Thank you Trudeau...

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 that no such right exists under the Charter

Yes, I am familiar with that case. It was a 5:4 decision so there certainly was some question among our highest justices. I pointed out previously the rights we do have that have some overlap with Miranda rights, and there are others that apply to giving testimony but that is beyond what most people think of Miranda rights from television. I think however we are sufficiently far off topic here, despite the attempt to link it back with slander and nationalism (b.t.w. you can have twitter, and 100% of it, I agree it is pure American from the ground up).

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

... I think however we are sufficiently far off topic here, despite the attempt to link it back with slander and nationalism (b.t.w. you can have twitter, and 100% of it, I agree it is pure American from the ground up).

 

Agreed....Trudeau is such a sleazy political opportunist, he will use any divisive circumstance to interfere, as in this acquittal. 

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trudeau is such a sleazy political opportunist...

You can also have 100% of KFC and the double down

[Argus]

16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, the Conservatives are lying about Trudeau said. He did not make a negative comment about the judicial system or trial. They are trying to imply something that is not true, that is the innuendo.

What does 'we have come to this point as a country far too many times. "I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."  mean in commenting on the trial if not 'the system didn't work the way I wanted'?

What does 'We all have more to do to improve justice & fairness for Indigenous Canadians.' mean if not  'the system failed'? This was said for some reason unknown to anyone but her immense desperation to virtue signal, by our health minister.

What does '“Canada can and must do better.” mean in commenting about this trial? Said by the Liberal justice minister, who, together with our public order minister is meeting with the Boushi family today?

What does “I grieve for a family that has not yet seen justice from the moment a handgunned farmer (why does a farmer need such a gun?) pulled the trigger and killed their son,”  said by one of Trudeau's new senators, Murray Sinclair

 

 

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

What does ... mean in commenting on the trial

If you go to the full comment, you will see that is you that is linking that to the trial and not Trudeau.

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

What does “I grieve for a family that has not yet seen justice from the moment a handgunned farmer (why does a farmer need such a gun?) pulled the trigger and killed their son,”  said by one of Trudeau's new senators, Murray Sinclair

I haven't seen that one yet, but that does sound inappropriate to me. Questioning the need for handguns is one thing, but it does appear he is referencing this case. Did he say that before or after the trial?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

So you are saying that aboriginals are extremely biased, but whites are pure as the driven snow?

No, but the only evidence of racism here is coming from the aboriginals, who have made this a cause celebre simply because one of their criminal youth was killed by a white farmer. Had he been gunned down on the reserve under similar conditions they wouldn't be in Ottawa meeting with ministers and nobody would be paying any attention.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If you go to the full comment, you will see that is you that is linking that to the trial and not Trudeau.

'So you're saying Trudeau's comment was unrelated to the trial? Seriously? And that of his health and justice ministers? Just came out of the blue? Not related to any particular trial?

[Accountability Now]

50 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I don't know what motivates these people to make their statements, but they are not based on what Trudeau actually tweeted/responded.

Wow! Your response reeks of desperation to make your beloved PM remain infallible in your eyes.  You seem like a smart enough person that it seems so odd that you would go to such a stretch. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Trudeau chose to make divisive statements (from another country) for political gain:

 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Wow! Your response reeks of desperation to make your beloved PM remain infallible in your eyes.

I see plenty wrong with Trudeau, and will probably not vote for him again. I openly admit I voted for him to get rid of something far, far worse. The point is however that I don't misquote people for political gain, which is what is happening here. I don't drive that much during the winter, and that is the only time I listen to talk radio, but I couldn't believe the misquoting taking place by the right wing radio hosts during a short drive this afternoon in order to rile up the rabid listeners.

So far I have 1 tweet, and one short sentence, if you have anything else you believe is Trudeau trying to interfere in justice then please cite it. I have looked at the former in their entirety, and neither of them is how they are being characterized by the right wing partisans for purely political purposes.

Go back to the source and look at it in its entirely, and then comment.

Edited February 12, 2018 by ?Impact

[Gingerteeth]

On 2018-02-10 at 12:22 PM, Argus said:

Did he do that when he died? Does he do this when other ordinary people die? Reading between the lines of this trial coverage what we had were a group of drunken young natives who went to his farm and tried to steal things, rooting around in another car there and then getting on and trying to start up his ATV. I don't have a good idea from the coverage of what excuse he had for getting his gun. I didn't read anything which said he feared for his life, for example, which seems odd since it must have been there somewhere. Then it went off by accident. I don't believe that for a moment. And even if it did you're still responsible if you are pointing it at someone without a very, very, VERY good excuse. The only excuse I know of is fear that they were an imminent threat. The coverage is confusing on that point. It says when the door of the SUV was opened Bouchy tumbled out, with a loaded rifle between his legs. 

I think the jury basically thought he was justified in shooting the guy, regardless of what the law said. I don't think this has a racial angle. I don't think he would have behaved any differently had it been five white people instead of five natives. And I don't think the jury would have either.

The jury found there was reasonable doubt that Mr.Stanley meant to kill Mr. boushie to fit the charge of second degree murder. If he was charge under manslaughter or negligent homicide the outcome would most likely be different.

[Accountability Now]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So far I have 1 tweet, and one short sentence, if you have anything else you believe is Trudeau trying to interfere in justice then please cite it. I have looked at the former in their entirety, and neither of them is how they are being characterized by the right wing partisans for purely political purposes.

The great thing about these forums is that is easy to see what people have said and in particular you might look back at the second post of this thread where shortly after he tweeted it, I questioned his reasoning. I did not wait for the right wing radio hosts or rabid listeners as you say...it was clear as day.  It was also clear that immediately a vast number of Twitter followers immediately commented the same thing. You keep saying that this was inspired by right wing politicians but you couldn't be more wrong. If anything, the right wing politicians saw an opportunity to point out a conclusion that MANY, MANY other people came to all on their own. Even other MLW members who are notoriously left wing pointed out the same thing. This is not a matter of right versus left. Its a matter of Trudeau commenting at a very inappropriate time and in a very inappropriate way.

As for the 1 tweet and one short sentence, they both insinuate that the verdict was not right. Imagine the verdict was guilty....would he have said the same thing? Not a chance. He may have not said anything at all but it certainly wouldn't have been the same 1 tweet and one short sentence he said this go around. Of course, the bottom line is that he shouldn't be saying anything about it....nothing.  Its a matter for the court and knowing there is a chance for an appeal he should have kept his mouth shut....but he can't do that can he??

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Be careful folks...apparently the RCMP is monitoring online comments about this trial...somebody recorded and posted a video of the verdict:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/online-video-jury-delivering-stanley-not-guilty-verdict-grave-concern-1.4531717

Come and get me Dudley !

 

[?Impact]

37 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said:

If he was charge under manslaughter or negligent homicide the outcome would most likely be different.

From what I understand of the trial, culpable homicide (manslaughter) was considered and included in the non-guilty verdict. The actual trial transcript will be an interesting read, I have not seen it yet so I am just going by what I saw reported in the media.

34 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I did not wait for the right wing radio hosts or rabid listeners as you say...it was clear as day.  It was also clear that immediately a vast number of Twitter followers immediately commented the same thing.

I agree, many arrived at the same false conclusion as you did. The fact that Trudeau has many out there that would like to see him fail is not surprising, but again I point out that his direct quotes are the ones that count. Please provide them in their entirety when making your allegations.

31 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

apparently the RCMP is monitoring online comments...

No big surprise there, spying on citizens is what passes for law enforcement in the past couple of decades in Canada. Not to worry, we will catch up with your leadership sometime soon.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 The fact that Trudeau has many out there that would like to see him fail is not surprising,...

 

Trudeau is already a failure....guilty of ethics violations X 4.  The honeymoon has been over for a long time.

He needlessly injected himself in this verdict outcome for his usual, sleazy political purposes.

Trudeau didn't even have the courage to face the music for his comments in country.

[?Impact]

50 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trudeau didn't even have the courage to face the music for his comments in country.

Aw, still peeved he was warmly welcomed in California

[bush_cheney2004]

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Aw, still peeved he was warmly welcomed in California

 

Actually, his motorcade caused an accident that injured three people, including a CHP officer.

 

[?Impact]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Actually, his motorcade caused an accident that injured three people, including a CHP officer.

That is a strange way to describe a traffic accident. The Toyota that turned into the motorcade was what caused it, not sure if she didn't see the CHP officer or what.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is a strange way to describe a traffic accident.

 

Please keep your sleazy, unethical PM out of the U.S.  

He must be afraid of all the bad news back home....this was his 15th U.S. visit to beg for something again.

[?Impact]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Please keep your sleazy, unethical PM out of the U.S. 

I already did that on October 19th, 2015 (actually it was a few days earlier for me but I don't remember the exact date).

[bush_cheney2004]

Good job Justin Trudeau...he helped to attract international attention to Canada's rich, cultural history at Battleford:

 

Quote

BATTLEFORD, Saskatchewan — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s push for reconciliation of Canada’s troubled history with its Indigenous people particularly resonates here in the town of Battleford, in the central part of Saskatchewan Province.

A pass system, similar to South Africa’s under apartheid, once required Indigenous people to get a government official’s written permission to step off their reserves. A public hanging in 1885 of six Cree and two Assiniboine men on murder charges that have since been questioned remains the largest mass execution in Canada’s history.

... The area is also an outlier on crime. Using data from Statistics Canada, a government agency, Maclean’s magazine found that North Battleford, Battleford’s sister community across the North Saskatchewan River, is the most dangerous place in Canada.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/world/canada/canada-saskatchewan-murder-indigenous.html

 

[Accountability Now]

15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I agree, many arrived at the same false conclusion as you did. The fact that Trudeau has many out there that would like to see him fail is not surprising, but again I point out that his direct quotes are the ones that count. Please provide them in their entirety when making your allegations.

False conclusion? Interestingly enough I have posted numerous backings from political columnists and professors in Canadian law who all state that his comments had an implication and a consequence on the future appeal (should it proceed). Yet you have provided nothing but your opinion. No offense but I think I'll take the opinion of the legal experts over yours! Lol.

Its clear that your love for Trudeau has put the blinders on so I really won't spend any more time trying to convince you that him speaking on this active case was inappropriate, however I would be to blame if I didn't provide you with one last article as I feel it sums it up. It again has the opinion of a law professor (which doesn't mean much to you) but the one that I find is interesting is the comments made by Aaron Paquette who is a City of Edmonton Councillor of Metis decent:

Quote

 

Edmonton Councillor Aaron Paquette, when explaining why he would not be commenting on the verdict, tweeted: "There is a necessary separation between judicial, legislative and executive powers in this country. They are parallel systems that should, as far as is possible, stay in their lanes."

As Mr. Paquette said on Twitter. "Any words about the system, or that 'we must do better,' or that people should 'remain calm,' or offering my 'thoughts and prayers,' accomplishes nothing. Literally nothing resembling progress or justice or work happens with such statements."

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/you-and-i-can-question-the-gerald-stanley-verdict-politicians-should-not/article37954500/

 

I suggest you read the whole article which is aptly titled "You and I can question the Stanley verdict - politicians should not. 

[capricorn]

17 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Be careful folks...apparently the RCMP is monitoring online comments about this trial...somebody recorded and posted a video of the verdict:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/online-video-jury-delivering-stanley-not-guilty-verdict-grave-concern-1.4531717

Come and get me Dudley !

In addition, an Indigenous activist is collecting what he considers racist comments on social media to be rolled up into a human rights complaint.

Quote

Indigenous rights activist Gerald McIvor was busy throughout the weekend and Monday urging victims to save screen shots of unwanted posts.

“We will organize and give all that evidence to a lawyer or team of lawyers and a national human rights complaint filed against everyone who posted their racism and hatred,” he told APTN News.

“Let us use their colonial rights and freedom protections against them. Do not stoop to their level of violence. Do not respond to threats with more threats. Just tolerate it but save the evidence. We can and will win this if we unite and strategize.”

http://aptnnews.ca/2018/02/12/post-boushie-racism-causing-grief-anger-job-loss/

Here we go. Another avenue to sue the federal government for taxpayer money.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

I suggest you read the whole article which is aptly titled "You and I can question the Stanley verdict - politicians should not. 

Perhaps a better title would be: "I will leverage the Stanley verdict for political gain - I will pretend to be balanced when I am nothing but."

 

Ibbitson at least used the entire quote, then completely changed the context.

 

Again I return to the root, because that is where the truth lies. Take Trudeau's entire quote (it is not long) and then make your argument in context.

[PIK]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I see plenty wrong with Trudeau, and will probably not vote for him again. I openly admit I voted for him to get rid of something far, far worse. The point is however that I don't misquote people for political gain, which is what is happening here. I don't drive that much during the winter, and that is the only time I listen to talk radio, but I couldn't believe the misquoting taking place by the right wing radio hosts during a short drive this afternoon in order to rile up the rabid listeners.

So far I have 1 tweet, and one short sentence, if you have anything else you believe is Trudeau trying to interfere in justice then please cite it. I have looked at the former in their entirety, and neither of them is how they are being characterized by the right wing partisans for purely political purposes.

Go back to the source and look at it in its entirely, and then comment.

Something far worse. lol This country would be humming along right now if harper was still PM. He would not have done all the dumb stuff trudeau has done or wasted our money. You are sooo funny at times. All 3 need to resign, this comedy show must end. He has divided this country more than anyone else.

Edited February 13, 2018 by PIK