Judge gives man one year in jail for contempt of court

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

The judge acted like a tyrant, using his power to crush someone who doesn’t know better. Nothing will be done about this as usual.

And what are you basing your opinion that the man was mentally incompetent on?

That kind of smaks of the whole 'perp is really the victim' mentality that got us trudeau's 'Parole for everyone' law that's worked out so well.

myata · April 23, 2023

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Third time asking - why is this finding excessive?

1. Judge has to explain to the citizens the necessity and justice of a lengthy prison term for a non-violent crime.

2. This is dissent. Dissent punished by long jail sentence to make an example. Do you see anything wrong with the approach?

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

Just now, myata said:

1. Judge has to explain to the citizens the necessity and justice of a lengthy prison term for a non-violent crime.

judge did - now its' up to you to explain why you feel he's wrong.

Just now, myata said:

2. This is dissent. Dissent punished by long jail sentence to make an example. Do you see anything wrong with the approach?

This is sedition. Sedition is a very serious crime and deserves severe punishment.

Saying that the judges SHOULDN"T have power is dissent.

myata · April 23, 2023

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If he doesn't believe the court has authority, then what's to stop him from harming someone the next time?

So you're now justifying repression based on imaginary possibilities, not real acts? Like in that movie, what was it? Maybe putins do that too? Oh it was so easy.

myata · April 23, 2023

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Saying that the judges SHOULDN"T have power is dissent.

Wow wow the right to judge is given from the Heaven not for lowly and uninitiated ones to question. Putin's smiling.

myata · April 23, 2023

48 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The justice system is a disaster.

No looks like it knows pretty well where it sees real threats. For itself though, not so much maybe for the society. Because we can.

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

13 minutes ago, myata said:

So you're now justifying repression based on imaginary possibilities, not real acts?

He committed real acts. Obstructing a police officer is a real act. Sedition is a real act. What's next?

If you're argument is that we shoudn't punish criminals then you can try to make that, but good luck.

13 minutes ago, myata said:

Like in that movie, what was it? Maybe putins do that too? Oh it was so easy.

Well you seem to be more like putin than me so you'll have to tell me. But - the fact is that if you committ a crime in Canada you face punishment.

ANd you still haven't explained why he shouldn't other than to repeat faleshoods and to try a few insults.

Now - do you have a real argument or are you just a m0ron?

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

11 minutes ago, myata said:

Wow wow the right to judge is given from the Heaven not for lowly and uninitiated ones to question. Putin's smiling.

So you haven't heard of this 'constitution' thing?

Putin is smiling at you - he doesn't think people have rights either, just as you demand they don't.

myata · April 23, 2023

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

criminals

Right, just call them that, stick the label. Everybody who disagrees (with God-given right to govern and judge under the thinnest shell of quasi-democracy), "seditionist". Love you government and always obey it or else. Putin has that same "constitution" by the way, if you didn't notice.

myata · April 23, 2023

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Obstructing a police officer is a real act.

You think that you have the right to apply fancy words in an arbitrary way to justify the ends that you think you know, without the need to explain and prove it to the citizens. This line of thinking comes all the way to violent repression. There's no God nor Constitution given unlimited and unquestioned right to use force and violence. The condition of democracy is clear: any application of authority has to be necessary; proportional; just; and in the interests of a general citizen, not the system when their interests differ. Violating this condition ends democratic legitimacy and paves the way to dictatorship. You crossed the line and didn't even notice.

Edited April 23, 2023 by myata

Nationalist · April 23, 2023

Huh...interesting thread.

Question: How is 1 year in jail, over the top for the antics this guy used?

He made a mockery of the court. That smacks of anarchism to me.

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

1 hour ago, myata said:

Right, just call them that, stick the label. Everybody who disagrees (with God-given right to govern and judge under the thinnest shell of quasi-democracy), "seditionist". Love you government and always obey it or else. Putin has that same "constitution" by the way, if you didn't notice.

No no - we should just ignore all crimes. That makes more sense. Why have laws in the first place? What's the point of a constitution? Why should anyone have rights? Do away with it all - lets see how that goes for us.

You're retarded.

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Huh...interesting thread.

Question: How is 1 year in jail, over the top for the antics this guy used?

He made a mockery of the court. That smacks of anarchism to me.

Also obstructed the police. That was part of the sentencing too.

Nationalist · April 23, 2023

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Also obstructed the police. That was part of the sentencing too.

True...true...

WestCanMan · April 23, 2023

The judge just randomly said this:

Quote

"It seems that phraseology such as 'post-truth' and 'fake news' has become increasingly prevalent in public discourse,'' Paterson's ruling says.

but that comment is unsupported by the rest of the article.

Quote

"As a court system, we need to recognize how the growing abundance of misinformation influences people in the political, technological, and societal context, including the courtroom.''

As a country we need to understand that our government is out of control and is losing all respect from a lot of Canadians.

Leftists might not agree with that, but it's a very real thing, and it's well-deserved. The gesundheitspass was a crime against young, healthy people who never needed the vax and were forced to take it after we already knew that the Pfizer jab was absolutely not a vaccine.

I never thought I'd see the day when conspiracy theories were routinely proving to be true while our own government was being exposed as a fraud. Our democracy is failing on very important levels and this wingnut has somewhat of a point: although it's true that the government of Canada does have legal authority over us, and people like him can be put in jail for back-talking a judge, the gov't has utterly ceased to represent us. We are ruled. This is not the democracy we grew up with.

Zeitgeist · April 23, 2023

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And what are you basing your opinion that the man was mentally incompetent on?

That kind of smaks of the whole 'perp is really the victim' mentality that got us trudeau's 'Parole for everyone' law that's worked out so well.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been consequenced, but a year in jail seems to lack any fair sense of proportionality. It looks like the judge assigned an unreasonable punishment. I’m sure you had to be there and I don’t have all the facts.

CdnFox · April 23, 2023

41 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been consequenced, but a year in jail seems to lack any fair sense of proportionality. It looks like the judge assigned an unreasonable punishment. I’m sure you had to be there and I don’t have all the facts.

Well - without facts nether of us can speak absoltuely (and i don't feel like looking it up on canlii right now)

But - i'm still not sure why it seems excessive. He interferes with a cop, to the point where he gets charged, and then he demands as a legal defense that the court admit it has no authority. ANd once you put that forward as a legal statement then the court has to agree or disagree, there's no in between.

I think the judge was being kind by dinging him for a year only for those things. interfering with a police investigation alone could net you that. But on top of it all what he was doing was sedition, and that's not ok either.

But we can agree to disagree if you really feel that was excessive. I think it's defensible legally but whether it should be is an opinion.

I'm happy enough to see such 'free men' learn that they are not in fact above the law.

Zeitgeist · April 24, 2023

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Well - without facts nether of us can speak absoltuely (and i don't feel like looking it up on canlii right now)

But - i'm still not sure why it seems excessive. He interferes with a cop, to the point where he gets charged, and then he demands as a legal defense that the court admit it has no authority. ANd once you put that forward as a legal statement then the court has to agree or disagree, there's no in between.

I think the judge was being kind by dinging him for a year only for those things. interfering with a police investigation alone could net you that. But on top of it all what he was doing was sedition, and that's not ok either.

But we can agree to disagree if you really feel that was excessive. I think it's defensible legally but whether it should be is an opinion.

I'm happy enough to see such 'free men' learn that they are not in fact above the law.

Maybe you’re right.

myata · April 24, 2023

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

judge did

Bullshit he did. The explanation was "we are you democratic gods and you have to worship us or we can send you to jail." Not good enough for a free citizen in a democratic country. Canada is not about freedom or democracy, it's about "good government". As decided by the government itself of course (no independent checks and controls). Or else.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

"interferes"

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

where he gets charged

These are just words. What is behind them who knows, who cares to know and checked independently? We know for a fact (see another thread) that in this country one can get all of that just for expressing an opinion at a wrong (from the authority's point of view) time. You can add more words, "interfered", "obstructed" but you lost the point already. Democracy is not the arbitrary right to assign guilt and punishment. It is about common interest of citizens, necessity, proportionality and justice. There's a looooong way for this sort of judges to prove that they have much or anything to do with that. With a true, real democracy, that is not the one on pretty paper. And without it, it's only arbitrary punishment. Same old.

myata · April 24, 2023

Some of these folks are as clueless as they are arrogant, a personal experience. Not in the least, because in the system we have they have all the grounds to think themselves some sort of democratic gods professing infallible truth straight from above. Decisions are overturned, nothing to worry. No penalty, no feedback, obscene salaries and pensions keep rolling as a reward to do more of the same.

This is the kind, the essence of the system we have. It would be extremely naive, to the point of sheer and voluntary ignorance to expect that in two centuries it could evolve itself to anything but self-absorbed, grossly inefficient and as much or more arrogant bureaucratic behemoth. What you see around is no accident, only a logical issue and conclusion.

myata · April 24, 2023

In conclusion, to rephrase the clueless justice, "either we have a democracy or we don't". Anything less than a full, transparent and dynamic democracy by the citizens and for the citizens without juicy shades and opaque corners where sun rarely shines if ever is a damaged and compromised semi-democracy, a borderline. And it can produce bizarre, unnecessary and unacceptable to the citizens outcomes, yes because it can. And the only resort in those cases for the citizen will be the "just too bad" directive. Because it can. Because you agreed to that. Your choice, as always.

suds · April 24, 2023

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is sedition. Sedition is a very serious crime and deserves severe punishment.

In order for it to be 'sedition' (referred to as 'seditious intention' according to Code), one would have to advocate the use of force (without the authority of law) as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada. Criminal Code Section 59 (4). Has he advocated the use of force?

Edited April 24, 2023 by suds

CdnFox · April 24, 2023

2 hours ago, myata said:

Bullshit he did.

Oh - i'm sorry. I didn't realize you couldn't read.

You're probably unaware but a judge must submit a detailed decision in writing. That's why it's called a decision.

At least pretend to know what you're talking about.

2 hours ago, myata said:

These are just words.

What were you expecting? 40 foot letters of fire carved into the side of a mountain? perhaps a little dance routine to accompany it? Of course they're words, just like his LEGAL SUBMISSION of defense.

And the details of the case are available on canlii if you want to see them.

You haven't offered a single thing to explain why this is excessive. In fact, you barely make sense.

And the judge did not say 'we have a democracy or we don't" . Which is good - because that's stupid. You can have a partial democracy - which is precisely what we have. We have a constitutional representative democracy.

Clearly you don't understand what that is. Which is a shame.

CdnFox · April 24, 2023

45 minutes ago, suds said:

In order for it to be 'sedition' (referred to as 'seditious intention' according to Code), one would have to advocate the use of force (without the authority of law) as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada. Criminal Code Section 59 (4). Has he advocated the use of force?

Doesn't matter. While the legal requirement in canada to be charged with it may require that, the common definition does not, and that's still what it is even if he cannot be charged under the code. It's a serious matter. it is not just 'an opinion' it is a statement as part of a legal defense that canada's gov't is illegitimate and has no authority.

myata · April 24, 2023

1 hour ago, suds said:

one would have to advocate the use of force (without the authority of law) as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada. Criminal Code Section 59 (4).

But he knows much of legal-speak it should count for something, right?