rallies. People from all walks of life drive their motorcycles to Port Dover and hold a festival.
> 
> You got 1% outlaw bikers and retired folks on scooters, and they all get along just fine.
> 
> ...


 ... 'cause they think everyone hates them (laughable) so they need to be superior than the haters (laughable too).

On a serious note: Politicians and people who dabbles with them have been brain-washed. That's why I'm the least interested in that area. But unfortunately (quoting someone on this forum), life is all about or involves politics which is true too.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Any peaceful protest should be allowed in designated protest areas, such as large parks etc.
> 
> Protests shouldn't be allowed to block roads, rail lines, airports, or even the sidewalk in front of someone's home or business.


I agree, but when is the last time you saw someone bust up a union picket line?



> You want to protest......get a permit, put down a deposit for the cost of policing and cleanup, and go to a park and protest away.


No.
You shouldn't have to pay a fee to exercise your constitutional right to freedom of expression.
In any case, if you were to have a preferred protest area, Parliament hill would be the location of choice for National issues anyway.



> We had a couple of religious idiots standing in our downtown with megaphones yelling insults at women who were wearing skirts or shorts.
> 
> It was allowed to go on for far too long before the police finally removed them. It had reached the point where passers by were going to take their own action.


Great example of a balancing act. I think a certain level of stupidity must be tolerated. At the point they are using megaphones and being personally insulting to individuals who are not public figures, that's too much.
But if you want to generally denounce the degeneracy of society there are ways to do that. 

Remember, protests are typically because they are a minority position, and they're a "good way" to let those in power know that there are a number of people who feel this is a serious problem.


Sometimes when you're protesting government evils, civil disobedience is required to get progress, this is actually quote common in civil rights protests. Government opposition and overreaction to civil rights protests has been common and widespread


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The far right / extremist attack on Washington DC is ramping up as we speak. I hope that US intelligence is on this one.

One of the extremist discussion groups I'm monitoring is already very excited, talking about tactical approach and how they expect it to cripple the urban area. Just like the Canadian one, these guys are mostly anti-government nuts.

The Canadian event was fuelled by American far-right media (including Fox News), and has inspired extremists to do the same in the US. It also turned into a useful political tool for the Republicans.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They will get a different welcoming committee this time.

They are so dumb they will just keep coming back to get their heads co-co-bonked.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Who was attacked?


----------

