Smallc Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Outside of the actual founding of the nation and the elimination of slavery, you mean? If I recall, the armed resistance was on the part of the side that more wanted to keep slavery. Add to that, war is something entirely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Why are you guys so afraid of the government? For people who thump thier chests a lot and shout about how much they protest it seemd odd that you'd be so scared if PM Harper. The fesr mongering by the socialist ndp is sure working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Why are you guys so afraid of the government? For people who thump thier chests a lot and shout about how much they protest it seemd odd that you'd be so scared if PM Harper. The fesr mongering by the socialist ndp is sure working. Governments come and go. The bad law they can leave in their wake can be much more long lasting. Better to try and nip it in the bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 How recent are we talking? It's interesting to me that the right to violent resistance is essentially codified in law in the States. But here such things are apparently passe. So you would support violent anti-abortion protests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I think we need to clarify "violence". Attacking a person is never acceptable, reprehensible, in my opinion, except in self defence. While I have no interest in participating, attacking symbolic structures is a much lower level of offence. I consider it vandalism, not 'violence'. Police and conservatives lump the two together, I guess to cover up the fact that it is the police committing violent acts against persons. Do you think police should have assaulted and incarcerated over a thousand people to try to find a few vandals? . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) So you would support violent anti-abortion protests? I've never said anything about supporting violent protests. Like, if you're not smart enough to realize the difference between "violent protests are sometimes necessary for change" and "I support violent protests unconditionally" you probably shouldn't be talking to adults about real issues. Edited February 26, 2015 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 All while we hear cops say 'leave the area' in the videos but the cops block every route that would have allowed them to leave the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Like, if you're not smart enough to realize the difference between "violent protests are sometimes necessary for change" and "I support violent protests unconditionally" you probably shouldn't be talking to adults about real issues. There's very little difference. You are supporting it as a general theme, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I think we need to clarify "violence". Attacking a person is never acceptable, reprehensible, in my opinion, except in self defence. While I have no interest in participating, attacking symbolic structures is a much lower level of offence. I consider it vandalism, not 'violence'. That is just as unacceptable. Destroying a persons livelihood is reprehensible, as is costing the public purse untold sums of money. Police and conservatives lump the two together, I guess to cover up the fact that it is the police committing violent acts against persons. Do you think police should have assaulted and incarcerated over a thousand people to try to find a few vandals? . . ...And that's just paranoid nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 All while we hear cops say 'leave the area' in the videos but the cops block every route that would have allowed them to leave the area. Like they say: a picture is worth a thousand words. And let's not forget that the authorities set up "free speech zones" blocks away from any important event like political conventions and especially when the BORG gathers in any particular city in the world. I don't think a lot of people in Toronto will forget what happened when they were the lucky winners for hosting that G-8/G-20 Summit a few years back! Stepping outside the "free speech zone" and walking down the wrong street left a lot of people thrown in jail for the night with no charge, just for trying to go about their daily lives on a weekend when the Important people of the world were gathered. That should be the lesson for any idiot who's willing to do what Ben Franklin warned against so long ago: trade away rights and freedoms for a promise of safety and security! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well,that's the law. The police can arrest and hold anyone without charge for 24 hours. That's been the law for a long time. Nothing new. That's what was done and it was all very legal so I don't see the problem. People were told to stay away and they did not listen to the police so they got arrested. If they hadn't of done what the were told not to do they would've been fine but they decided to call the police bluff and got smacked down for it. Live and learn. If you're going to protest do so in a way that the police tell you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well,that's the law. The police can arrest and hold anyone without charge for 24 hours. That's been the law for a long time.That pretty much has NEVER been the law. So now we are day two of you not reading the charter huh? Please go read it, your asinine and embarassing talking points are ...well you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 There's very little difference. You are supporting it as a general theme, after all. I'll put you down in the "not smart" category, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommunityOrganizer Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 In actual fact, and in spite of the Charter and the desire of lefties to be governed mainly by unelected and unaccountable SCC judges interpreting the Charter as they decree seems fitting at the moment, current security law enables suspects to be held for up to 3 days without charges and the new anti-terrorism law will lengthen that to 7 days. This compares rather benignly with recent UK anti-terrorist legislation enabling the holding of suspects without charges for up to 28 days and with other Western jurisdictions, for example Australia whose recent anti-terror legislation makes Bill 51 seem pretty much toothless. Perhaps the usual left wing knee jerk opponents of the current Canadian government might take the time to peruse the laws of other countries dealing with this increasingly global threat instead of limiting their reading to Peter Waterhole's Charter which was negotiated without the consent of the second largest province in the country and contained the seeds of judicial activism that several of the provincial signatories have subsequently admitted would have kept them from signing the new constitutional agreement had they known then some of what the Charter would spawn over the subsequent 32 years.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I've never said anything about supporting violent protests. Like, if you're not smart enough to realize the difference between "violent protests are sometimes necessary for change" and "I support violent protests unconditionally" you probably shouldn't be talking to adults about real issues. Well, being so smart, why aren't you and others smart enough to understand that simply because you think a particular cause is just doesn't mean there aren't others who disagree or who have their own just causes that you would completely oppose, meaning that violence isn't the answer simply becuase you happen to agree with the issue being protested. In other words, it is never the answer, you or I don't get to decide when violence is ok based upon our beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) That pretty much has NEVER been the law. So now we are day two of you not reading the charter huh? Please go read it, your asinine and embarassing talking points are ...well you know. Yes, of course it is. The police are able to hold anyone without charge for 24 hours. The police have 24 hours to put you in front of a judge or release you. Simple as that. That is just how it is. Edited February 26, 2015 by LemonPureLeaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well, being so smart, why aren't you and others smart enough to understand that simply because you think a particular cause is just doesn't mean there aren't others who disagree or who have their own just causes that you would completely oppose, meaning that violence isn't the answer simply becuase you happen to agree with the issue being protested. In other words, it is never the answer, you or I don't get to decide when violence is ok based upon our beliefs. I disagree that violence is never the answer: it depends entirely on the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) . Edited February 26, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 In actual fact, and in spite of the Charter and the desire of lefties to be governed mainly... LOL! Thanks for playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I disagree that violence is never the answer: it depends entirely on the question. Exactly, so you are making a value judgement on the basis of your beleifs, well here is a news flash, most Canadians dont want to see roads blocked or store windows smashed and they would be more than happy to see anyone who does those things arrested and locked up for a time. Contrary to the opinions of some most of us live perfectly good lives and don't think the government is out to get us for some reason or another, that's the reality. So if anti abortionists can't burn down clinics because that's 'wrong', and most Canadians think that smashing store windows in a protest against some imagined new world order adversary is also wrong, where does that leave us? You can choose anarchy or the rule of law, where violence isn't acceptable, picking and choosing when it's ok to burn police cars or what not just can't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Yes, of course it is. The police are able to hold anyone without charge for 24 hours.Wrong again! Nice try though. There are avenues to learn, and you sure need it. Go read. The police have 24 hours to put you in front of a judge or release you. Simple as that. That is just how it is.Not quite right. Strike three ! Edited February 26, 2015 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Exactly, so you are making a value judgement on the basis of your beleifs, well here is a news flash, most Canadians dont want to see roads blocked or store windows smashed and they would be more than happy to see anyone who does those things arrested and locked up for a time. Contrary to the opinions of some most of us live perfectly good lives and don't think the government is out to get us for some reason or another, that's the reality. So if anti abortionists can't burn down clinics because that's 'wrong', and most Canadians think that smashing store windows in a protest against some imagined new world order adversary is also wrong, where does that leave us? You can choose anarchy or the rule of law, where violence isn't acceptable, picking and choosing when it's ok to burn police cars or what not just can't work. Exactly. Perfectly said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Well,that's the law. The police can arrest and hold anyone without charge for 24 hours. That's been the law for a long time. Nothing new. That's what was done and it was all very legal so I don't see the problem. People were told to stay away and they did not listen to the police so they got arrested. If they hadn't of done what the were told not to do they would've been fine but they decided to call the police bluff and got smacked down for it. Live and learn. If you're going to protest do so in a way that the police tell you to. Harper wants to be able to lock people up for a week because you might commit a crime. Of course he has included instructions for the detainee ot to be killed or sexually assaulted. Ever heard of a book called 1984 I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemonPureLeaf Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Harper wants to be able to lock people up for a week because you might commit a crime. Of course he has included instructions for the detainee ot to be killed or sexually assaulted. Ever heard of a book called 1984 I wonder. You guys are acting like he's simply going to lock up everyone he feels like it and throw away the key pretty much...this is laughable at best. You guys are giving the PM too much credit, he has bigger things to worry about then some bongo playing hippie tying themselves to trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 You guys are acting like he's simply going to lock up everyone he feels like it and throw away the key pretty much...this is laughable at best. You guys are giving the PM too much credit, he has bigger things to worry about then some bongo playing hippie tying themselves to trees. Thats pretty much what happened at the G 20 and that was without C 51. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.