Trucker's Convoy

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Hitler's democracy was elected.

 

So you would rather have a mob dictating who is going to form a government.

Trudeau = Hitler. Got it. 

You just keep digging deeper.

[CITIZEN_2015]

19 minutes ago, myata said:

Hitler's democracy was elected.

You are making a mockery out of yourself equating Trudeau with Hitler though not surprised when unvaccinated protesters wearing yellow badges claiming they are treated how Jews were treated in second world war in Nazi Germany!!!!.

[West]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I don't like a lot of things governments do but I believe in democracy where governments are elected, not dictated by mobs.

Let's take stock. We have a bunch of angry people who have taken over downtown Ottawa for two weeks, many with their kids, and other groups blocking borders and bridges and what has happened to them. NOTHING! Yet  you have the absolute gall to compare them with Europe's Jews of the 30's and 40's. You also have the gall to claim you are doing it for our own good, completely ignoring the rights and freedoms of the people who live and have business's in those places or rely on those borders to get the goods they need to run their lives and business or get their goods to market. All because a small minority of truckers don't want to get vaccinated and a bunch of stupid children who think they are some kind of heroes.

Shouldn't there be certain parameters in which a government must govern? Like a charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example?

What's the recourse for governments who govern outside the laws of the land?

[Moonbox]

4 minutes ago, West said:

Shouldn't there be certain parameters in which a government must govern? Like a charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example?

What's the recourse for governments who govern outside the laws of the land?

There it is again.  The Charter!  Muh Riiights!  Good thing the Court system exists to review challenges against the government, which have thus far all failed.  I've yet to see you actually form a coherent argument about what rights are being violated, exactly, and how the laws are being broken.  

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, West said:

Shouldn't there be certain parameters in which a government must govern? Like a charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example?

What's the recourse for governments who govern outside the laws of the land?

Same as they have always been, the courts.

That's what rule of law means.

[West]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

There it is again.  The Charter!  Muh Riiights!  Good thing the Court system exists to review challenges against the government, which have thus far all failed.  I've yet to see you actually form a coherent argument about what rights are being violated, exactly, and how the laws are being broken.  

The court system takes 4 or 5 years to go through the review process. By that time much damage has been done to people's lives. 

Don't know why you are so offended by human rights  

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, West said:

The court system takes 4 or 5 years to go through the review process. By that time much damage has been done to people's lives. 

Don't know why you are so offended by human rights  

Not necessarily, the Supreme Court can decide to hear a case on short notice if it feels it is important.

Where do you get off telling people what their rights are?

[Goddess]

Just now, Aristides said:

Where do you get off telling people what their rights are?

OMG

Do you ever think about what you post?  The irony is just......glaring.

[West]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Same as they have always been, the courts.

That's what rule of law means.

Exactly the point. Just because a government enacts something doesn't mean it is lawful. 

As mentioned above, the government probably intentionally creates a slow court system. In this case it'll likely take several years to hear and make its way through the process. By that time the mandates will be dropped and will be considered mute. The damage done, however, will be long lasting.

[West]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Not necessarily, the Supreme Court can decide to hear a case on short notice if it feels it is important.

Where do you get off telling people what their rights are?

You are the one implying rights enshrined in the constitution are merely privileges that can be given and taken away by mob rule.

[Moonbox]

19 minutes ago, West said:

The court system takes 4 or 5 years to go through the review process. By that time much damage has been done to people's lives. 

No it doesn't.  The best and most glorious thing about the Courts is that they operate on common sense and reason, which is something that's in short-supply with your arguments.  When an issue is pressing and important enough, it jumps the queue, because it must be seen quickly to be relevant.  There have already been multiple lawsuits like Brian Peckford's  against COVID-19 rules that have failed in the Courts.  We therefore not only have legal precedence that has supported such measures, we also have rock-solid proof that it doesn't take 4-5 years to see cases against them.  Congratulations.  You're clueless on multiple levels. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Moonbox

[suds]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I don't like a lot of things governments do but I believe in democracy where governments are elected, not dictated by mobs.

Let's take stock. We have a bunch of angry people who have taken over downtown Ottawa for two weeks, many with their kids, and other groups blocking borders and bridges and what has happened to them. NOTHING! Yet  you have the absolute gall to compare them with Europe's Jews of the 30's and 40's. You also have the gall to claim you are doing it for our own good, completely ignoring the rights and freedoms of the people who live and have business's in those places or rely on those borders to get the goods they need to run their lives and business or get their goods to market. All because a small minority of truckers don't want to get vaccinated and a bunch of stupid children who think they are some kind of heroes.

I don't blame the truckers for doing what they're doing.  I don't blame those living, or those owning businesses in the affected downtown areas, from being upset. So how about we end the vaccine mandate (at least for the truckers anyway) and get these guys (and gals) back on the highway and doing what they do best?  70% of US/Canada trade is hauled by truck which includes food and medical supplies. The problem is not the truckers, it's Trudeau.  It's his job to do what's best for the country and not his reputation or the Liberal party.

[West]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No it doesn't.  The best and most glorious thing about the Courts is that they operate on common sense and reason, which is something that's in short-supply with your arguments.  When an issue is pressing and important enough, it jumps the queue, because it must be seen quickly to be relevant.  There have already been multiple lawsuits like Brian Peckford's  against COVID-19 rules that have failed in the Courts.  We therefore not only have legal precedence that has supported such measures, we also have rock-solid proof that it doesn't take 4-5 years to see cases against them.  Congratulations.  You're clueless on multiple levels. 

Covid tickets that were handed out two years ago are finally being heard. The vast majority of covid fines are being tossed. Others are still pending in court two years later. That's also another fact. The third fact is that Brian Peckford's argument has NOT been heard despite your lies. Who to believe.. Brian Peckford a man who actually wrote the constitution or some jackass on the internet who has an irrational fear of the unvaccinated.

It's also a fact that a judge when hearing the injunction against the truckers repeatedly said that they have a right to protest. 

You are pathetic sir. Nice try

Edited February 10, 2022 by West

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I don't like a lot of things governments do but I believe in democracy where governments are elected, not dictated by mobs.

Very well made statements indeed.

Edited February 10, 2022 by CITIZEN_2015

[Accountability Now]

58 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Read my comment that you have quoted before posting. I said restrictions as how or when to lift like mask wearing or bar and restaurant capacity or openings are provincial jurisdictions. The protesters also demanding restrictions removed.

In that very quote you also stated:

“They are provincial jurisdictions not Federal.”

Then I followed up saying there were federal mandates involved too. 
 

That’s when you replied:

“When and how to remove restrictions are ALL provincial”

The main restrictions the truckers are disputing is the federal mandates however they have used their platform to address the provincial ones too. Dismissing this issue as a provincial matter only is dishonest and/or ignorant 

[West]

5 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

In that very quote you also stated:

“They are provincial jurisdictions not Federal.”

Then I followed up saying there were federal mandates involved too. 
 

That’s when you replied:

“When and how to remove restrictions are ALL provincial”

The main restrictions the truckers are disputing is the federal mandates however they have used their platform to address the provincial ones too. Dismissing this issue as a provincial matter only is dishonest and/or ignorant 

Lots of dishonesty among the leftists like the above and Moonbox. Being dishonest is a core value of these folks 

[Accountability Now]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

I don't know. I would imagine the EU would require vaccination for truckers. 

I haven’t been able to find anything on this either. 
 

As for the previous cite you gave:

 

1. In both cases they at least provide an option if you are not vaccinated. Right now in Canada the only way to fly or cross the border as a trucker is to have two jabs. 
 

2. In the Denmark example, they consider past infection to be the same as vaccinated. 
 

in both cases you can see just how far behind Canada is 

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, West said:

Covid tickets that were handed out two years ago are finally being heard. The vast majority of covid fines are being tossed.

COVID tickets are trivial matters in the Court.  Having some loser complain about a fine he/she knew was a possibility is as low-priority in the Courts as it comes.  Larger challenges to the acts and measures themselves, however, HAVE been heard and tossed.  

Regarding COVID fines themselves, most of them aren't even being pushed forward yet.  Just like the fine disputes are low-priority, so too are moving the fine cases forward.  

Regarding other COVID-19 related offenses, there have been quite a few that have been dismissed in the Courts.  I don't know the exact number, but many charges have been dropped because law-enforcement has done a poor job laying charges and justifying them properly, and when that happens the charges fail.  Seems the Rule of Law is working, no?

3 minutes ago, West said:

 

The third fact is that Brian Peckford's argument has NOT been heard. Who to believe.. Brian Peckford a man who actually wrote the constitution or some jackass on the internet who has an irrational fear of the unvaccinated.

It's also a fact that a judge when hearing the injunction against the truckers repeatedly said that they have a right to protest. 

You are pathetic sir. Nice try

Brian Peckford was a high-school teacher turned Premier and played almost no part in actually writing the Constitution.  He signed it.  That's it.  it's funny how you guys can ridicule Trudeau and his drama teacher background (I do too admittedly) but then you hold Brian f'ing Peckford up as a shining beacon of academia.  Hilarious.  

Of course truckers have a right to protest.  They just don't have a right to protest however they want, wherever they want, and for as long as they want.  The best and most important part of the Constitution is Section 1.  Since it's crystal-clear you don't know the first thing about it, I'll let you go Google it (or dark-weeb it if google is too mainstream for you) and then you can get back to us, okay???

[West]

8 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

COVID tickets are trivial matters in the Court.  Having some loser complain about a fine he/she knew was a possibility is as low-priority in the Courts as it comes.  Larger challenges to the acts and measures themselves, however, HAVE been heard and tossed.  

Regarding COVID fines themselves, most of them aren't even being pushed forward yet.  Just like the fine disputes are low-priority, so too are moving the fine cases forward.  

Regarding other COVID-19 related offenses, there have been quite a few that have been dismissed in the Courts.  I don't know the exact number, but many charges have been dropped because law-enforcement has done a poor job laying charges and justifying them properly, and when that happens the charges fail.  Seems the Rule of Law is working, no?

Brian Peckford was a high-school teacher turned Premier and played almost no part in actually writing the Constitution.  He signed it.  That's it.  it's funny how you guys can ridicule Trudeau and his drama teacher background (I do too admittedly) but then you hold Brian f'ing Peckford up as a shining beacon of academia.  Hilarious.  

Of course truckers have a right to protest.  They just don't have a right to protest however they want, wherever they want, and for as long as they want.  The best and most important part of the Constitution is Section 1.  Since it's crystal-clear you don't know the first thing about it, I'll let you go Google it (or dark-weeb it if google is too mainstream for you) and then you can get back to us, okay???

You say "several" challenges have been brought and failed based on charter challenges. Care to cite those?

You can resort to ad hominems against Brian Peckford all you like. Still does not negate the fact his legal challenge HAS NOT been heard. That was false. Why do you feel the need to lie? 

Some challenges have been brought. Mostly on procedural or enforcement grounds. Other charges have stayed based on other issues unrelated to the actual covid fines, like obstruction or contempt of court. Not sure how those are relevant.

Edited February 10, 2022 by West

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

So you would rather have a mob dictating who is going to form a government.

No only stating a fact of history: Hitler's democracy was elected. An election in itself cannot prevent a rise of a dictatorship. Proven by history.

[Moonbox]

17 minutes ago, West said:

You say "several" challenges have been brought. Care to cite those?

Sure.  You could have done 5 seconds of research yourself, but here's one that took me just as long to find:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8237794/legal-challenge-saskatchewan-proof-of-vaccine-mandate-struck-down-court/

“The proof of vaccine requirements being put into place to address the pandemic are in line with provincial and federal legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” wrote Wyant.

17 minutes ago, West said:

You can resort to ad hominems against Brian Peckford all you like. Still does not negate the fact his legal challenge HAS NOT been heard. That was false. Why do you feel the need to lie? 

I never said his challenge was heard, genius.  I said it would fail just as the others like it.  Why are you making stuff up and putting words in my mouth?  As usual, you twist your brain into a pretzel trying to argue against something that's not even there.  

Edited February 10, 2022 by Moonbox

[West]

The fact is the provincial and federal governments are not disputing the fact that certain mandates violate your charter rights. They are saying they are justified in doing so because some people have gotten sick. 

It's not in dispute that keeping people off an airplane is a violation of freedom of Mobility. It's whether or not they can justify that. At this point no they cannot as both vaccinated and unvaccinated spread covid

[West]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Sure.  You could have done 5 seconds of research yourself, but here's one that took me just as long to find:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8237794/legal-challenge-saskatchewan-proof-of-vaccine-mandate-struck-down-court/

“The proof of vaccine requirements being put into place to address the pandemic are in line with provincial and federal legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” wrote (Justice) Wyant.

I never said his challenge was heard, genius.  I said it would fail just as the others like it.  Why are you making stuff up and putting words in my mouth?  As usual, you twist your brain into a pretzel trying to argue against something that's not even there.  

?. 

Read a bit about the arguments of the case. The issue was that specific case was overly broad. 

There's a reason why saskatchewan government gave a directive in November NOT to enforce the proof of vaccine/testing requirements. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by West

[myata]

The problem is way more significant than a protest on specific issue(s). The problem is that the restrictions can't end in any meaningful way  in this country. Covid is here to stay. After four rounds of lockdowns who can say that the next time a variant appeared and cases clime up, saving a miracle it will happen at some point, the same experts wouldn't be making the same calls for new restrictions, mandates and lockdowns? Note how, unlike in many peer countries, restrictions here pile up without ever being dropped, lockdowns, masks, vaccines what next. This is no coincidence, the system works this way. It's safer and easier for entitled bureaucrats (by the chair, not necessarily competence and efficiency as everyone can observe these days) to impose and keep restrictions than to come up with effective and sustainable in the long term solutions. That was the job in the first place, not managing the population "for as long as necessary" but please, who in this country can explain it to a caste that came to love issuing edicts and mandates, the true calling of saving you for your own good and against your will if need be?

The restrictions in Canada simply aren't going away, no one has come up with any reasonable alternatives because no one needed and wanted to don't even say, had to because it, the system for a long time now decides what it needs to do. It works as is, why fixing.

Edited February 10, 2022 by myata

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Moonbox said:

Sure.  You could have done 5 seconds of research yourself, but here's one that took me just as long to find:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8237794/legal-challenge-saskatchewan-proof-of-vaccine-mandate-struck-down-court/

“The proof of vaccine requirements being put into place to address the pandemic are in line with provincial and federal legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” wrote (Justice) Wyant.

I never said his challenge was heard, genius.  I said it would fail just as the others like it.  Why are you making stuff up and putting words in my mouth?  As usual, you twist your brain into a pretzel trying to argue against something that's not even there.  

You’re way off.  There’s a high burden of justification for the suspension of Charter rights — thankfully.  You don’t seem to understand that we’ve been in a fluid situation.  I’ve said before that prior to widespread vaccination during the waves of infection by harsher variants there was a much better case to make for suspending Charter rights than there is today.  Even New York State, the jurisdiction hardest hit in the pandemic, is lifting indoor mask mandates.  At this stage of the game vaccine mandates are inappropriate and unconstitutional for sure.