Protesting on Public Sidewalks now illegal in Alberta

[West]

31 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Not at all, I questioned you because you  said "So apparently the "injunction" doesn't apply to Calgary flames hockey fans. Only those who disagree with the government"

I questioned your statement and you have not provided an answer.

Ya you are. 

They levied an injunction on people marching on private sidewalks if it's a rally. 

But are not levying the same injunction against fans who will occupy an area to watch an NHL game. 

Get it?

[ExFlyer]

15 minutes ago, West said:

Ya you are. 

They levied an injunction on people marching on private sidewalks if it's a rally. 

But are not levying the same injunction against fans who will occupy an area to watch an NHL game. 

Get it?

Many you sure twist things if you are implying folks on their way into an arena to see a hockey game is the same as protesting in front of hospitals LOL  Ya gonna try this when football season starts and claim the people going to the stadium will be the same? LOL

You are funny, stretching that rubber band til it breaks Ha Ha Ha

Oh and, to reiterate again, no one has been charged.

[West]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Many you sure twist things if you are implying folks on their way into an arena to see a hockey game is the same as protesting in front of hospitals LOL  Ya gonna try this when football season starts and claim the people going to the stadium will be the same? LOL

You are funny, stretching that rubber band til it breaks Ha Ha Ha

Oh and, to reiterate again, no one has been charged.

No I'm implying people lining the streets, honking horns, etc after their team wins a hockey game doesn't violate the injunction. Those are acceptable views. 

Those demanding that they are allowed full control without punishment over their medical decisions are treated like criminals. Those views are unacceptable 

Edited April 21, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

23 minutes ago, West said:

No I'm implying people lining the streets, honking horns, etc after their team wins a hockey game doesn't violate the injunction. Those are acceptable views. 

Those demanding that they are allowed full control without punishment over their medical decisions are treated like criminals. Those views are unacceptable 

I repeat... no one, not one person, no group, no individuals, no people, no leaders, no followers, nada, zippo have been charged.

Doesn't your throat hurt from barking up that tree?

[West]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I repeat... no one, not one person, no group, no individuals, no people, no leaders, no followers, nada, zippo have been charged.

Doesn't your throat hurt from barking up that tree?

Lol.. 

This is like the Rona restrictions all over again. BLM protests were fully allowed, even encouraged by our politicians. 

Protests against being locked up in your house and losing your business because of mandates were not allowed and resulted in hefty fines. 

What kind of "justice" system is that???

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, West said:

Lol.. 

This is like the Rona restrictions all over again. BLM protests were fully allowed, even encouraged by our politicians. 

Protests against being locked up in your house and losing your business because of mandates were not allowed and resulted in hefty fines. 

What kind of "justice" system is that???

What babble is this??

Your complaint was about "Protesting on Public Sidewalks now illegal in Alberta". A bill that has not been used. You are bringing up BLM and covid and other stuff (long before bill was even enacted) that has no bearing on this bill at all.

Admit it, you lost. You have no point. Lots of noise about nothing.

[West]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

What babble is this??

Your complaint was about "Protesting on Public Sidewalks now illegal in Alberta". A bill that has not been used. You are bringing up BLM and covid and other stuff (long before bill was even enacted) that has no bearing on this bill at all.

Admit it, you lost. You have no point. Lots of noise about nothing.

Its all one in the same. 

If you have unacceptable views to the government you can't protest. 

If they can virtue signal you can protest or clog up streets with honking and large groups of people ie BLM rallies or hockey games. 

The injunction is there in case they need it. Just like they targeted churches to send a message. 

Very sick stuff..

[ExFlyer]

10 minutes ago, West said:

Its all one in the same. 

If you have unacceptable views to the government you can't protest. 

If they can virtue signal you can protest or clog up streets with honking and large groups of people ie BLM rallies or hockey games. 

The injunction is there in case they need it. Just like they targeted churches to send a message. 

Very sick stuff..

Hockey fans on their way to a game and protesters against a bill that has no charges is the same?

Oh, I get it, you are whining "in case" something "may" happen? Ha Ha.

A "just in case" complaint?

[West]

37 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Hockey fans on their way to a game and protesters against a bill that has no charges is the same?

Oh, I get it, you are whining "in case" something "may" happen? Ha Ha.

A "just in case" complaint?

Hockey fans standing in the middle of the street cheering and honking their horns would be similar, yes. 

There's no whining. It's a court injunction that they will enforce selectively. A corrupt legal system used to protect the image of the government.

Edited April 22, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, West said:

Hockey fans standing in the middle of the street cheering and honking their horns would be similar, yes. 

There's no whining. It's a court injunction that they will enforce selectively. A corrupt legal system used to protect the image of the government.

2 years and not one charge.

You whatiffing is just short of paranoa.... or maybe it is??

[West]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

2 years and not one charge.

You whatiffing is just short of paranoa.... or maybe it is??

Two years? ?.. the Calgary injunction came out like a month ago

[ExFlyer]

45 minutes ago, West said:

Two years? ?.. the Calgary injunction came out like a month ago

Your whining is from your post #1  and the title of your post is Protesting on Public Sidewalks now illegal in Alberta and it is about Alberta Bill 1, Protecting Critical infrastructure.

Bill 1 protects essential infrastructure by creating offences for trespassing, interfering with operations or causing damage.

Bill 1 came into force June 17, 2020 so, I stand corrected, it was only about a year ago. And so far, in case you are keeping track, not one single charge has been laid, in Calgary or elsewhere. So, Calgary Flame and Stampeder and Edmonton Oiler and whatever the football team is they are called, now fans can rest easy, they are allowed on the sidewalks  .

[West]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Your whining is from your post #1  and the title of your post is Protesting on Public Sidewalks now illegal in Alberta and it is about Alberta Bill 1, Protecting Critical infrastructure.

Bill 1 protects essential infrastructure by creating offences for trespassing, interfering with operations or causing damage.

Bill 1 came into force June 17, 2020 so, I stand corrected, it was only about a year ago. And so far, in case you are keeping track, not one single charge has been laid, in Calgary or elsewhere. So, Calgary Flame and Stampeder and Edmonton Oiler and whatever the football team is they are called, now fans can rest easy, they are allowed on the sidewalks  .

The one I'm speaking of came into effect on March 18, 2022

https://www.globalnews.ca/news/8709399/calgary-protests-continue-emergency-injunction/amp/

The one you speak of came into effect after the rail line blockades. 

And according to the article, five were arrested for supposedly violating the injunction.

Edited April 22, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, West said:

The one I'm speaking of came into effect on March 18, 2022

https://www.globalnews.ca/news/8709399/calgary-protests-continue-emergency-injunction/amp/

The one you speak of came into effect after the rail line blockades. 

And according to the article, five were arrested for supposedly violating the injunction.

Hey, it's your topic. You change it to support your narrative.

Having sad that, the injunction you now talk about is very specific to Calgary and very specific to protests that have been occurring in Calgary. It stated  "A reminder that the injunction prohibiting violations of existing bylaws and legislation relating to protests in the Beltline & elsewhere in Calgary remains in effect." Key words are "prohibiting violations of existing bylaws".

An injunction (which is just a reiteration of laws) that was put in place in March as result of protests. I suspect to prevent a shitstorm as happened in Ottawa.

[West]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Hey, it's your topic. You change it to support your narrative.

Having sad that, the injunction you now talk about is very specific to Calgary and very specific to protests that have been occurring in Calgary. It stated  "A reminder that the injunction prohibiting violations of existing bylaws and legislation relating to protests in the Beltline & elsewhere in Calgary remains in effect." Key words are "prohibiting violations of existing bylaws".

An injunction (which is just a reiteration of laws) that was put in place in March as result of protests. I suspect to prevent a shitstorm as happened in Ottawa.

So proven wrong and this is what you come up with?

What's in question is whether or not the law is reasonable or just used as an excuse to go after protesters which would be considered undemocratic and something they do in China or Russia

Edited April 23, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

26 minutes ago, West said:

So proven wrong and this is what you come up with?

What's in question is whether or not the law is reasonable or just used as an excuse to go after protesters which would be considered undemocratic and something they do in China or Russia

Proven wrong??? Now that is a laugh.

It is your topic and it is a bill about a bill not being enforced.

No one is going after anyone. No charges have been laid in either bill 1 or in Calgary. Both are warnings of what can happen if you infringe.

Your Calgary BS is an injunction warning that existing laws will be enforced.

So, the person that is wrong is your claims and accusations and won't happen unless oyu block critical infrastructure or break existing laws.

[West]

24 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Proven wrong??? Now that is a laugh.

It is your topic and it is a bill about a bill not being enforced.

No one is going after anyone. No charges have been laid in either bill 1 or in Calgary. Both are warnings of what can happen if you infringe.

Your Calgary BS is an injunction warning that existing laws will be enforced.

So, the person that is wrong is your claims and accusations and won't happen unless oyu block critical infrastructure or break existing laws.

5 people have been arrested. 

And it had nothing to do with blocking critical infrastructure.

They threw a pastor in jail for 50 days for giving a speech. Wasn't blocking anything. They just didn't like what he had to say. That's the Canada you love and cherish.. very sad

As for your comments about "infringe", you love it not because the law is just but because your a petty little boy that doesn't like that people disagree with you

Edited April 23, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, West said:

5 people have been arrested. 

And it had nothing to do with blocking critical infrastructure.

They threw a pastor in jail for 50 days for giving a speech. Wasn't blocking anything. They just didn't like what he had to say. That's the Canada you love and cherish.. very sad

As for your comments about "infringe", you love it not because the law is just but because your a petty little boy that doesn't like that people disagree with you

5 people when? On what charge? Where?

Pastor? Arrested under Bill 1?

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. If they are correct, that makes me learn. What I have trouble with is someone staring a post, getting caught out on BS and keeping changing to cover their fail.

You have made a post, claimed under Bill 1 you cannot protest on a sidewalk, provided zero evidence of it and provided no charges or enforcement.

Then you make bizarre comments about Calgary hockey fans.

Then you brought up a Calgary injunction (by the way, an injunction is just a notification and not a legal enforcement action) about the police ability to enforce existing laws.

So, in the end, your post is BS. Your claims are BS. Your diversions are BS and you are trying to deflect to someone other than accepting you are full of BS on this.

You have been called out and the only thing you can do is deflect and change your topic.

Edited April 23, 2022 by ExFlyer

[West]

10 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

5 people when? On what charge? Where?

Pastor? Arrested under Bill 1?

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. If they are correct, that makes me learn. What I have trouble with is someone staring a post, getting caught out on BS and keeping changing to cover their fail.

You have made a post, claimed under Bill 1 you cannot protest on a sidewalk, provided zero evidence of it and provided no charges or enforcement.

Then you make bizarre comments about Calgary hockey fans.

Then you brought up a Calgary injunction (by the way, an injunction is just a notification and not a legal enforcement action) about the police ability to enforce existing laws.

So, in the end, your post is BS. Your claims are BS. Your diversions are BS and you are trying to deflect to someone other than accepting you are full of BS on this.

You have been called out and the only thing you can do is deflect and change your topic.

Read the gd article I sent you and stop going around in circles.

If these protesters held views acceptable to the government they wouldn't be arrested. A huge blow to free speech when politicians can abuse their power to silence dissent. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, West said:

Read the gd article I sent you and stop going around in circles.

If these protesters held views acceptable to the government they wouldn't be arrested. A huge blow to free speech when politicians can abuse their power to silence dissent. 

The only one going in circles is you.

Your topic heading is fear mongering. When pointed out that no one has been charged you began dancing.

Then your tried the Calgary fan thing and was shown to you that they only made an injunction to show they will enforce existing laws. And you are still dancing.

Nothing in the article except backing up what I said to you.

No blow to anything, let alone free speech and no abuse of anything and no charges have been laid, none, zip, nada. Lots of dormant laws out there going unused and these are a few more.

Oh and in the parks of Calgary, where it’s against the law to “do anything which is likely to attract a crowd” outside of areas where sports, performances and so forth are specifically allowed. Another very old unused law

Edited April 24, 2022 by ExFlyer

[West]

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The only one going in circles is you.

Your topic heading is fear mongering. When pointed out that no one has been charged you began dancing.

Then your tried the Calgary fan thing and was shown to you that they only made an injunction to show they will enforce existing laws. And you are still dancing.

Nothing in the article except backing up what I said to you.

No blow to anything, let alone free speech and no abuse of anything and no charges have been laid, none, zip, nada. Lots of dormant laws out there going unused and these are a few more.

Oh and in the parks of Calgary, where it’s against the law to “do anything which is likely to attract a crowd” outside of areas where sports, performances and so forth are specifically allowed. Another very old unused law

5 were arrested... 

They have selectively enforced their rules to target protests they dislike. That's the point. That's not an equitable justice system... it's fascism. 

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, West said:

5 were arrested... 

They have selectively enforced their rules to target protests they dislike. That's the point. That's not an equitable justice system... it's fascism. 

From your link. The reason they were arrested "Police arrested six people the following week – five for breaching the injunction, one for assaulting an officer."

Nothing selective. They were arrested under existing laws, as it also states in your link.

[West]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

From your link. The reason they were arrested "Police arrested six people the following week – five for breaching the injunction, one for assaulting an officer."

Nothing selective. They were arrested under existing laws, as it also states in your link.

The injunction is BS and is something you'd find in nazi Germany. That's the point...

It is selective because you can go engage in the same behavior as the protests after a Calgary flames game and not be arrested. 

If you support a two tiered system of justice, move to China. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by West

[West]

So what we know from ExFlyer is that 

1. He supports banks who refuse service to people over disputes in political views, and; 

2. He has no issues with politicians harassing protesters of their choosing by creating laws that effectively elimate your right to protest and then using laws in selective enforcement.

I'm surprised what these folks are standing for these days and how petty and vindictive people have become with disputes over politics. 

Edited April 24, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

45 minutes ago, West said:

So what we know from ExFlyer is that 

1. He supports banks who refuse service to people over disputes in political views, and; 

2. He has no issues with politicians harassing protesters of their choosing by creating laws that effectively elimate your right to protest and then using laws in selective enforcement.

I'm surprised what these folks are standing for these days and how petty and vindictive people have become with disputes over politics. 

Way to assume.

1. I believe in free enterprise business.

2. I have never seen any politician personally harass protesters. I see law enforcement officials enforcing existing laws if forced into it.

I stand for doing what is needed to get it right. I stand for law and order. I stand for peaceful protests and not disrupting the lives of citizens. I stand for freedom of expression within the boundaries of civility. I stand for being able to civilly discussing disputes over any topic. I stand for anyone to have an opinion on anything without retribution by those that do not agree with the opinion. I stand for the ability to leave if things are no of your liking. I stand for being able to make choices. I stand for those living with the consequences of those decisions. I stand by and applaud the ones that actually do something about their convictions as opposed to blowing smoke and vitriol on forums.

There may be more but that should give you enough ammunition to mount an attack