More unrest in Montreal

[Moonbox]

Oh my god man. How thick are you trying to be??? Your own quotation proves you wrong:

(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

You're STILL completely ignoring the most important part of the Charter, which is Section 1 - the limitations clause. What it means is that every item of the Charter is subject to limitations. In a common law system like our own (do you even know what common law is btw?), that means that your 'rights' are basically always up for legal interpretation, usually following precedent.

Your right to assemble and protest, therefore, is valid only insomuch as it doesn't obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all subjects of Her Majesty in Canada unreasonably.

Bylaws tend to be arbitrary and arbitrary bylaws should not invalidate constitutional protections. If the fundamentals were universal then it wouldn't be a bylaw it would be federal law or common law.

Again, the Charter of Rights was specifically written with arbitrary limitations so that moronic arguments like that can't be made. Read Section 1 of the Charter. Read it again, google its meaning, and then read it again until you finally manage to understand what it means. Whatever vapid response to this you want to come up with doesn't hold any water. You right to protest, even peacefully, absolutely has limits. Your right to anything in Canada has limits. IT'S THE FIRST FREAKING THING WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Frankly I would be suprised if protestors boxed in some random person, that doesn't sound like any protest I've been to.

It doesn't matter what it is. If you're blocking traffic and preventing people from getting to work easily, that can be considered a nuisance. Making too much noise can be considered a nuisance. Simply standing in front of local businesses and intimidating (intentionally or not) people from visiting them can be considered a nuisance. It's all up for interpretation. If you're assembling in large groups, you're expected to show some consideration and allow authorities to make arrangements to make sure the rest of the population is not negatively affected as much as possible. If you don't do that, the authorities can often reasonably decide your right to protest is not above people's rights to living their lives normally.

Let's be honest here. This protest was moronic. Police brutality and intimidation is one of the last things that Canadians are worried about on a day to day basis. The fact that we need a protest for this at all is comical, and the protest was full of the same losers and deadbeats who travel around and look for something/anything to protest about. When the same losers, time and time again, show up for protest after protest, eventually authorities decide that they're just being pests, especially when they're making every effort they can not to cooperate.

[g_bambino]

Bylaws tend to be arbitrary and arbitrary bylaws should not invalidate constitutional protections.

Maybe you think that, but it isn't true. Bylaws limiting protest have been tested in court and found to be constitutional; the Toronto bylaws relating to trespassing, for example.

If the fundamentals were universal then it wouldn't be a bylaw it would be federal law or common law

Gibberish.

[shortlived]

Oh my god man. How thick are you trying to be??? Your own quotation proves you wrong:

(b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

You're STILL completely ignoring the most important part of the Charter, which is Section 1 - the limitations clause. What it means is that every item of the Charter is subject to limitations. In a common law system like our own (do you even know what common law is btw?), that means that your 'rights' are basically always up for legal interpretation, usually following precedent.

Your right to assemble and protest, therefore, is valid only insomuch as it doesn't obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all subjects of Her Majesty in Canada unreasonably.

Again, the Charter of Rights was specifically written with arbitrary limitations so that moronic arguments like that can't be made. Read Section 1 of the Charter. Read it again, google its meaning, and then read it again until you finally manage to understand what it means. Whatever vapid response to this you want to come up with doesn't hold any water. You right to protest, even peacefully, absolutely has limits. Your right to anything in Canada has limits. IT'S THE FIRST FREAKING THING WRITTEN IN THE CHARTER. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

It doesn't matter what it is. If you're blocking traffic and preventing people from getting to work easily, that can be considered a nuisance. Making too much noise can be considered a nuisance. Simply standing in front of local businesses and intimidating (intentionally or not) people from visiting them can be considered a nuisance. It's all up for interpretation. If you're assembling in large groups, you're expected to show some consideration and allow authorities to make arrangements to make sure the rest of the population is not negatively affected as much as possible. If you don't do that, the authorities can often reasonably decide your right to protest is not above people's rights to living their lives normally.

Let's be honest here. This protest was moronic. Police brutality and intimidation is one of the last things that Canadians are worried about on a day to day basis. The fact that we need a protest for this at all is comical, and the protest was full of the same losers and deadbeats who travel around and look for something/anything to protest about. When the same losers, time and time again, show up for protest after protest, eventually authorities decide that they're just being pests, especially when they're making every effort they can not to cooperate.

Your Canada is not my Canada.

I find it unfortunate you don't respect the right of protest.

Police violence is a real issue. Cops commonly use excessive force. It is a valid protest issue.

The right of protest is something that all Canadians enjoy the right of.

I think you are just being obtuse. It is fairly clear that the nuisance fact is going about their daily lives free of harassment.

Large public gatherings whether protest or fair are rights Canadians have to participate in. If they are free. Much like going from place to place. You can't limit someones right to walk down a sidewalk, so you can walk down a sidewalk. You are just plane wrong and attacking legitimate protest.

Now preventing someone from walking down a street purposely is an entirely different matter but that is what the cops do, not the protesters.

You are sidesteping points I made very early that committing crimes during protest doesn't provide immunity from those crimes, as stated people should be arrested for committing indictable offences, but I think your definition and nuisance and my own do not match up. You seem to extinguish freedom in your definition as opposed to enabling the public to exercise their liberties.

You seem to want to just engineer reasonable limits to mean something other than the law, which is simply not the case, you arn't reasonable.

The point which I will return to and you should accept is that protest is not illegal, and you can't arrest people for protesting.

Laws which specifically deny the right of protest are unconstitutional. Accept those points and move on.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

Maybe you think that, but it isn't true. Bylaws limiting protest have been tested in court and found to be constitutional; the Toronto bylaws relating to trespassing, for example.

Gibberish.

Trespassing is not protest. Trespassing has nothing to do with protest. Connecting the two to mean the same thing is faulty logic on your part.

I do think it is a serious issue when trespassing notices get handed out at public venues though especially outdoor venues like parks. It is truely unfortunate when access to community assets are denied to segments of the community for the sole benefit of only one class of the community. That really is fascist totalitarianism. While that may very well be the reality it is unfortunate, as it really does show a class stratified society where there are the disenfranchised and privileged, that only invites class warfare.

But no protest is not trespass, although arresting people for trespass seems problematic. Trespass itself is issued because land rights in Canada are grey, since well Canada stole all the land from the Natives anyway. Killed off many by disease and warfare, starvation and other issues to force desperation sales and outright land thefts through violence. The whole land right thing is an inflammatory subject.

Trespass can be problematic as often clear and reasonable means to clarify trespass situations are not provided.

Land management is important for society.

I have to restate though trespass is not protest, trespass is a disagreement of the true right of ownership or respect of an authority to exercise control over land.

But no protest is not trespass and crimes committed during protest should be treated separately from the protest action itself. Protest is not illegal, crimes are. Not all crimes a legitimate crimes or morally wrong though.

Ulitmately all land is everyones, it is just a question of social respect and trusting the authority of the manager of the land.

Protest is not illegal.

Crimes are crimes.

Unlawful conduct is unlawful.

Illegal activity is illegal activity.

Protest is not illegal activity.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Trespassing is not protest. Trespassing has nothing to do with protest.

Protesters need a place to protest.

The example provided proves that protesters cannot take over spaces like parks, squares, and streets whenever they want for however long they want, even if it is to exercise what they think is their right to free expression, and the laws preventing them from doing that, whether they be federal or, in the case of the Toronto Occupiers, municipal bylaws, are not unconstitutional, contrary to what you stated.

Protest is not illegal activity.

It is when the law is broken in the act of protesting, such as in Montreal.

[ed.: c/e, +]

Edited March 24, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

Protesters need a place to protest.

The example provided proves that protesters cannot take over spaces like parks, squares, and streets whenever they want for however long they want, even if it is to exercise what they think is their right to free expression, and the laws preventing them from doing that, whether they be federal or, in the case of the Toronto Occupiers, a municipal bylaw, are not unconstitutional, contrary to what you stated.

Take over is a strongly worded use. As stated I think that these measures are unfortunate. I think that there might be a case of the city commiting indictable offence in limiting equal access.

If equal access is not provided the city is being somewhat criminal, if targeting protesters.

It is a problem, but the two are different issues, I addressed that issue in my post above.

Usually for a trespass there are methods that should be used.

Landrights are a separate issue from protest. Private ownership is problematic.

Ownership in many issues can be brought into question though especially land rights protests.

I know you would pick a side clearly, but I think the government is wrong with the vast majority of lands rights issues.

Outside the box it is totally redundant, within a canadian law society frame work though I can see your point.

They are two seperate issues. Protest is not a get out of jail free card, but denying equal access to public space is a crime, whether it is a city official or otherwise.

In taking measures to prevent a class of society from equal access it is not lawful.

In charging fees to go to parks etc. that is just unfortunate.

I don't agree but yes, the city can make spaces close. The important element is insuring equal access.

Protest "broad term" cannot be legislated against. Activities such as camping on roadways or in parks can. Limiting the right of squating is legal, the right of sqauting is not constitutionally protected, the right of protest is. There is a difference.

Does this mean you can't squat protest, very well it could if squatting is an illegal activity on reasonable grounds.

Of course you can still break the law, the crime would be a crime, the protest would not be a crime.

The test of constitutionality would be, is the law aimed at protest, or the undesired activity (which is not protest)

undesired should also be undesired for reasons of health and safety such as life being endangered by the activity.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

Take over is a strongly worded use.

It applies when spaces are being taken over; one group decides it will use a space in a way that prevents everyone else from using that same space for its intended purpose. When people can't drive on a road because it's been blocked by protesters, when people can't use a park because it's become a camp for protesters, when people can't enter a school because protesters are preventing them, those spaces have been taken over.

The test of constitutionality would be, is the law aimed at protest, or the undesired activity (which is not protest)

The test of constitutionality is: does the law place on a right a limit that is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Protest is not automatically precluded from such limits; Section 1 of the Charter does not limit itself in its application.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

another dime store lawyer.....with a five cent client, youre only getting half value...be outraged !

Read this and get shot down on the above quote of yours.

It will explain how you are so very wrong in that....

1)People can be stopped from protesting

2) the right is not inviolable

3) laws against protesting are legal and enshrined in law for specific and absolute reasons.

Read this and weep!

http://lawiscool.com/2010/07/04/the-law-of-street-protest-in-canada/

So much for living in a free democracy.

[g_bambino]

So much for living in a free democracy.

There are no free democracies.

[GostHacked]

There are no free democracies.

Just expensive ones?

[g_bambino]

Just expensive ones?

No.

[Moonbox]

Your Canada is not my Canada.

I find it unfortunate you don't respect the right of protest.

My Canada is fact. Your Canada is fantasy-burnout world. You're making it pretty clear you don't understand common law, or our Charter of Rights, which is typical of the hippie cry-about-everything protester crowd.

Police violence is a real issue. Cops commonly use excessive force. It is a valid protest issue.

Uh huh. Maybe with idiots who like to show up at protests and start shit with the cops it is. Other than that, police violence is one of the last things the average Canadian worries about.

The right of protest is something that all Canadians enjoy the right of.

It's a right every Canadian has. This is where your juvenile logic starts to fail. The right to protest is not the same thing as the right to protest wherever, whenever you want, with as many people as you like. You've decided they're the same thing, but they're not.

I think you are just being obtuse. It is fairly clear that the nuisance fact is going about their daily lives free of harassment.

No, you're being obtuse, and you're quoting things you don't even have a fundamental understanding of. You don't understand common law. You don't understand the Charter, and clearly you don't understand the Constitution either. It's hilarious watching you try to dig up quotations to prove your point, but without understanding the basic principles behind those documents, all you're doing is making yourself look dumb. This is a common tactic of the deadbeat protester though. Quote the Constitution and scream about it until your lungs are hoarse, but only the little snippets you THINK support your cause, and all the parts that crap on your parade are ignored!

[shortlived]

It applies when spaces are being taken over; one group decides it will use a space in a way that prevents everyone else from using that same space for its intended purpose. When people can't drive on a road because it's been blocked by protesters, when people can't use a park because it's become a camp for protesters, when people can't enter a school because protesters are preventing them, those spaces have been taken over.

The test of constitutionality is: does the law place on a right a limit that is reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Protest is not automatically precluded from such limits; Section 1 of the Charter does not limit itself in its application.

[ed.: c/e]

The right of dissent through protest is essential in a free society.

[shortlived]

My Canada is fact. Your Canada is fantasy-burnout world. You're making it pretty clear you don't understand common law, or our Charter of Rights, which is typical of the hippie cry-about-everything protester crowd.

f--- you.

Uh huh. Maybe with idiots who like to show up at protests and start shit with the cops it is. Other than that, police violence is one of the last things the average Canadian worries about.

you are out of touch the government employs people to act as agent provocateurs so they can smack down.They also lock up organizers so that there the leadership is subverted just before the protests occur. Although there is a certain amount of room, the events that happen at protest are organized, police set up choke points and capture points and box points, they direct protests then attack them as a whole rather than removing the criminals, and at times the undercovers that are directing the movements and/or involved in their organization. Cops should be concentating on taking out the people who break the law not the legitimate protesters. The police have the option of working with protesters, as does the city instead they create opposition to the issues, they don't have task forces to deal with the issues, no attempt is made to address the cause of the protest or have "nice policing" or involve protesters to see what steps can be taken to reduce police abuse.

It's a right every Canadian has. This is where your juvenile logic starts to fail. The right to protest is not the same thing as the right to protest wherever, whenever you want, with as many people as you like. You've decided they're the same thing, but they're not.

No, you are wrong. Protest is not illegal. As I said all protest is legitimate and lawful as freedom, conscience, beleif, and expression entail. Crimes however are crimes, but you cannot criminalize people for protest, you can criminalize people for crimes. Your view sucks, imo, you don't believe in a free society. You want to criminalize dissent.

The people are not slaves to the state in a free society.

No, you're being obtuse, and you're quoting things you don't even have a fundamental understanding of. You don't understand common law. You don't understand the Charter, and clearly you don't understand the Constitution either. It's hilarious watching you try to dig up quotations to prove your point, but without understanding the basic principles behind those documents, all you're doing is making yourself look dumb. This is a common tactic of the deadbeat protester though. Quote the Constitution and scream about it until your lungs are hoarse, but only the little snippets you THINK support your cause, and all the parts that crap on your parade are ignored!

I disagree with you you can have your police state to police you, I'll have my free society to protect my rights. It is your loss.

Edited March 27, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonbox]

f--- you.

Eloquently spoken, lol.

No, you are wrong. Protest is not illegal. As I said all protest is legitimate and lawful as freedom, conscience, beleif, and expression entail. Crimes however are crimes, but you cannot criminalize people for protest, you can criminalize people for crimes. Your view sucks, imo, you don't believe in a free society. You want to criminalize dissent.

The only thing that sucks is your juvenile, broken logic. If you went to post-secondary, like you say, it's pretty clear the system failed you. There are TONS of outlets in this country for dissent, and protests happen everywhere in Canada all throughout the year. There is a VERY big difference between the right of dissent and to protest, and the right to protest wherever, whenever and with as many people as you want. This is the third time I've pointed this out to you, and it'll probably be the third time you ignore it and rant about something else nobody is interested in. I'm not sure how thick you're trying to be, but maybe it will sink in THIS time (doubt it). People's right to express their opinion/protest DOES NOT transcend the right of people to live their lives without unnecessary nuisance/inconvenience/harassment.

Roads/streets are built for cars/trucks to drive down. Parks are meant for people to enjoy the outdoors. Town centres are places to do business in. A protest, by its very nature, obstructs the proper use of these spaces. People have to drive out of their way, parks become unpleasant places to be and business ends up being shut down in town centres because people aren't interested in the noise and congestion. The people have a right to enjoy these spaces for their proper use, and the authorities have an obligation to maintain them for such purposes. Allowing the use of this space for protesters' purposes is not out of the question, but it's not going to be wherever/whenever they want, especially not when it's a bunch of idiot fringe protesters and there is no popular support for the movement. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has something to protest, but is Toronto going to allow Yonge/Bay St to shut down every time a bunch of right-wing Bible-thumpers want to protest abortion or gay marriage? No.

The people are not slaves to the state in a free society.

Here's another place where your argument falls apart. You consider whatever sub/fringe group the average loser protester belongs to as the 'people'. Unfortunately for you, the actual "People" want their public spaces free to use without large groups of obnoxious malcontents obstructing them. If there was any question of 'freedom' and the people actually perceived a loss thereof, these protests wouldn't be so easily dismantled. As it stands, the 'People' see them for what they are: A bunch of uncooperative/belligerent losers with poor me/protest mentalities ranting about a bunch of farcical garbage that nobody cares about or believes.

I disagree with you you can have your police state to police you, I'll have my free society to protect my rights. It is your loss.

I'll take my reality, my faith in logic/reason and in my abilities to positively shape my life over your pathetic 'woe-is-us' fantasy that you're being downtrodden and oppressed any day.

[guyser]

Eloquently spoken, lol.

The only thing that sucks is your juvenile, broken logic.

Exactly

From free education that you pay for to any protest is legal.....and not to mention that education he brags about....Yikes

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou can have your police state to police you, I'll have my free society to protect my rights.

You don't even know what your rights are; you're still deluding yourself with the fantasy that you have a right to protest wherever you want, wherever you want, for however long you want. Since you clearly won't listen to any of us here and refuse to read Section 1 of the Charter or any court case dealing with protesters who claimed their arrest/eviction/whatever was unconstitutional, I urge you to practice what you preach: Go make a placard (decrying the police stateor revealing "police provocateurs", perhaps ) and plant yourself with it in the middle of a traffic lane, resist police requests that you move, get yourself arrested, and then argue before a court that your mythical Charter right to sit in the middle of that road in protest was breached. You must be certain you'd win, no?

[ed.: sp]

Edited March 27, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

You don't even know what your rights are; you're still deluding yourself with the fantasy that you have a right to protest wherever you want, wherever you want, for however long you want. Since you clearly won't listen to any of us here and refuse to read Section 1 of the Charter or any court case dealing with protesters who claimed their arrest/eviction/whatever was unconstitutional, I urge you to practice what you preach: Go make a placard (decrying the police stateor revealing "police provocateurs", perhaps ) and plant yourself with it in the middle of a traffic lane, resist police requests that you move, get yourself arrested, and then argue before a court that your mythical Charter right to sit in the middle of that road in protest was breached. You must be certain you'd win, no?

[ed.: sp]

I didn't read your post except for the last line, but WIN WHAT?

This isn't a game.

I protest my own issues, I speak my mind. I don't feel the need to organize protest, if it is warrented I will be protesting, if other people are protesting it just makes it more the point.

I contact government when I have a problem through their contacts.

For example a cause I am likely to reply on I receive with my protein powder today, regarding health act restrictions on suppliments

after I look more at it I'll consider responding.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/picture206ria.jpg

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/picture205d.jpg/

I've participated in a variety of protest actions including demonstrations, and I think that there are causes worth protesting over, even if it doesn't matter.

I felt i contributed to the fight to deflouridate water in Ontario, as well as raise other issues I feel are both public and personal issues i feel strongly about.

I think government is inherently corrupt because it often serves private interests before public interest. None the less I've encountered stone walling by government, and when stone walling occurs demonstration is one of the few ways you can force multiply to raise public awareness for issues that are important. I 110% endorse protest, and as you should be aware if you are all knowing on protest there is a graduated system of protest, and it doesn't erupt onto the streets on day 1 if it is organized, except for the most serious and immediate sorts of issues, such as snap decisions to go to war, extrajudicial killings and the like.

My rights are I can do whatever the hell I want and if someone has a problem with it, I could get killed or abducted, tortured, robbed. In this instance my action was to contact the SQ and Montreal police and city of Montreal and protest organizers, last year. I don't think anything is going to change in this situation, but I am still upset it is occurring because innocent people are being lulled into a trap set by the government.

My rights arn't subject to the Canadian Law societies, that is diplomacy. I'm not out there doing junk just to do it, nor do I think most laws are imprudent but I am not bound, I am not party to the law. I am not protected by the law, it is politics. The law is a weapon for the government to attack people they choose to attack. The only rights you have are the ones you uphold. Constitutionally speaking though I advocate for the government to restrain itself to its own law since it is acting on its law, it should be bound by it, not just using it as a means to subject their political enemies.

I'm not a statist, I am free, and I live my life that way, government is only a tool to help better the world situation. As someone disenfranchised from the system I will not recognize it as having right or rule over myself. God is supreme, not them. I am more than willing to communicate but I do not recognize any force to bind or deny my right to freedom. If we are both reasonable parties then we should have cooperation and peace. If not I am willing to defend my rights and position god willing.

Life is just negotiation, government is only one actor.

I havn't been killed yet.

Edited March 27, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

I didn't read your post except for the last line, but WIN WHAT?

The court case, to prove yourself correct, since you can't seem to otherwise.

[Moonbox]

My rights are I can do whatever the hell I want and if someone has a problem with it, I could get killed or abducted, tortured, robbed.

Lol! There it is! That's the crazy talk I think we've all been anticipating from you! We just had to be patient with you!

My rights arn't subject to the Canadian Law societies, that is diplomacy. I'm not out there doing junk just to do it, nor do I think most laws are imprudent but I am not bound, I am not party to the law.

Even better! This is hilarious!!! Why are you quoting the Constitution or the Charter if you're not 'party' to the Law? That's such an idiotic contradiction I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that this is the sort of brainless, intellectually empty argument that the 'disenfranchised' losers that show up to these protests tend to make. It's like a fish flopping around on the beach, hoping that something--anything is going to get him back in the water.

I am not protected by the law, it is politics. The law is a weapon for the government to attack people they choose to attack.

No, this is something you and your loser friends have chosen to believe to explain why your situation in life sucks. It's someone else's fault.

As someone disenfranchised from the system I will not recognize it as having right or rule over myself. God is supreme, not them. I am more than willing to communicate but I do not recognize any force to bind or deny my right to freedom. If we are both reasonable parties then we should have cooperation and peace. If not I am willing to defend my rights and position god willing.

You're disenfranchised because your entire system of logic and reason is comically broken. I find people like you fascinating, not because anything you actually say is interesting/sensible, but because you so utterly lack the ability to shift perspective and gain any insight from anything inconsistent with your delusions.

Literally everything you just wrote here is total rubbish. It's almost all nonsense, you contradict yourself all over the place and then you just ramble. Instead of considering the possibility that your disenfranchisement is the result of you simply being irrational and unreasonable, you've decided that everyone else is the problem. Hilarious.

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't read your post except for the last line, but WIN WHAT?

This isn't a game.

I protest my own issues, I speak my mind. I don't feel the need to organize protest, if it is warrented I will be protesting, if other people are protesting it just makes it more the point.

I contact government when I have a problem through their contacts.

For example a cause I am likely to reply on I receive with my protein powder today, regarding health act restrictions on suppliments

after I look more at it I'll consider responding.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/picture206ria.jpg

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/picture205d.jpg/

I've participated in a variety of protest actions including demonstrations, and I think that there are causes worth protesting over, even if it doesn't matter.

I felt i contributed to the fight to deflouridate water in Ontario, as well as raise other issues I feel are both public and personal issues i feel strongly about.

I think government is inherently corrupt because it often serves private interests before public interest. None the less I've encountered stone walling by government, and when stone walling occurs demonstration is one of the few ways you can force multiply to raise public awareness for issues that are important. I 110% endorse protest, and as you should be aware if you are all knowing on protest there is a graduated system of protest, and it doesn't erupt onto the streets on day 1 if it is organized, except for the most serious and immediate sorts of issues, such as snap decisions to go to war, extrajudicial killings and the like.

My rights are I can do whatever the hell I want and if someone has a problem with it, I could get killed or abducted, tortured, robbed. In this instance my action was to contact the SQ and Montreal police and city of Montreal and protest organizers, last year. I don't think anything is going to change in this situation, but I am still upset it is occurring because innocent people are being lulled into a trap set by the government.

My rights arn't subject to the Canadian Law societies, that is diplomacy. I'm not out there doing junk just to do it, nor do I think most laws are imprudent but I am not bound, I am not party to the law. I am not protected by the law, it is politics. The law is a weapon for the government to attack people they choose to attack. The only rights you have are the ones you uphold. Constitutionally speaking though I advocate for the government to restrain itself to its own law since it is acting on its law, it should be bound by it, not just using it as a means to subject their political enemies.

I'm not a statist, I am free, and I live my life that way, government is only a tool to help better the world situation. As someone disenfranchised from the system I will not recognize it as having right or rule over myself. God is supreme, not them. I am more than willing to communicate but I do not recognize any force to bind or deny my right to freedom. If we are both reasonable parties then we should have cooperation and peace. If not I am willing to defend my rights and position god willing.

Life is just negotiation, government is only one actor.

I havn't been killed yet.

Water fluoridation eh?