Far left Calgary mayor to propose a bylaw of a $10,000 fine and one year in prison for protesting trans grooming of children

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

but this would not be an indictable offence

this is a bylaw, it's not a criminal charge

A bylaw cannot stop people from legally protesting something.  It would not be valid.  Everyone has the right to protest under the Charter of Rights, Freedom of Speech and freedom of assembly.

[blackbird]

Calgary mayor knows she doesn't have the power to make such a bylaw and it would in unconstitutional.  She is saying that just to try to scare away protesters.  That might work.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

A bylaw cannot stop people from legally protesting something.  It would not be valid.  Everyone has the right to protest under the Charter of Rights, Freedom of Speech and freedom of assembly.

the Charter right is only concerning protests against the government

there is no Charter right to protest the activities of private citizens attending some sort of performance

there is nothing unlawful about being a Drag Queen that I am aware of

if parents are want to have Drag Queens read stories to their children

I would say that falls under parental discretion, and so none of my business therein 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but this would not be an indictable offence

this is a bylaw, it's not a criminal charge

They're talking about one year in prison. You can't put people in prison for a bylaw violation.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Calgary mayor knows she doesn't have the power to make such a bylaw and it would in unconstitutional.  She is saying that just to try to scare away protesters.  That might work.

I would expect the courts to rule that "Drag Queen Story Hour" is constitutionally protected free speech

at which point the government would have a mandate to ensure that the performances were facilitated therein

[Dougie93]

Just now, CdnFox said:

They're talking about one year in prison. You can't put people in prison for a bylaw violation.

pretty sure most bylaws have a maximum penalty of inprisonment

but that could only be imposed by a judge

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

They're talking about one year in prison. You can't put people in prison for a bylaw violation.

They are? Can you substantiate that claim?

No you can't. Because you're a vacant, empty-minded dunderhead who follows the carrots

right off a cliff...

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They're talking about one year in prison. You can't put people in prison for a bylaw violation.

I would submit that the constitutional argument is actually that the penalty is too severe

under your Charter right not to be subjected to "cruel & unusual punishment"

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

This I have no issue with. But to jail or try to cancel people for opinions you don't like? I don't agree, regardless of what side you happen to be on.

indeed, but that binds me to defend the Drag Queen's constitutionally protected free speech as well

at which point I have to allow for the city to facilitate that activity, and regulate against attempts to suppress it

the city is actually bound by the Charter,

to provide the Drag Queen's with a protected space for their performances

 

 

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

They are? Can you substantiate that claim?

It's literally in the title of the thread.  Thanks for paying attention.

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No you can't. Because you're a vacant, empty-minded dunderhead who follows the carrots

right off a cliff...

ROFLMAO - In... the.... title. 

You know - i have to give you credit. I would have to actually sit and think about how to make myself look that IQ challenged, but you just do like it's nothing! Kudos, your ability to appear dumber than a rock is near olympic level! 

Edited March 12 by CdnFox

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's literally in the title of the thread.  Thanks for paying attention.

ROFLMAO - In... the.... title. 

You know - i have to give you credit. I would have to actually sit and think about how to make myself look that IQ challenged, but you just do like it's nothing! Kudos, your ability to appear dumber than a rock is near olympic level! 

Thank you for proving once again,,,

you are a mauron

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Thank you for proving once again,,,

you are a mauron

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!  Sure kid     I"m DEFINITELY the one who came across looking dumb there   Next time read the title LOL!!!!

And you still haven't learned to spell yet i see  

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I have to allow for the city to facilitate that activity, and regulate against attempts to suppress it

This is a slippery slope, in my opinion.

People can suppress someone like Dave Chapelle's free speech (or rather, attempt to, albeit unsuccessfully), and nobody bats an eyelid (where if I had attended his show, I would have likely had to answer for it, if I openly told others that I loved the show), but do it to this group, and one must go to jail for it?

Both are doing what they are lawfully entitled to do. Both have the freedom to, but both are encountering resistance due to  group of people who dislike what it is that they're saying.

I think the laws should be firm, on the fact that if you went to a mall to assault people or harass them and the mall proprietors ordered you to leave--you are now trespassing.

But to be arrested because you disagree with someone? I don't agree with this.

[West]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

the Charter right is only concerning protests against the government

there is no Charter right to protest the activities of private citizens attending some sort of performance

there is nothing unlawful about being a Drag Queen that I am aware of

if parents are want to have Drag Queens read stories to their children

I would say that falls under parental discretion, and so none of my business therein 

What? People protest businesses all the time

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

This is a slippery slope, in my opinion.

People can suppress someone like Dave Chapelle's free speech (or rather, attempt to, albeit unsuccessfully), and nobody bats an eyelid (where if I had attended his show, I would have likely had to answer for it, if I openly told others that I loved the show), but do it to this group, and one must go to jail for it?

Both are doing what they are lawfully entitled to do. Both have the freedom to, but both are encountering resistance due to  group of people who dislike what it is that they're saying.

I think the laws should be firm, on the fact that if you went to a mall to assault people or harass them and the mall proprietors ordered you to leave--you are now trespassing.

But to be arrested because you disagree with someone? I don't agree with this.

slippery slope is a logical fallacy

doesn't mean its not true, it's just impossible to prove by argument

Dave Chapelle enjoys the protection of the First Amendment

I too defend & uphold the First Amendment

but Canada does not have the First Amendment

the Canadian constitution enables the government to censor Dave Chappelle on Canadian soil

or even deny him entry to Canada based on his views

Canada is a monarchy in the end,

the Canadian monarchy  can suppress speech in Canada, in the name of the King's Peace

this was after all the principle reason

why America overthrew the Crown and made the First Amendment about free speech

[West]

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

This is a slippery slope, in my opinion.

People can suppress someone like Dave Chapelle's free speech (or rather, attempt to, albeit unsuccessfully), and nobody bats an eyelid (where if I had attended his show, I would have likely had to answer for it, if I openly told others that I loved the show), but do it to this group, and one must go to jail for it?

Both are doing what they are lawfully entitled to do. Both have the freedom to, but both are encountering resistance due to  group of people who dislike what it is that they're saying.

I think the laws should be firm, on the fact that if you went to a mall to assault people or harass them and the mall proprietors ordered you to leave--you are now trespassing.

But to be arrested because you disagree with someone? I don't agree with this.

The limitations may be entering PRIVATE property and threats/violence.  Being prosecuted for simply hurts feelings isn't a good use of government resources

[West]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

slippery slope is a logical fallacy

doesn't mean its not true, it's just impossible to prove by argument

Dave Chapelle enjoys the protection of the First Amendment

I too defend & uphold the First Amendment

but Canada does not have the First Amendment

the Canadian constitution enables the government to censor Dave Chappelle on Canadian soil

or even deny him entry to Canada based on his views

Canada is a monarchy in the end,

the Canadian monarchy  can suppress speech in Canada, in the name of the King's Peace

this was after all the principle reason

why America overthrew the Crown and made the First Amendment about free speech

I agree.. we need to strengthen the Charter so that little tyrants like this Calgary mayor can't abuse government resources to protect themselves

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, West said:

What? People protest businesses all the time

you don't have a constitutional right to impede the activities of those businesses

there are bylaws which protect businesses from that,

you're definitely getting a ticket if you show up on private property to protest a private concern

or any public venue which a business has hired to conduct their activities

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, West said:

I agree.. we need to strengthen the Charter so that little tyrants like this Calgary mayor can't abuse government resources to protect themselves

I see no prospect of enacting a First Amendment in Canada

I would suggest that the vast majority of Canadians reject it

so would vehemently oppose it

in fact, I would expect, that if you did open up the constitution

Canadians on the whole would impose even more draconian speech restrictions therein

to wit, Canada is nothing,

if not a bunch of speech banning, gun grabbing,  knee jerk nanny police state authoritarians

who fear & loathe American freedom with a passion

Canada is,  by its very nature, hysterically reactionary in the face of America

particularly in terms of speech and gun rights

Edited March 12 by Dougie93

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

What a joke!  City councils do not have the power to make criminal law.  Somebody should tell the mayor and council they don't know what they are doing and need to learn what their job is.

Bylaws have nothing to do with the criminal code. 

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Bylaws have nothing to do with the criminal code. 

but even in terms of the criminal code

governments in Canada have a mandate to maintain what is called the King's Peace

that means the government can determine what parties are most likely to incite civil disorder

then sanction those parties as the government sees fit, to include criminal charges, likely Mischief

[West]

28 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you don't have a constitutional right to impede the activities of those businesses

there are bylaws which protect businesses from that,

you're definitely getting a ticket if you show up on private property to protest a private concern

or any public venue which a business has hired to conduct their activities

You can protest on a public sidewalk... this mayor wants to make that illegal. 

And the issue is these grooming hours are happening in facilities tax payers fund ie libraries

People should not be allowed to groom in peace

Edited March 12 by West

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but even in terms of the criminal code

governments in Canada have a mandate to maintain what is called the King's Peace

that means the government can determine what parties are most likely to incite civil disorder

then sanction those parties as the government sees fit, to include criminal charges, likely Mischief

Well that's simply not true in the slighest.  The gov'ts are bound by the charter and constitution which forbid exactly the kind of prejudice that you're discussing.

THat's why trudeau needed to go for the emergrency powers act.

Further this isn't even a 'group' - this is just a topic. Unless the feds pass a law declaring it a hate crime to discuss this (and good luck with that) you can't just decide that one TOPIC or another is verboten.

[West]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Well that's simply not true in the slighest.  The gov'ts are bound by the charter and constitution which forbid exactly the kind of prejudice that you're discussing.

THat's why trudeau needed to go for the emergrency powers act.

Further this isn't even a 'group' - this is just a topic. Unless the feds pass a law declaring it a hate crime to discuss this (and good luck with that) you can't just decide that one TOPIC or another is verboten.

Businesses are also bound by human rights codes. 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

THat's why trudeau needed to go for the emergrency powers act.

which has now been upheld by a judge, as being lawful, necessary, and constitutional

the judge even commended the government for seizing private bank accounts without a court order