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

[Dougie93]

Just now, Aristides said:

 Any criminal charges have to meet the criteria of the criminal code, which is federal.

the law is enacted by the federal government

but generally enforced by the provinces

it's not going to be the RCMP which is charging you with Mischief or whatever in the City of Calgary

Calgary Police have jurisdiction in this case

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

the law is enacted by the federal government

but generally enforced by the provinces

it's not going to be the RCMP which is charging you with Mischief or whatever in the City of Calgary

Calgary Police have jurisdiction in this case

Doesn't really matter who has jurisdiction, if Crown doesn't think there is a case, there will be no charges.

[West]

27 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not without getting a ticket for it

again, it's a summary offence

municipalities have broad powers in terms of passing bylaws

they can tell you what to do on your private property

they can enter your private property without a warrant to enforce a bylaw

they can bring the SWAT team to arrest you if you try to resist

I agree they CAN but it doesn't mean they SHOULD in a free and democratic society. 

And society should not put up with grooming kids

Edited March 12, 2023 by West

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, West said:

I agree they CAN but it doesn't mean they SHOULD in a free and democratic society. 

And society should not put up with grooming kids

All education systems are about grooming kids. Raising kids is about grooming them. 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, West said:

Businesses are also bound by human rights codes. 

That's very true but that only applies to the action of the business. 

He's just distracting you, people have the right to protest anything they want. There is NOTHING anywhere in the charter or constitution that suggests people can only protest the gov't.  The charter and the constituton are binding on the gov't and forbids the gov't from interfering with lawful protest.

If the business (or the gov't) feel a specific protest is unlawful they can take it to a judge.

Assuming the OP's information is correct this is just more cancel culture bullshit

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

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

No he did not.  And he began his report by saying that he made his ruling very reluctantly because in his words he was aware "That a reasonable man could have reached the opposite conclusion'.

And no, it wasn't a ruling so it wasn't 'upheld'. This was a report. Not a trial. But thanks for playing.

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, West said:

I agree they CAN but it doesn't mean they SHOULD in a free and democratic society. 

And society should not put up with grooming kids

like I say, I defend & uphold the First Amendment as the world gold standard on free speech

and Drag Queen Story Hour is constitutionally protected free speech in America too

I consider America to be a much freer and more democratic society than Canada is

I can't have it both ways, Drag Queen Story Hour is American freedom, I can't deny

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's very true but that only applies to the action of the business. 

He's just distracting you, people have the right to protest anything they want. There is NOTHING anywhere in the charter or constitution that suggests people can only protest the gov't.  The charter and the constituton are binding on the gov't and forbids the gov't from interfering with lawful protest.

If the business (or the gov't) feel a specific protest is unlawful they can take it to a judge.

Assuming the OP's information is correct this is just more cancel culture bullshit

If a person can only cite Twitter as a source without even showing a tweet, it is automatically suspect. 

[West]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

All education systems are about grooming kids. Raising kids is about grooming them. 

Back in the day if you used to dress and dance provocatively in front of children you would've been considered pedo. Now it's welcomed and applauded

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

If a person can only cite Twitter as a source without even showing a tweet, it is automatically suspect. 

Hence the caveate.  Assuming it's correct   I'm making my replies (as are we all i note) based on the presumption of accuracy of the original statement. If that's not accurate then of course things may be different.

[Aristides]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Hence the caveate.  Assuming it's correct   I'm making my replies (as are we all i note) based on the presumption of accuracy of the original statement. If that's not accurate then of course things may be different.

Why would you assume it is correct?

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, West said:

Back in the day if you used to dress and dance provocatively in front of children you would've been considered pedo. Now it's welcomed and applauded

Ya, anyone who didn't fit the mold was automatically a pedo. 

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No he did not.  And he began his report by saying that he made his ruling very reluctantly because in his words he was aware "That a reasonable man could have reached the opposite conclusion'.

And no, it wasn't a ruling so it wasn't 'upheld'. This was a report. Not a trial. But thanks for playing.

I came to the opposite conclusion myself

none the less, there was an officially inquiry

and a sitting judge in Canada ruled the governments actions to be warranted in the end

until the Supreme Court steps in to overrule that, it is the law by precedent

although I don't expect the Supreme Court would overrule it, being the same sort of judges themselves

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Why would you assume it is correct?

For the purposes of discussion. This is a discussion forum.  why are you here exactly? LOL

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

For the purposes of discussion. This is a discussion forum.  why are you here exactly? LOL

I suppose but I can make up stuff on what I claimed to have seen on Twitter and I'm not even on Twitter.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I came to the opposite conclusion myself

none the less, there was an officially inquiry

and a sitting judge in Canada ruled the governments actions to be warranted in the end

No. First off he's not a sitting judge, this was not a trial. You can say he's a canadian justice but that's it.

Second he did not 'rule' the actions to be anything. He said in his opinion that appeared to be the case but that it would have been entirely plausable to have a different opinion.

You keep wanting to give legal weight to something that did not have legal weight. He did not make a legal ruling.

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

until the Supreme Court steps in to overrule that, it is the law by precedent

although I don't expect the Supreme Court would overrule it, being the same sort of judges themselves

no it is not for gods sake -  This was NOT a court action, there is NOT a legal ruling, there is NO precedent set in law at all. Nor was he acting AS a judge!

They asked a judge to run the thing (a common practice) but his job was NOT to rule on it as a legal judgement.

Yeash - please educate yourself on what happened. don't make me explain this to you a third time.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I suppose but I can make up stuff on what I claimed to have seen on Twitter and I'm not even on Twitter.

I suppose you can.  Is that something you feel you're likely to do?

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No. First off he's not a sitting judge, this was not a trial. You can say he's a canadian justice but that's it.

Second he did not 'rule' the actions to be anything. He said in his opinion that appeared to be the case but that it would have been entirely plausable to have a different opinion.

You keep wanting to give legal weight to something that did not have legal weight. He did not make a legal ruling.

no it is not for gods sake -  This was NOT a court action, there is NOT a legal ruling, there is NO precedent set in law at all. Nor was he acting AS a judge!

They asked a judge to run the thing (a common practice) but his job was NOT to rule on it as a legal judgement.

Yeash - please educate yourself on what happened. don't make me explain this to you a third time.

a public inquiry is the ruling of the judiciary, absent any other judgement

governments in Canada will of course cite it as a mandate to invoke the EMA against protests going forward

the government is already doing so right now

[West]

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Ya, anyone who didn't fit the mold was automatically a pedo. 

Certainly dancing sexually for kids is gross. 

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm sure you are correct, however people still have the right to assemble peacefully and register their opinions.

Sometimes. Just don't go to a school board and try to question their policy on transgenderism. They'll call the police on you. Also, if you're a student and dare to question how many genders there are you can be suspended or expelled.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Sometimes. Just don't go to a school board and try to question their policy on transgenderism. They'll call the police on you. Also, if you're a student and dare to question how many genders there are you can be suspended or expelled.

It's likely a question of decorum. 

 

I can't imagine a school board meeting is a place to bring up such things as 'what is a woman'  Trolls are easy to spot.  

That said, it's a difficult topic and people have to be sensitive.  My experience is that Anti LGBTQ folks tend to engage in intellectual dishonesty more than others.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I suppose you can.  Is that something you feel you're likely to do?

No, I've just said I'm not on Twitter. The OP claims to quote a source without even showing his alleged source.

[Aristides]

18 minutes ago, West said:

Certainly dancing sexually for kids is gross. 

Who is doing that? You guys go on about the right of parents to make their own decisions about bringing up their kids. Of course that only goes as far as you approving of those decisions.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Who is doing that? You guys go on about the right of parents to make their own decisions about bringing up their kids. Of course that only goes as far as you approving of those decisions.

And of course there are limits.  

Try to get your kid to opt out of Remembrance Day or the National Anthem, and you'll find where your parental rights end.

The key thing, is to bring a perceptible level of ANGER to any discussion around children.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Try to get your kid to opt out of Remembrance Day and you'll find where your parental rights end.

how is Remembrance Day not voluntary ?

I know quite a few decorated veterans who decline to attend

I grew up with a neighbour who was Irish Regiment of Canada in the Second World War, WIA in Italy

and he never attended Remembrance Day, he said he just couldn't handle it, it was too painful

when I attended Remembrance Day this year, there was barely anybody there

another decorated veteran I know was there, but we were just part of handful of attendees

nobody where I work attended, nor even gave it any notice at all

although my boss did give me two hours off to attend, upon request