Emergency Act commission

[West]

45 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't see how the EMA could have met the threshold.  At best it was a wildly liberal interpretation of legislation that was intended to deal with much more serious problems than hooligans in Ottawa.  

What the inquiry should demonstrate, however, is both the incompetence of our bureaucracy, legislators and law enforcement, along with the dispelling of the myth that this was purely a kumbaya gathering of peaceful freedom lovers.  The way the different organizers and leaders have scrambled to distance themselves from the others has been pretty awkward after the fact.

Regardless, I think the most important part of this inquiry should be the misuse of the EMA and how shockingly poor the protests were handled by our various levels of government and law enforcement.    

There was no violence at the protest.. thats the main takeaway. 

You have the government trying everything in their power to do character assassination. What a sad day for Canada.. 

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, West said:

This trial has turned into a three ring circus with the government creating a soviet style show trial. 

"Show me the person and I'll show you the crime"

 

Kangaroo.

[Queenmandy85]

4 minutes ago, West said:

You have the government trying everything in their power to do character assassination.

This from a person whose posts often contain character assassination against Prime Minister Trudeau. 

[West]

13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Kangaroo.

Yup... sadly tax payers are paying for this government orchestrated clown show

[ExFlyer]

45 minutes ago, West said:

This trial has turned into a three ring circus with the government creating a soviet style show trial. 

"Show me the person and I'll show you the crime"

For sure, as correct a statement as you ever made. "show me a protest organizer and I'll show you crime" LOL

24 minutes ago, West said:

Yup... sadly tax payers are paying for this government orchestrated clown show

So, the convoy people that you are so supporting and that are on the stand answering questions under oath are a circus to you now?

Why? Because they are telling stories of protest groups infighting, political pundits called in form Toronto and paid for by protesters to have meetings with politicians, lost donated funds, envelopes stuffed with $500 to $2000 and up to $08000 in crypto currency handed out in hotel lobbies and Lich getting #1 million form the go-fund-me fund?? All testimony given today.

Yup, I guess you are right, the protest groups were definitely a travelling circus with many clown groups..

Edited November 3, 2022 by ExFlyer

[Moonbox]

55 minutes ago, West said:

There was no violence at the protest.. thats the main takeaway. 

That's fair, but you don't just get to protest wherever you want for as long as you want and however you please just because you're not violent.  

55 minutes ago, West said:

You have the government trying everything in their power to do character assassination. What a sad day for Canada.. 

That's what happens when you bring guys like Pat King along.  He and his followers deserved most of the criticism, and as we saw in the inquiry some of the protest leaders considered asking him to go home but then cynically decided to keep him around because of how many people were with them.  While you may not be guilty of the same things, your association with people like that does speak.  

[West]

38 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

For sure, as correct a statement as you ever made. "show me a protest organizer and I'll show you crime" LOL

So, the convoy people that you are so supporting and that are on the stand answering questions under oath are a circus to you now?

Why? Because they are telling stories of protest groups infighting, political pundits called in form Toronto and paid for by protesters to have meetings with politicians, lost donated funds, envelopes stuffed with $500 to $2000 and up to $08000 in crypto currency handed out in hotel lobbies and Lich getting #1 million form the go-fund-me fund?? All testimony given today.

Yup, I guess you are right, the protest groups were definitely a travelling circus with many clown groups..

Having the lawyer of a guy involved in a multi million dollar bogus lawsuit be able to dig for dirt months before a trial is a joke and a clown show. 

Bringing up irrelevant video clips to smear people is a clown show. 

[West]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That's fair, but you don't just get to protest wherever you want for as long as you want and however you please just because you're not violent.  

That's what happens when you bring guys like Pat King along.  He and his followers deserved most of the criticism, and as we saw in the inquiry some of the protest leaders considered asking him to go home but then cynically decided to keep him around because of how many people were with them.  While you may not be guilty of the same things, your association with people like that does speak.  

Point 1: why not?

Also, the police piloted the protest right into the heart of downtown. You'd think they are the responsible party here  

 

Point 2: 

Smearing an entire group of thousands of people over one guy's comments is dishonest. I don't think we should have to explain you can agree with people on some things and not others. 

Problem today is instead of actually providing legitimate arguments, people resort to character assassination. 

[West]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This from a person whose posts often contain character assassination against Prime Minister Trudeau. 

 

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

This from a person whose posts often contain character assassination against Prime Minister Trudeau. 

He's easily the most divisive PM I've seen

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, West said:

Point 1: why not?

Because your right to demonstrate and inconvenience others has constitutional limits, and for obvious reasons.  ?‍♂️

1 hour ago, West said:

Point 2: 

Smearing an entire group of thousands of people over one guy's comments is dishonest.

It wasn't one guy's comments.  It was one guy, all of his followers, and then numerous other people and their respective groups.  The notion that this was all a kumbaya protest of peace and love is equally dishonest.  There's nuance here, going both ways.  

1 hour ago, West said:

I don't think we should have to explain you can agree with people on some things and not others. 

Certainly, but then maybe you could go back and review your own posts and characterizations of people disagreeing with you.  

1 hour ago, West said:

Problem today is instead of actually providing legitimate arguments, people resort to character assassination. 

Yeah, it's definitely a problem.  How many times have you used "vile" to describe the people you disagree with here?  If you honestly asked yourself, could you seriously say you've avoided nasty rhetoric and hyperbole, while sticking to legitimate arguments?  ?

Edited November 3, 2022 by Moonbox

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, West said:

 

He's easily the most divisive PM I've seen

A few years ago, we had a Socred Prime Minister Named Stephen Harper who was pretty decisive. He lied to the people of Saskatchewan about the equalization deal, he reneged on the Kelowna accord, lied about income trusts and pulled us out of the Kyoto agreement. I would say he was as devisive as Prime Minister Trudeau. There was also the poroguation scandal. You could say they were as bad or as good as each other. Both have failed on the climate issue

[Queenmandy85]

Deleted pending confirmation of evidence

Edited November 3, 2022 by Queenmandy85

[West]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Because your right to demonstrate and inconvenience others has constitutional limits, and for obvious reasons.  ?‍♂️

It wasn't one guy's comments.  It was one guy, all of his followers, and then numerous other people and their respective groups.  The notion that this was all a kumbaya protest of peace and love is equally dishonest.  There's nuance here, going both ways.  

Certainly, but then maybe you could go back and review your own posts and characterizations of people disagreeing with you.  

Yeah, it's definitely a problem.  How many times have you used "vile" to describe the people you disagree with here?  If you honestly asked yourself, could you seriously say you've avoided nasty rhetoric and hyperbole, while sticking to legitimate arguments?  ?

1. You can't selectively choose who has a right to protest based on their views. If this was a March for trans bathroom access there wouldn't be an issue and we all know that's true. 

2. That's false. I find it odd that irrelevant comments are being brought into what's supposed to be a legitimate process.. much of this nonsense would be striken if this were any other trial. 

3. I only respond to what I see as vile behavior and defense of such behavior by folks on here. Defending discrimination and show trials is strange. 

4. Yes I find much of what you defend and your debate tactics vile and repugnant. I don't wish you to lose your home, hope you lose your job or cheer as you are harassed you at your place of worship over differing views tho...  thats the difference

Edited November 3, 2022 by West

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, West said:

Having the lawyer of a guy involved in a multi million dollar bogus lawsuit be able to dig for dirt months before a trial is a joke and a clown show. 

Bringing up irrelevant video clips to smear people is a clown show. 

Huh? Lawyer??  The guy on the stand is a protest organizer/communications guy. He was asked by Lich to come along and do the communications. he knows where the money went. LOL  $1 million into her personal account.

Are you actually accusing someone of bringing up irrelevant video clips?? You, the king of irrelevant video clips, is complaining?? What a laugh!!!!1

 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, West said:

Point 1: ....

 

Point 2: 

Smearing an entire group of thousands of people over one guy's comments is dishonest. I don't think we should have to explain you can agree with people on some things and not others. 

Problem today is instead of actually providing legitimate arguments, people resort to character assassination. 

Since end of February Pat King was your hero. Now you find out even the rest of the leaders thought he was a scumbag and wanted him to leave. Today he is just "one guy" to you. That is funny.

Learning the protest leaders could not get their shit together and infighting, according to their own words and testimony kinda makes them look stupider than many thought.

 

[West]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Since end of February Pat King was your hero. Now you find out even the rest of the leaders thought he was a scumbag and wanted him to leave. Today he is just "one guy" to you. That is funny.

Learning the protest leaders could not get their shit together and infighting, according to their own words and testimony kinda makes them look stupider than many thought.

 

I already knew the rest of the leaders didn't like him... if you actually followed them you would know that. 

Not sure what that proves tho... because Barber didn't like Pat King that means the EA was necessary? I don't follow

Edited November 3, 2022 by West

[Moonbox]

44 minutes ago, West said:

1. You can't selectively choose who has a right to protest based on their views. If this was a March for trans bathroom access there wouldn't be an issue and we all know that's true. 

No, we don't.  If this was the aboriginals or some trans march, it would have been tolerated for awhile, and then dispersed.  Interestingly, the trans community has never shut down the Ambassador Bridge or anything like that, and I imagine you'd have trouble finding any examples of them locking a city core down for three weeks.  

44 minutes ago, West said:

2. That's false. I find it odd that irrelevant comments are being brought into what's supposed to be a legitimate process.. much of this nonsense would be striken if this were any other trial.

It's not false.  We all saw/read/heard the testimony.  Pat King was not the only jerk in that protest.  That there's nuance to this and it's not as black/white as you'd like it to be is also...not false.  Finally this is not a trial, and even if it was, we are fortunate to have trained judges to determine these things rather than online forum posters with questionable legal credentials.

44 minutes ago, West said:

3. I only respond to what I see as vile behavior and defense of such behavior by folks on here. Defending discrimination and show trials is strange. 

and somehow you don't see the hypocrisy of criticizing others for doing the same thing you're telling us you do here.  

44 minutes ago, West said:

4. Yes I find much of what you defend and your debate tactics vile and repugnant. I don't wish you to lose your home, hope you lose your job or cheer as you are harassed you at your place of worship over differing views tho...  thats the difference

and again, you fall back to exaggerated rhetoric and hyperbole, while misrepresenting and character assassinating people who don't share the same views as you.  That you can complain about all of these things and then immediately do it yourself in the same breath is ...I don't even know what to call it.  

[WestCanMan]

The whole Emergencies Act declaration looks pretty bad now, considering it was all about vaccine mandates, and vaccinating 85% of our country didn't lower the number of covid deaths at all in this country.

Turns out that the truckers had every reason to refuse the jab and our gov't had no good reason to inflict it on everyone. 

[West]

28 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, we don't.  If this was the aboriginals or some trans march, it would have been tolerated for awhile, and then dispersed.  Interestingly, the trans community has never shut down the Ambassador Bridge or anything like that, and I imagine you'd have trouble finding any examples of them locking a city core down for three weeks.  

It's not false.  We all saw/read/heard the testimony.  Pat King was not the only jerk in that protest.  That there's nuance to this and it's not as black/white as you'd like it to be is also...not false.  Finally this is not a trial, and even if it was, we are fortunate to have trained judges to determine these things rather than online forum posters with questionable legal credentials.

and somehow you don't see the hypocrisy of criticizing others for doing the same thing you're telling us you do here.  

and again, you fall back to exaggerated rhetoric and hyperbole, while misrepresenting and character assassinating people who don't share the same views as you.  That you can complain about all of these things and then immediately do it yourself in the same breath is ...I don't even know what to call it.  

1. Black Lives Matter went through a whole "defund the police" push. Really no different than the MOU only one seems to be getting portrayed as some attempt at a takeover of the government. 

We've seen Idle No More groups clog up highways. 

Weve seen enviro activists clog up train lines and light them on fire. Where was the EA there? 

I'm only pointing to the rank hypocrisy in coverage between these events and the freedom convoy

2. The hearing is about the use of the Emergencies Act. The only protest relevant is the Ottawa protest. 

3. Again, you miss key details. As I've pointed out to you several times over the past several months, THE POLICE were the ones who escorted the trucks downtown and then proceeded to block them in. Why did they do that? 

4. What hypocrisy is that? We have a prime minister who took unprecedented steps to unilaterally declare a protest unlawful. Why are you not asking questions about the legitimacy of such thing.. 

We had the government Storm Troopers role up on a pastor and throw him in jail for three weeks. Now it turns out the pastor did nothing wrong. Why aren't you asking questions about that? 

I have honestly tried to have discussions with you but you don't seem to be able to ask the tough questions and defend the actions of the government which are really indefensible. 

Edited November 3, 2022 by West

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A few years ago, we had a Socred Prime Minister Named Stephen Harper who was pretty decisive. He lied to the people of Saskatchewan about the equalization deal, he reneged on the Kelowna accord, lied about income trusts and pulled us out of the Kyoto agreement. I would say he was as devisive as Prime Minister Trudeau. There was also the poroguation scandal. You could say they were as bad or as good as each other. Both have failed on the climate issue

I totally disagree.  Harper was consistently professional. He was a much wiser statement internationally and he managed to show respect towards Quebec and Indigenous without turning Canada into a house of shame. His programs supported families without being redistribution schemes for select groups.  The scandals you mention barely register compared to Trudeau’s.  He saved Canada from a costly and insane central planning climate agreement.  Trudeau buys into all the international programs and sells Canadians short to look good on the world stage, though he looks like an attention-seeking fop.  Trudeau also won’t let his MP’s vote with their conscience on matters like abortion. He’s a King Godfrey mama’s boy with good hair.

Early on I thought maybe there were real smarts and wisdom behind the image, but that impression quickly faded. How can you think for a second that the country is just as good now as it was under Harper?  Our dollar is worth much less.  Our debt is much higher.  Our economic growth is flat.  Our cost of living is much higher.  Our national pride is much lower.  Our freedoms have been reduced and challenged.  Our population is far more divided.  Our moral compass is haywire, whether the issue is assisted suicide, trans teachers with gargantuan prosthetic breasts, the rise in drug addiction, or the general malaise and confusion of young people.

I wasn’t a fan of Harper initially because I was taught to fear conservatives, even as a centrist, but Trudeau has really compromised Canada.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Queenmandy85]

20 minutes ago, West said:

4. What hypocrisy is that? We have a prime minister who took unprecedented steps to unilaterally declare a protest unlawful.

No. The actions of the occupiers was declared unlawful by the courts. The Prime Minister has no authority to declare anything unlawful.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Since end of February Pat King was your hero. Now you find out even the rest of the leaders thought he was a scumbag and wanted him to leave. Today he is just "one guy" to you. That is funny.

Learning the protest leaders could not get their shit together and infighting, according to their own words and testimony kinda makes them look stupider than many thought.

I don't recall anyone ever saying Pat King was a hero.

The people who organized the Freedom Convoy are heroes in that sense. They did something incredible for their country, the likes of which you can only dream of.

Pat King's part in getting the convoy rolling is GREATLY APPRECIATED. 

Pat King may not be a great guy, but the Freedom convoy was awesome. It's just like saying Stalin wasn't a great guy, but winning WWII was still awesome.

Now, I don't know how bad PKing actually is, but he's definitely no worse than Trudeau.  

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I totally disagree.  Harper was consistently professional. He was a much wiser statement internationally and he managed to show respect towards Quebec and Indigenous without turning Canada into a house of shame. His programs supported families without being redistribution schemes for select groups.  The scandals you mention barely register compared to Trudeau’s.  He saved Canada from a costly and insane central planning climate agreement.  Trudeau buys into all the international programs and sells Canadians short to look good on the world stage, though he looks like an attention-seeking fop.  Trudeau also won’t let his MP’s vote with their conscience on matters like abortion. He’s a King Godfrey mama’s boy with good hair.

Early on I thought maybe there were real smarts and wisdom behind the image, but that impression quickly faded. How can you think for a second that the country is just as good now as it was under Harper?  Our dollar is worth much less.  Our debt is much higher.  Our economic growth is flat.  Our cost of living is much higher.  Our national pride is much lower.  Our freedoms have been reduced and challenged.  Our population is far more divided.  Our moral compass is haywire, whether the issue is assisted suicide, trans teachers with gargantuan prosthetic breasts, the rise in drug addiction, or the general malaise and confusion of young people.

I wasn’t a fan of Harper initially because I was taught to fear conservatives, even as a centrist, but Trudeau has really compromised Canada.

QFT Zeitgeist, that was a great post. 

[West]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

No. The actions of the occupiers was declared unlawful by the courts. The Prime Minister has no authority to declare anything unlawful.

No they weren't. Even the horn injunction stated they had a lawful right to be there. 

Nobody was charged for an unlawful gathering.. 

[West]

32 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I totally disagree.  Harper was consistently professional. He was a much wiser statement internationally and he managed to show respect towards Quebec and Indigenous without turning Canada into a house of shame. His programs supported families without being redistribution schemes for select groups.  The scandals you mention barely register compared to Trudeau’s.  He saved Canada from a costly and insane central planning climate agreement.  Trudeau buys into all the international programs and sells Canadians short to look good on the world stage, though he looks like an attention-seeking fop.  Trudeau also won’t let his MP’s vote with their conscience on matters like abortion. He’s a King Godfrey mama’s boy with good hair.

Early on I thought maybe there were real smarts and wisdom behind the image, but that impression quickly faded. How can you think for a second that the country is just as good now as it was under Harper?  Our dollar is worth much less.  Our debt is much higher.  Our economic growth is flat.  Our cost of living is much higher.  Our national pride is much lower.  Our freedoms have been reduced and challenged.  Our population is far more divided.  Our moral compass is haywire, whether the issue is assisted suicide, trans teachers with gargantuan prosthetic breasts, the rise in drug addiction, or the general malaise and confusion of young people.

I wasn’t a fan of Harper initially because I was taught to fear conservatives, even as a centrist, but Trudeau has really compromised Canada.

All this is a symptom of the divisive identity politics the lefties play