Jump to content

More challenges to the charter rights of assembly


shortlived

Recommended Posts

In other words, I am right. Thank you. In fact, we are right; I am correct that you have no clue about the constitution and your rights and Moonbox is correct that you're a crackpot.

In otherwords wrong. You are condoning unconstitutional actions against people which the police are blindly following.

Beating people up over a bylaw that is unconstitutional is just plain WRONG.

There is no right here other than the side of human dignity and freedom.

You lose no matter what in life without those values and you face even worse after that.

You don't understand human regardless so I might as well be talking to feces.

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First off, it's "lose", not "loose".

Second, you keep bringing up that things are unconstitutional, but you've made it crystal clear that you don't have a freaking clue what that word even means. You don't understand the Constitution or the Charter, and it's brutally obvious that you don't know what English Common Law is.


Your arguments are contradictory and operate entirely outside the boundaries of logic and, as I've already stated, they're based on literally nothing more than how you feel. The fact that almost everything you're writing is pure nonsense doesn't matter to you. You feel your notions are correct and that's good enough for you. From where others stand, however, you might as well just be screaming loud noises at us and inserting words like freedom, justice and human dignity etc into your vapid ramblings. Your arguments wouldn't make any less sense, and we'd still be able to see that you don't really understand what those words and concepts mean anyways.

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, it's "lose", not "loose".

Second, you keep bringing up that things are unconstitutional, but you've made it crystal clear that you don't have a freaking clue what that word even means. You don't understand the Constitution or the Charter, and it's brutally obvious that you don't know what English Common Law is.

Your arguments are contradictory and operate entirely outside the boundaries of logic and, as I've already stated, they're based on literally nothing more than how you feel. The fact that almost everything you're writing is pure nonsense doesn't matter to you. You feel your notions are correct and that's good enough for you. From where others stand, however, you might as well just be screaming loud noises at us and inserting words like freedom, justice and human dignity etc into your vapid ramblings. Your arguments wouldn't make any less sense, and we'd still be able to see that you don't really understand what those words and concepts mean anyways.

Blah blah blah.

I'm not arguing. I'm sharing my opinion.

I have nothing to proove to you.

As stated previously my Canada is not your Canada, you can take your police state and let it remove your freedoms. It need not apply anywhere near me. I'd take freedom over unjust and unconstitutional totalitarian rule any day of the week.

Why not focus on the discussion rather than once again turning this into ad hominem.

If you have nothing to add to this discussion other than personal interogation why don't you save yourself the time and trouble and not troll the thread.

Your lack of grasp of what "free society" means and section 2 of the charter totally negates any insight you may have on my understanding of the charter. Why not learn something about it before making baseless ascertations.

No contradictions here, you might as well just being saying, I lack the capacity to understand a basic principle and am too lazy to actually learn about a subject before I reply just to nag the poster.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written the mayor of Montreal and the city's police chief denouncing a controversial bylaw about protests it says "could not withstand constitutional scrutiny." -

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/06/hundreds-arrested-at-montreal-protest
Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beating people up over a bylaw that is unconstitutional is just plain WRONG..

The police weren't "beating people up" over a bylaw; they were forcing people to obey their lawful and reasonable command to those people to get out of the streets those people had no legal nor righteous justification to selfishly take over. The "beating" came to those individuals who responded to the police's command by rioting.

Bylaws requiring protest groups to give notice to police and other city officials before mounting a protest in a public place, trespass laws, and others that relate to protest have been proven to be constitutional. I told you to prove the opposite by making a placard and sitting yourself down, unannounced, in the middle of a city avenue and then refusing to move when police tell you to. Go on, show us just how wrong we are.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then most people disagree with what you consider reasonable. A group taking over a street without prior warning, so that the people who were expecting to use that street for its intended purpose of transportation, the people who own businesses on that street, and the police who protect all who use the street found themselves in a situation they weren't at all prepared for, is, to the vast majority, not reasonable.

I would like to bring up the G20 summit in Toronto where streets were blocked and some buildings were off limits due to the summit. Also illegal search and seizure (sp?) of people walking down those areas who were not even protestors.

Sure prior warning was given, but the cops were given special powers for the summit, only to find out those special powers were never given. Pulling a fast one on the people.

Not to mention the agent provocateurs have been discovered to be police in a few of these situations. Create a scene and then bust some protestor heads. A solution to a problem that did not exist in the first place.

When the big boys come and play in your city, you lose the right to move freely through your city. And when we complain, we are met with riot cop resistance. These big boys don't give a damn about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention the agent provocateurs have been discovered to be police in a few of these situations. Create a scene and then bust some protestor heads. A solution to a problem that did not exist in the first place.

Hardly the case. If you were part of a protest and I suggested for a riot to start would you participate in the riot? If you would then you had the intention to do so wether I suggest it or not, otherwise you would not involve yourself. You are presenting this as if the police created a problem but seems to me the problem exists everywhere those "protestors" go, be it Canada, the US or any other country. During the G20 there was protestors that had legitimate reasons to be there and they worked within the laws to get their message out, if someone had gone in and suggested they burn down a building or destroy something or other I doubt they would have done so because their end goal was to get their message out rather than destruction and chaos for the sake of destruction and chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to bring up the G20 summit in Toronto where streets were blocked and some buildings were off limits due to the summit..

I'm conversing with shortlived about the laws restricting protest in this country, though with a eye to recent events in Montreal. The closures of streets by municipal government and of private properties by their owners are entirely different from one another and from the aforementioned subject.

[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah.

I'm not arguing. I'm sharing my opinion.

I wish you could see stunningly dumb a statement that was. You're arguing. You're losing the argument badly too. You're being torn apart by pretty much everyone because even high-school logic eludes you.

I have nothing to proove to you.

Other than that you can't spell.

As stated previously my Canada is not your Canada, you can take your police state and let it remove your freedoms. It need not apply anywhere near me. I'd take freedom over unjust and unconstitutional totalitarian rule any day of the week.

As I stated previously, your Canada exists in a magical fantasy world, where 2+2 = whatever you feel it equals and common sense and reason have no place.

Why not focus on the discussion rather than once again turning this into ad hominem.

I'm attacking your brain-dead arguments (or opinions if you prefer lol), your blatant contradictions and your hilarious hypocrisy. You just told bambino that you might as well be talking to feces, and here you are trying to fault me for ad hominem? That's so ridiculous it's sad.

If you have nothing to add to this discussion other than personal interogation why don't you save yourself the time and trouble and not troll the thread.

What are we supposed to discuss with you? You're not making any effort to actually engage us on our points. You've demonstrated zero interest in having a rational argument. Every time we try to discuss Constitutional or Charter Rights and how they're interpreted by the authorities and by our legal system, you revert to vacuous ramblings about "your Canada" and spout a bunch of meaningless tripe, liberally inserting the word "freedom" and telling us that we support a police state for disagreeing with you. I mean, how are we supposed to argue with your feelings and fantasies?

Your lack of grasp of what "free society" means and section 2 of the charter totally negates any insight you may have on my understanding of the charter. Why not learn something about it before making baseless ascertations.

I invite you to re-read Section 1 of the Charter, which (for good reason) comes before Section 2. I got a chuckle out of your misspelled attempt to tell me I don't understand the Charter, however. That's a "NO YOU!" come-back if I've ever seen one. I mean, I don't know how many times I've called you out for not understanding our legal system and not having a clue how it interprets the Charter. Your response, without fail, has been to give us some diarrhea about how you're a libertarian and how your Canada is different from our Canada and ramble ramble ramble... Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police weren't "beating people up" over a bylaw; they were forcing people to obey their lawful and reasonable command to those people to get out of the streets those people had no legal nor righteous justification to selfishly take over. The "beating" came to those individuals who responded to the police's command by rioting.

Bylaws requiring protest groups to give notice to police and other city officials before mounting a protest in a public place, trespass laws, and others that relate to protest have been proven to be constitutional. I told you to prove the opposite by making a placard and sitting yourself down, unannounced, in the middle of a city avenue and then refusing to move when police tell you to. Go on, show us just how wrong we are.

[ed.: +]

They were in a park not the streets. I'm not an activist. None the less I communicate my issues direct with the people responsible for them. I'm not about public relations. I have no interest in being a sociopath or creating a following. If I feel something is issued I go to the government and voice my concerns.

If it is important enough I'd resolve it myself.

It would get bloody very quickly I have no interest in ending peoples lives, especially cops. However if it was arranged and there was no other avenue, yes I would raise awareness. Nothing is so clear and present a danger, that calls on me to raise that awareness beyond my relatively passive means of communicating concerns with the stakeholders causing the problems. It is unfortunate at the federal level that the conservative party has implemented an "aide wall" that vets communications completely from ministers and mp's, unlike the previous liberal governments. The government has increasingly created total public censorship and access to representatives and government, it is a massive failure for the public due to this governments completely detached governance, although not total is is greatly increased from previous governments, and response times are much longer.

Are you aware of a clear and present danger requiring public notice?

If there is one do you really want people dressed as cops to be able to shut you up? Do be aware people can impersonate other professions, as a social engineering task, which could be used by terrorists, or other people who could be advantaged from a false flag operation. Being able to indiscriminately lock people up trying to whistle blow is a grave public security threat.

None the less both violation of the charter, and environmental despoliation contrary to first nations constitutional law are serious errors that have detracted from Canada that have came into law against the public interest.

If it is important enough I will bring it to a lethal level if that amount of force is required to protect life and so on. Would i kill if something was so vital to my conscience that failure for me to do so would result in other innocent peoples deaths, yes. Would I kill cops or the military under so same grounds, yes, as long as I had full disclosure and the public was put in imminent and clear lethal jeopardy, and the police and military were acting unconstitutionally. I would not recognize them as lawful agents of state but rather human rights abusers and I would not feel issued in resolving the crisis. Protest is a non lethal passive method of raising alarms. I think many people have abused the process for selfish reasons, but in the case of environmental ignorance in regard to fresh water pollution, and police state enforcement methods outlawing freedom of assembly and expression, these are very grave issues for a free society, very very, the very free world is being attacked by these methods, and perhaps that is just what the communists want to take down the free world by provoking the government to clamp down so that our freedoms are removed.

However I'd ask you stay on topic and not turn this into another about shortlived topic, it is about the issue not about me.

I contacted the city of montreal, and Jean Charest last year about this issue. They already know my opinion. However last year the police wern't enforcing it during the student protests, which was a point I mentioned to Jean Charest about the fact his law isn't being enforced by the SQ... however now the Bloc government is in with anti anglophone laws and they are outlawing protest in montreal. The issues are expansive and go well beyond the communists not wanting their right of protest removed.

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were in a park not the streets.

Well, even if it made a difference whether the protesters took over a park or streets or plaza or whatever without prior notice to the police and city officials, the pictures in the articles you provided show people and police on streets and in a square.

[A]s long as... the police and military were acting unconstitutionally. I would not recognize them as lawful agents of state but rather human rights abusers and I would not feel issued in resolving the crisis.

You mean "as long as I personally felt the police and military were acting unconstitutionally"; you must mean that, since you've demonstrated that not only are you far from being a qualified judge or even a lawyer, you're even ignorant of the most basic facts about the constitution and your rights as they relate to it. As has been pointed out by others, you operate solely on feelings--you feel the city's bylaws are unjust, ergo it they must be unjust--rather than fact-based logic--the city's bylaws contravene sections x, y, and z of the constitution and cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for these reasons, ergo they are unjust.

However last year the police wern't enforcing it during the student protests.

Actually, the police were quite forceful with protesters at first. However, after the ususal reaction of wailing and chest thumping over self-declared violations of rights and police oppression and the like, the authorities from then on became much more hands-off, acting only when protesters became violent. It has, though, already been pointed out to you that the Criminal Code gives police the power of discretion in determining whether or not a gathering is lawful; they may also allow protests to continue, even if the protesters didn't give prior notice, but will work to move them elsewhere, or keep them on one side of a street while traffic passes on the other, or some consensus resolution, depending on how cooperative the protesters are. In many cases, however, the protesters obviously aren't cooperative at all; they tend to be the self-righteous ones who think the Charter gives them more rights than it does and the pigs are the enforcers of unjust, totalitarian laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you in the other thread you started in which you whinged about the suppression of your imagined right to do whatever you want, whenever you want: mount a Charter challenge in court. Or, are you actually not as sure of your argument as you indicate you are?

Shortlives shouldn't waste his time. When has the Supreme Court defended the old common law rights? Seriously ... when?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody said rights are free or even cheap. Even the US is not crazy enough to make guns free, despite it's in their constitution. Buy a piece of land and you can have as many assemblies as you like (providing you are not bothering the neighbours). You better pay for public spaces and resources, because somebody is going to pay for them, why should the tax payers pay for your rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We probably don't have a right to freely assemble anymore. That's a common law right, and isn't included in the Charter ...

It is actually:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(B) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is actually:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

( B) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

And where does it say that these freedoms are free? Say I have the freedom of speech, can I sue a newspaper for refusing to publish my ads for free? Say I have the freedom of religion, can I ask the city to give me some land for free to build a church? Actually, can I ask the city to build the church for me for free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...