jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Most protests of any size arrange their location and routes in advance with the authorities. They are therefore quite lawful, whether they block streets or not - so long as they've been given permission. We don't ask permission to protest. That would mean someone could say no you can't protest. Unh Unh. They are usually informed of general plans, but sometimes things change so it's always flexible. Protest is civil disobedience, by its nature unlawful. Bill C51 must be amended to remove the word "lawful". . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Perhaps why we have seen some rats leaving the sinking ship of late. I think so. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 We don't ask permission to protest. That would mean someone could say no you can't protest. Unh Unh. Who is "we"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 We don't ask permission to protest. That would mean someone could say no you can't protest. Unh Unh. They are usually informed of general plans, but sometimes things change so it's always flexible. Protest is civil disobedience, by its nature unlawful. Bill C51 must be amended to remove the word "lawful". . If you want to march in the street you should be required to get permission in advance. I know you don't take a group of people onto Parliament Hill without notifying them in advance and getting permission. I presume it's the same at Queens Park. If it's half a dozen looneys standing on the sidewalk chanting then I suppose you don't need permission... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Who is "we"? Protesters. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 If you want to march in the street you should be required to get permission in advance. I know you don't take a group of people onto Parliament Hill without notifying them in advance and getting permission. I presume it's the same at Queens Park. If it's half a dozen looneys standing on the sidewalk chanting then I suppose you don't need permission... Notify, perhaps. They seem to find out anyway. Ask permission, absolutely not. Civil DISobedience is not lawful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I'm far more likely to be murdered by my spouse than by a terrorist. What's Harper going to do about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm far more likely to be murdered by my spouse than by a terrorist. What's Harper going to do about that? He is going to call your spouse a Muslim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 No he just drops bombs on them. So he's like Chretien and Martin then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Protesters. . So you are a protester - seemingly a regular one - by your very strong feelings about your ability to do so. What causes involve you in protests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Get permission to protest from the very institution that you're protesting. Hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm betting he's looking at that dictator's tool kit and thinking "I want some of that".I think you're confusing Justin with Trudeau the Smarter's handling of the FLQ crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Get permission to protest from the very institution that you're protesting. Hilarious. Sounds a lot like what was happening in some middle eastern countries, like Egypt, during the Arab Spring with their anti-protest laws. We all know how that ended up. Maybe we can get a million person march against Harper going. Wouldn't that be great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Harper aint giving oe inch of power to nobody. He writes a law that smacks right in the face of the constitution and the hasnt the grace, or guts, to even show up in the house to even debate it. Only to invoke closure. Stinks to the high heavens.Did Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretien handle their majority governments differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) So you are a protester - seemingly a regular one - by your very strong feelings about your ability to do so. What causes involve you in protests?Injustice.What's your badge number please? . Edited February 24, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Queenmandy85, on 23 Feb 2015 - 6:36 PM, said: I'm far more likely to be murdered by my spouse than by a terrorist. What's Harper going to do about that? He is going to call your spouse a Muslim. :lol: . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Did Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretien handle their majority governments differently? Yes they did actually But this kind of comment falls into the really stupid realm. If something was in fact done equally back in history by this or that government, then its some sort of ridiculously stupid rationalization for the current government doing it. Pardon e if I choose not to mire down in that sort of muck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-terror-act-risks-creating-grey-area-with-rcmp/article23168250/?service=mobile One wonders why this was given to CSIS, which has absolutely no experience and expertise as far as this kind of activity is concerned, Mr. Cavalluzzo said. Mr. Cavalluzzo added that CSIS operates more closely to the government ... CSISs primary role is to advise government, whereas as a law-enforcement agency, there is an independence with the RCMP that has been developed over hundreds of years, he said. Law enforcement was intended to be independent from government, that is a very cherished principle in this country and it could be eroded by this new law. So Harper gave huge powers of surveillance and disruption to CSIS because he controls them, they report to him, he has to approve their requests for judicial warrants ... I guess he's likely handed them his enemies list to get busy. :/ . Edited February 24, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Jacee, the PM runs the country more or less. I don't see what the problem is with this. Harper won't be in charge forever but the way you carry on you act as if he's declared himself PM for life or something. Almost all of your posts on most subjects come across with some alarmist tone. Like we're in some kind of do or die scenario...that just isn't the case at all. Certainly no need for the hysterics.... Like it or not we have people in this country who would like to do hard to Canada. That cannot be allowed to continue. Those people must be brought to light and be made to explain themselves and their actions. If they don't do a good enough job explaining then I hope they get long prison sentences to think about their actions. No one will be saying you can't protest or have free association or anything like that. The sky isn't falling and the sun will rise tomorrow. Edited February 24, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Jacee, the PM runs the country more or less. I don't see what the problem is with this. Harper won't be in charge forever but the way you carry on you act as if he's declared himself PM for life or something. Almost all of your posts on most subjects come across with some alarmist tone. Like we're in some kind of do or die scenario...that just isn't the case at all. Certainly no need for the hysterics.... Like it or not we have people in this country who would like to do hard to Canada. That cannot be allowed to continue. Those people must be brought to light and be made to explain themselves and their actions. If they don't do a good enough job explaining then I hope they get long prison sentences to think about their actions. No one will be saying you can't protest or have free association or anything like that. The sky isn't falling and the sun will rise tomorrow. They will be saying exactly that. Read the f***king bill or just shut the f**k up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Almost all of your posts on most subjects come across with some alarmist tone. The sky isn't falling and the sun will rise tomorrow. This entire bill is an alarmist, the sky is falling reactionary bill. It's not as bad as Harper wants you to think it is. The bad men won't get you. I promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 This entire bill is an alarmist, the sky is falling reactionary bill. It's not as bad as Harper wants you to think it is. The bad men won't get you. I promise. Yeah, that's was my point to people who are against this bill. No need to be afraid of the government. You'll still be able to hold your protests instead of going to work. No problems. Everyone just needs to relax and trust the government when they tell us that we need some form of protection from the people who would like to do harm to Canada. It's a matter of national security. We need to be proactive in these trying times. Instead of reactionary. This new bill gives the government the powers to help keep us safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yeah, that's was my point to people who are against this bill. No need to be afraid of the government. You'll still be able to hold your protests instead of going to work. No problems. Everyone just needs to relax and trust the government when they tell us that we need some form of protection from the people who would like to do harm to Canada. It's a matter of national security. We need to be proactive in these trying times. Instead of reactionary. This new bill gives the government the powers to help keep us safe. We already had those laws. This just allows Harper to read your emails and gain votes in PQ. And I lost my taste for pablum many years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Yeah, that's was my point to people who are against this bill. No need to be afraid of the government. You'll still be able to hold your protests instead of going to work. No problems. Everyone just needs to relax and trust the government when they tell us that we need some form of protection from the people who would like to do harm to Canada. It's a matter of national security. We need to be proactive in these trying times. Instead of reactionary. This new bill gives the government the powers to help keep us safe. My point is the bill is reactionary instead of proactive. You're just as safe without the bill. Trust me, everything will be okay. You're not going to get blown up. Do you need a hug? You should call everyone you know and tell them you are ok, you made it through the day without getting terrorized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 We already had those laws. This just allows Harper to read your emails and gain votes in PQ. And I lost my taste for pablum many years ago. Well they already can read our emails as it is now. If someone has nothing to hide then I don't understand what the fear is. Plus if someone is sending sensitive emails they should be using an email that uses an encrypted security key. Bottom line is that we need new anti terror legislation that will protect Canada. We cannot simply wait for them to attack Canada then try to arrest whoever isn't dead. We need to stop these actions before they happen. I don't understand what you mean by the pablum comment. Anyways have a good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.