Trucker's Convoy

[blackbird]

A colony for anti-vaxers, anti restrictions people is being started in Paraguay.  Good place for the freedom convoy crowd on here to move to.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well they’re on the docket.  In the meantime, enjoy your two-tier restricted society and martial law.  

I'm vaxxed. Didn't kill me either. So I will, thank you very much. 

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Get those court cases ready. 

Khadr got 10.5 mil for having his rights violated.

[Boges]

Just now, Goddess said:

Khadr got 10.5 mil for having his rights violated.

Kay. Not really comparable, but alright. 

Are you expecting a multi-million dollar payout because you can't get on a flight? 

[Accountability Now]

30 minutes ago, Boges said:

Chrystia Freeland's warming up in the Bullpen. 

I'd take that over Trudeau any day. 

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Khadr got 10.5 mil for having his rights violated.

Oh yeah and his lawyer is a liberal candidate?  Fucking ridiculous 

[myata]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

But he/she still requires the confidence of the House and that means party votes need to be whipped. 

It can be said shorter and simpler: Liberal + spineless NDP = near-totalitarian majority.

And no, this is no "Westminister" it works on its own history and traditions and here we have none of those. It's just a poor laughable copy, a parody that works well only as long as there's nothing for it to do, except enjoying obscene and unmerited entitlements and as soon as it encounters a real problem it has no clue what to do, it panics, it does not make sense and invariably has to ask itself for extraordinary powers. As just seen, with eyes.

[West]

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

What's what you're pivoting to now. I'm not searching for your fake cite. I'm sure it has something to do with VAERS. 

It was from the national post. 

And no that's what my point was. Trudeau and his cronies should be held criminally liable for every person who died or was injured from the vaccine. Manslaughter or assault.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

I'd take that over Trudeau any day. 

Let's see... Westerner... Public School attendee... no silver spoon... what's not to like ?

[Aristides]

Never mind the auto industry, how many Canadian truckers will be put out of work if this happens.

I know it's the CBC but they are reporting on actual US reaction to the blockades and a protectionist government that doesn't need much excuse to cut Canadian business out.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-u-s-bridge-blockade-economy-1.6351762

[Boges]

6 minutes ago, myata said:

It can be said shorter and simpler: Liberal + spineless NDP = near-totalitarian majority.

And no, this is no "Westminister" it works on its own history and traditions and here we have none of those. It's just a poor laughable copy, a parody that works well only as long as there's nothing for it to do, except enjoying obscene and unmerited entitlements and as soon as it encounters a real problem it has no clue what to do, it panics, it does not make sense and invariably has to ask itself for extraordinary powers. As just seen, with eyes.

I'll ask to you as well. What country does good governance the best, in your humble opinion? 

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, West said:

It was from the national post. 

And no that's what my point was. Trudeau and his cronies should be held criminally liable for every person who died or was injured from the vaccine. Manslaughter or assault.

Good luck with that. 

[Zeitgeist]

12 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'm vaxxed. Didn't kill me either. So I will, thank you very much. 

I’m triple-vaccinated but I support people’s right to health discretion.  

[Dougie93]

Freeland is not even really Canadian

Freeland is a Democrat party plant in Canada

she is an American for all intents & purposes

if anybody in the Liberal Party is working directly for the American Deep State, it's Freeland

[Boges]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

I’m triple-vaccinated but I support people’s right to health discretion.  

Sure. But border restrictions are not examples of Marshall Law. 

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Boges said:

Sure. But border restrictions are not examples of Marshall Law. 

Vaccine passports and martial law go together quite swelly, like peanut butter and jelly ?

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Vaccine passports and martial law go together quite swelly, like peanut butter and jelly ?

I don't think you're working off a correct definition of Marshall Law. 

[West]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

Good luck with that. 

According to the poll, 56 per cent of Canadians say the unvaccinated should not be pressured into getting the shot. The majority believe that if someone has not gotten it by now, they won’t, and pressuring them is creating backlash that is “worse than living with them in our communities.” 

Two-thirds of Canadians believe it’s time to drop COVID-19 restrictions and begin living with the virus, according to a new poll.   

https://nationalpost.com/news/two-thirds-of-canadians-ready-to-drop-covid-19-restrictions

 

Sorry son you are in the minority. 

And yes attitudes will change. If you push a faulty product causing injury or death, you are criminally liable. 

[myata]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'll ask to you as well. What country does good governance the best, in your humble opinion? 

Scandinavian democracies seem to be clean and reasonable. They have representative system and active involved population. They would probably be way ahead on genuine egalitarianism while we mostly have an illusion, a tale of it.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, myata said:

Scandinavian democracies seem to be clean and reasonable. They have representative system and active involved population. They would probably be way ahead on genuine egalitarianism while we mostly have an illusion, a tale of it.

I'm surprised by that response. But cool.

These countries are also, by most definitions, very socialist. 

[BeaverFever]

On 2/14/2022 at 9:09 PM, Army Guy said:

First thank you for the response, and source. I have this question that keeps coming back even in your video.. as in all mu sources in does correctly list how a law is constructed and the process... like i said before the "courts" are not mentioned in any of them, why is that ? is my first question, next question is what is meant when it says those laws are interrupted by the the judicial branch for use in the courts...as each court case is different, by using interrupted does that mean how it can apply to that case. or is it the final approval as you suggest that is my hang up...

Becasue it also says the law becomes law right after royal accent... it seems like it is a broken link let me explain,  why go through all that problem to run through parliament, and implemented by government, only to be checked to see if meets constitutional requirements and is legal to start with..  and be sent back to start all over. It in my opinion would be less work intensive if the propose bill went to the judges first...to see if it does pass the litmus test prior to all the work being down... 

You are correct that judges and courts are jot involved in making the law. The law gets made in parliament by the Legislative and Executive branches and once it gets passed it then receives Royal Assent (which is a symbolic formality) and that’s it, it’s been made and it is now the law of the land. If you violate it then you’re subject to whatever penalized it specifies…..

BUT THEN concerned citizens, interest groups etc can launch a legal challenge of the law for various reasons including that they believe it violates the constitution and THAT is when the courts get involved. Even if they don’t launch a legal challenge as soon as someone gets charged under the law and defends themselves in court (as opposed to just pleading guilty). The point is that someone must actually make an effort to challenge the law in court, it doesn’t happen automatically when the law is made.
 

Then a judge can rule that the law is deficient (again for any number of reasons, not just constitutionality)  Those other reasons include that the law contradicts another law, or is too unclear to be applied, and sometimes even based on how the court feels a reasonable person acting in good faith would behave in real-life situations.  This is what it means to “interpret” the law:  what does it mean and did this accused person violate that meaning?  For example:  The law says you cannot use a firearm in a reckless and dangerous manner. But what qualifies as “reckless” or “dangerous”  and did the actions of the accused actually meet this qualification?  What if the accused  is a firearms expert and champion marksman, vs if he is someone who has never held a gun before?  And what difference, if any, should that make in their particular case?  Perhaps because he’s an expert and knew exactly what he was doing it wasn’t reckless. Or perhaps because he’s an expert he ought to have known better. It depends on the specific situation. Only the courts can decide these kinds of things   

So your question is why isn’t this done up front during the parliamentary  lawmaking process. Well  the lawmakers in parliament try, all proposed laws are extensively studied in Committees who hold hearings and receive testimony from various experts, concerned citizens etc but they can’t think of every possible hypothetical situation where a well-meaning law could be applied in real life. And politicians in parliament don’t necessarily give the same weight to the arguments they hear in committee as a judge would in court with lawyers strongly debating both sides. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by BeaverFever

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, West said:

Sorry son you are in the minority.

all these polls are rigged

when you get to the protests, you see

it's left, right, and center Canadians, all together against foreign interference and medical Lysenkoism

even as a right wing nutjob myself, I can work with the leftists on this one issue

if an American MAGA Republican can agree with a Canadian Socialist, then you know it is non partisan

only the state corporate media is portraying this as partisan, but they are literally Pravda & TASS now

 

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

by most definitions, very socialist. 

If Stalin and Hitler were both socialists, pretty much anyone and anything can be branded as such

[Zeitgeist]

35 minutes ago, myata said:

Scandinavian democracies seem to be clean and reasonable. They have representative system and active involved population. They would probably be way ahead on genuine egalitarianism while we mostly have an illusion, a tale of it.

During my lifetime I think Canada was probably at its strongest under Harper when our dollar hit $1.10 US, our banks were lauded for being well-regulated, we were hosting international events like the Olympics, we were respected by China and the Yankees, and we hadn’t fallen into the morass of identity politics and hemorrhaging debt.

Ironically I had been a staunch Liberal until then.  I hadn’t voted for Harper in his first mandate.  Canada has really lost stature and strength under Trudeau.  Carbon taxes add to our already high fuel, food/goods delivery, and heating costs.  National pride is racist/colonialist.   It’s an endless victim and apology parade.  The solace is pogey and weed.  Don’t think or question.  Let government tell you how to live and what you deserve.  Now, when we should be celebrating reopening, our government has introduced further measures to override constitutional rights to put down opposition.  It’s really sad.

We just wait for permission from government to enjoy basic rights, scared of how we’ll be construed if we ask for them.  Government ignores real, legitimate concerns.

How far Canada has fallen.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Nexii]

A government can be quite far left/right and still be good for the people. Today there's way too much focus on wedge issues instead of looking at efficiency, corruption, and equality as metrics of good government. Scandinavian countries as noted on the left. I'd say on the right South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan all did it correctly to become developed. 

Canada used to have a pretty good balance although we've always been stifled by inefficiencies, too many monopolies, too much protectionism. It's going to make it all the harder to come out of this. Inflation is just starting.