A message from CSIS agent who leaked information to the media

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

 but America does it better.

f*ck yeah

[West]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

under the Westminster Parliament which governs Canada

the will of the King is expressed by the Parliament

it's called Parliamentary Supremacy

the MP's swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch, which is a legally binding oath

the MP's do not swear fealty to the Canadian people

that would be a republic

but Canada is not a republic

If Trudeau worked with a hostile foreign actor back in the 1500s he'd be at the gallows for treason against the king

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I wouldn’t mind the conflation of Canada with Britain

the conflation is at the level of Commander-in-Chief

the Empire is no more

the Commonwealth is not the Empire, many members are republics, it's simply a cultural organization

but Canada & the United Kingdom are bound by the same Commander-in-Chief

so for example, as a Canadian soldier, I could make war against Bangladesh or Nigeria perhaps

but could I lawfully be directed to make war against the United Kingdom itself ?

go to war against my own Commander-in-Chief ?

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, West said:

If Trudeau worked with a hostile foreign actor back in the 1500s he'd be at the gallows for treason against the king

not in the 1500's

the Canadian state as we know it,

to wit British Parliamentary Supremacy upon the Hill in Ottawa

was founded by William Prince of Orange

on the banks of the Boyne river in Ireland

on 1 July 1690

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dougie93

[West]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not in the 1500's

the Canadian state as we know it,

to wit British Parliamentary Supremacy upon the Hill in Ottawa

was founded by William Prince of Orange

on the banks of the Boyne river in Ireland

on 1 July 1690

If he was a British subject screwing around with a hostile nation he'd be hanging from a tree

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, West said:

If he was a British subject screwing around with a hostile nation he'd be hanging from a tree

there was no such thing as a British subject, until the Act of Union in 1707

there was no British Empire in the 1500's

the British Empire was born on 10 February 1763 by the Treaty of Paris

wherein France signed India & Canada over to the British Union on the same day

as part of the armistice agreement to end the Seven Years War

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dougie93

[West]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

there was no such thing as a British subject, until the Act of Union in 1707

there was no British Empire in the 1500's

the British Empire was born on 10 February 1763 by the Treaty of Paris

wherein France signed India & Canada over to the British Union on the same day

as part of the armistice agreement to end the Seven Years War

Who cares? Point still stands the man is a traitor to the crown

[Dougie93]

18 minutes ago, West said:

Who cares? Point still stands the man is a traitor to the crown

well I care, because it is the story of my people, the founding of my nation, the history of Canada

in terms of the Prime Minister being a Communist traitor

that is my opinion as well

yet still the Prime Minister does not answer to me, as Canada is not a republic

even if I were to invoke my oath to Elizabeth Windsor in defence of the Crown in the face of Communist takeover

I have no authority to take any action therein, absent a lawful chain of command to report to

unlike this CSIS officer, who is invoking republicanism as their mandate apparently

at minimum, I would have to see a Canadian Commissioned Officer of the highest rank

General or Leftenant General

publicly invoking that the Prime Minister was a Communist traitor

and summoning all ranks to stand to therein

in defence of the Commander-in-Chief

before I could take any action at all

Je me souviens

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it doesn't matter if I think

That's good - because you don't.  Pretty sad.

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Biden has been tougher on China than Trump ever was. And frankly, both he and his main challenger, Desantis, seem to be very, very, VERY soft on Russia. I also don't think either one would challenge China if they went after Taiwan. I'm not even sure they'd challenge China if they went after Japan. Both seem to be of the belief that the only time to bring the US military into play is if and when an enemy lands in Florida.

A significant number of Republicans seem to very much like Putin and all the misery and slaughter he's wreaked so far. 

I might concede russia, but china? Nope. Trump was not only harder but clearly steering a path to be even more confrontational unless they opened up their markets.  Biden is their bestest buddy pal in comparison to trump.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

feel free to show me in writing in the Constitution Act where I am mistaken

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

surely Britons & Americans can read the Constitution Act of Canada

 

Some can. And apparently some can't.

[Dougie93]

Just now, CdnFox said:

Some can. And apparently some can't.

feel free at any time, to show evidence in writing, in the Canada Act 1982, where we are mistaken

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Paying attention to what?

That it's serious.

Quote

The gov't and it's media minions haven't exactly been allowing that kind of story to get out there. And when it does it's portrayed as an isolated case where the people involved are all gone now.

Do something about the minions then. Find out who they are, prove they're doing harm and charge them with something.

Quote

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

And you get the government you deserve.  I've suggested how and where to start penetrating the curtain the government hides behind.  Anyone else have any ideas beyond pissing and moaning about how helpless we are?

[Dougie93]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 Anyone else have any ideas beyond pissing and moaning about how helpless we are?

much as I do despise Justin Trudeau and view him as being a treasonous puppet of the Chinese Communists

he does hold Parliamentary Supremacy at this time

thus only his own MP's can adhere their oaths to choose a new leader

 since Canada is not a republic, we have no mandate to take any particular action ourselves

we are not even allowed to protest in Canada anymore, since that will simply be crushed by the Emergencies Act

so I am admittedly at a loss as to what we can do lawfully in right of the Crown otherwise

what do you suggest ?

Declaration of Independence ?

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That it's serious.

No, that's what it' about. But what are they supposed to be paying attention TO? The media? the gov't? Where are they focusing their attention to get real information about how serious it is?

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Do something about the minions then. Find out who they are, prove they're doing harm and charge them with something.

Oh just charge them with 'something'    I hear you can get 7-10 years hard time for 'something' these days

I think you're going to easy on 'em, we should charge them wiht 'because reasons" instead. Way longer penalty.

currently writing a news article isn't a crime, even if it's factually incorrect. A fact the CBC proves daily.  So correcting that is going to take a bit more effort.

55 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And you get the government you deserve.  I've suggested how and where to start penetrating the curtain the government hides behind.  Anyone else have any ideas beyond pissing and moaning about how helpless we are?

Well you haven't of course, you've just said go arrest reporters and gov'ts for 'something'. Not helpful.

But in fairness yeah, it's a tough question. I guess the answer is removing any gov't influence or involvement with the media and fostering news and media groups so that both sides of the spectrum are covered. I wouldn't mind seeing penalties for stories that are either deliberately misleading or too strongly state things they have no evidence for without hammering that home.

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

so I am admittedly at a loss as to what we can do lawfully in right of the Crown otherwise

what do you suggest ?

Declaration of Independence ?

I'd start with ending the practice of in-camera lobbying.  Nothing violent or threatening at all; no need to revolt, seperate or rewrite the Constitution.  Just a few tweaks to the existing Lobbying Act to allow the public to listen to the discussions public officials hold in our name.

[Dougie93]

Just now, eyeball said:

I'd start with ending the practice of in-camera lobbying.  Nothing violent or threatening at all; no need to revolt, seperate or rewrite the Constitution.  Just a few tweaks to the existing Lobbying Act to allow the public to listen to the discussions public officials hold in our name.

but public officials would then simply say everything just to pander to public opinion

that would be a pure democracy in effect, the rule of competing mobs

that doesn't sound stable at all, that sounds like a recipe for civil war

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well you haven't of course,

Sure I have you're just not paying attention.

Quote

 

you've just said go arrest reporters and gov'ts for 'something'. Not helpful.

 

You're the one saying they're doing 'something' wrong. Prove it and then propose a solution.

 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure I have you're just not paying attention.

I think it's more likely that you're perfecting your skills at self delusion but, potato potatoe

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're the one saying they're doing 'something' wrong. Prove it and then propose a solution.

No, you were the one who claimed that. You said they should be arrested on charges of 'something'.

What i said is that they're not doing anything illegal, and mentioned a few laws i'd like to see.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, you were the one who claimed that. You said they should be arrested on charges of 'something'.

Sure but after you prove your assertion of government interference with the intent to deceive the public.  You're the one claiming this is what's happening so prove it.  I bet that would be easier to do if in-camera lobbying was stopped.

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

...blah blah blah....

But in fairness yeah, it's a tough question. I guess the answer is removing any gov't influence or involvement with the media and fostering news and media groups so that both sides of the spectrum are covered. I wouldn't mind seeing penalties for stories that are either deliberately misleading or too strongly state things they have no evidence for without hammering that home.

Attaboy, now you're contributing something ? 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But in fairness yeah, it's a tough question. I guess the answer is removing any gov't influence or involvement with the media and fostering news and media groups so that both sides of the spectrum are covered. I wouldn't mind seeing penalties for stories that are either deliberately misleading or too strongly state things they have no evidence for without hammering that home.

I don't think we need to remove anything really, we simply need the ability to witness things when public officials are involved with just about anyone they're trying to influence and even more so when anyone is trying to influence them.  Notwithstanding obvious matters of national security, I can't think of any tangible reason why the public shouldn't be present whenever anything in their domain is being discussed.

There is a clear difference between secrecy and privacy but you wouldn't know it the way Canada's government operates.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure but after you prove your assertion of government interference with the intent to deceive the public.  You're the one claiming this is what's happening so prove it.

It's not actually illegal to deceive the public.

You need to think before you speak more. I spend a horrendous amount of time explaining simple things to you. The conversation would go MUCH faster if you'd learn the basics first.

Quote

  I bet that would be easier to do if in-camera lobbying was stopped.

No. First off i'm not sure you understand what in camera actually means or what's involved. And secondly most lobbying is not done at an official meeting.

Quote

Attaboy, now you're contributing something

Uhhhhh - that's what i said before. It's an earlier post. You quoted what i said BEFORE you claimed i wasn't contributing any ideas for new laws or the like.

Attaboy, you've ALMOST learned how to read  -  too bad you haven't got that whole 'in order' thing down yet LOL - jezuz how do you keep finding new ways to look dumb

Edited March 19, 2023 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's not actually illegal to deceive the public.

It should be don't you think?

Quote

No. First off i'm not sure you understand what in camera actually means or what's involved. And secondly most lobbying is not done at an official meeting.

1. In-camera simply means in-chambers.

2. It should be.

Quote

Uhhhhh - that's what i said before. It's an earlier post. You quoted what i said BEFORE you claimed i wasn't contributing any ideas for new laws or the like.

?