Jordan Peterson funded by Russia? So Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Claims

[User]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We don't know what CSIS showed him. 

We don't know how many children you have locked up in your basement. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, User said:

We don't know how many children you have locked up in your basement. 

Right. 

So... We're done here then? 

If you have something serious to add.

Like, you admonished people for not criticizing Trudeau but the allegations aren't proven either way.  Trudeau was under oath, I understand.

22 minutes ago, User said:

 

Are you starting to see what a dishonest game you are playing?

 

No I don't.

"unproven" and "lie" are different things.

Edited October 20, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[User]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Right. 

So... We're done here then? 

If you have something serious to add.

Like, you admonished people for not criticizing Trudeau but the allegations aren't proven either way.  Trudeau was under oath, I understand.

That was serious. You keep playing this dishonest game and I am making a point to illustrate that. 

If he is going to make public accusations about a person of this serious nature, he better have the proof with him and respond to questions. He is hiding. 

We have every right to criticize a world leader for making such serious allegations about a private citizen without any evidence to back them up and then running and hiding from questions after. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, User said:

 

If he is going to make public accusations about a person of this serious nature, he better have the proof with him and respond to questions. He is hiding. 

We have every right to criticize a world leader for making such serious allegations about a private citizen without any evidence to back them up and then running and hiding from questions after. 

 

Ok I partially agree 👍 

[SkyHigh]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's not the law. What the law means would be decided by judges in a specific court case. You are not a judge and you don't have a court case to reference. So its your opinion

That's how our legal system works. So what I hear you saying is that you have very limited experience or understanding of our legal system. Which is fine, frankly I wish I had less. But it doesn't mean you're not qualified to speak on it.

Makes no difference. The mere threat of the law, which somehow magically they injured interpreted completely different than you, Was enough to repress somebody's rights. Nothing you can say makes that go away

If you have a case of somebody being charged and found not guilty then I'll amend mine.

But what I can demonstrate with certainty is that it'll always used to steal the rights of a person.

As to the law enforcing transgender speech, there have been cases as i've noted.  Here's one

Canadian man jailed for calling his biologically female child as 'daughter' (opindia.com)

 

So now that we know you're not qualified to speak on the legal system or how laws work AND we know that courts have already been enforcing this principle and will also be the ones deciding what that law ACTUALLY means.....   I'm afraid you have no reasonable grounds to continue pretending that the law is innocent and can't be abused. 

I fùckin started responding before I had seen your link, then had to erase the whole thing, it's a shame for both of us though,my witty retorts were quite clever. Hahaha 

It appears I was mistaken and the idea that a parent can be compelled by the legal system as to how he interacts with his own children is disgusting (of course excluding safety etc ) maybe a little dickish, but no where near the level that should require prosecution 

I did notice that the actual charge was contempt ,in my understanding this is related to ones conduct in the court room or a dictate from a judge, but I may be wrong (honestly the only legal "training" I've received was with the young offender system when I was a kid, but that's a whole other discussion, hahaha). This is definitely a semantic issue but I still feel it's important.

I didn't notice in the article the decision handed down from his charter challenge, do you know what the resolution to that was?

Edited October 20, 2024 by SkyHigh

[SkyHigh]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have zero friends here 😥

I see that more as a badge of honor than a condemnation of your opinions.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I fùckin started responding before I had seen your link, then had to erase the whole thing, it's a shame for both of us though,my witty retorts were quite clever. Hahaha 

Snicker   well i'll score you  for one witty retort then  and you'll owe me   

 

Quote

It appears I was mistaken and the idea that a parent can be compelled by the legal system as to how he interacts with his own children is disgusting (of course excluding safety etc ) maybe a little dickish, but no where near the level that should require prosecution 

We are agreed.

Quote

I did notice that the actual charge was contempt ,in my understanding this is related to ones conduct in the court room or a dictate from a judge, but I may be wrong (honestly the only legal "training" I've received was with the young offender system when I was a kid, but that's a whole other discussion, hahaha).

May your personal knowledge of our legal system never grow beyond that. The canadian legal system is the 'experimental dental surgery' of the  jurisprudence world. 

Quote

This is definitely a semantic issue but I still feel it's important.

It is and it isn't.  Contempt is the mechanism by which a judge can attach jailable penalties to a ruling that would otherwise not have any specified or would require a seperate trial. 

The original ruling was based on the judge finding that  “attempting to persuade [the girl] to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing [the girl] by [her] birth name; referring to [the girl] as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to [her] directly or to third parties, shall be considered to be family violence.”

But he didn't want to have a seperate trial for that obviosly, big cost and time, so he used it as a basis for the court order to shut up. And then nailed him when he didnt' shut up. 

But at the end of the day it's still the judge compelling speech, which gives us some idea of how the legal system would view the law as it was presented by justin.   Which is why others were calling for a rewrite to prevent abuses. 

Calling it 'family violence' is way over the top. 

 

Quote

I didn't notice in the article the decision handed down from his charter challenge, do you know what the resolution to that was?

I don't believe he proceeded with one, the case was thrown out on appeal. I didn't look up the ruling so I'm not sure what the appeals court based that on, it could be procedural. But once it had been overturned there's no grounds for a charter challenging anymore

[herbie]

So can he sue Trudeau and win?
Can he find a lawyer who'll get a security clearance to go into a closed court alone, because Peterson probably can't get one, and win?
And you'll still never know anything other than he lost or won?

Is it even worth giving a shit about some loudmouth getting offended?

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

So can he sue Trudeau and win?

  He's looking into it.  My gut tells me no.

 

Quote

Can he find a lawyer who'll get a security clearance to go into a closed court alone, because Peterson probably can't get one, and win?

That would not be the problem. That's not even relevant.

Quote

And you'll still never know anything other than he lost or won?

I don't think you understand the law. His claim would be that the government had Slandered him, And it would be up to them to defend their actions. Frankly even if what he they claim is true it still can be de defamation. You can't go around attacking someone's reputation who isn't the public figure without cause. Of course it would be up to Peterson to demonstrate he had suffered harm as a result and that's probably what they are wondering right now. I mean it's not like anybody believes Justin  

 

Quote

heIs it even worth giving a shit about some loudmouth getting offended?

Not if you're a fan of totalitarian Hypersocialistic regimes that believe in destroying people's personal rights in favor of what they perceive as the common good of the country such as the Nazis or Stalin. So you're probably okay with it  

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Snicker   well i'll score you  for one witty retort then  and you'll owe me   

You have a deal, but I do reserve the right to take away your point for such things as a bad joke. Hahaha 

[SkyHigh]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

So can he sue Trudeau and win?

For defemation he would have to prove Trudeau lied knowingly and that he suffered because of it. If he can prove that the case has merit, but that could be difficult.

[Zeitgeist]

Trudeau has advisors telling him what he can get away with.  He knows that he can disparage Peterson and Poilievre and the courts and media will give him a pass. Poilievre didn’t want to go before the tribunal into foreign interference because he knew he would be gagged and unable to disclose the egregious facts he learned about the extent of foreign interference in the federal government.  He would have no way of raising questions publicly.  “Reasons of national security” have become the cloak used by people to hide their questionable behaviour and motives.  It’s called deflecting responsibility.  Trudeau is good at that.  

Edited October 21, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

For defemation he would have to prove Trudeau lied knowingly and that he suffered because of it. If he can prove that the case has merit, but that could be difficult.

No, he wouldn't need to prove that he lied knowingly. The burden would be on Trudeau to prove that it was true. He can believe absolutely that it's true, but if he cannot demonstrate that it's true then truth is not an absolute defense for him. He doesn't even need to prove that it was said with malice.

The acceptable defenses for liable or defamation in Canada Are basically:

Truth, Which means it is absolutely true. That can sometimes be a higher bar to reach

fair comment which basically means it's a matter of public interest, Which is basically an opinion that is reasonable given the provable facts

qualified privilege which basically means It's worth it to allow some defamation. An example of this would be our political discussions where we say negative things about politicians but it's allowed even though it would otherwise be considered defamation because the public discourse is in the public interest

Absolute privilege Which is where a higher authority requires it, such as testimony n front of a judge for example or any speech given in parliament

Responsible communication where it turns out that what was said was possibly untrue but it was an honest error and the person did make reasonable efforts to research and look into it.

Innocent dissemination which is basically where you did not know the information you were distributing could be defamatory and you took action immediately to try and take the information down or get it back or the like as soon as you found out

Or consent obviously which could be expressly given or implied.

So even if Trudeau was unwilling to provide evidence that the statement was true, he might be able to claim that under absolute privilege he was simply following his duties and therefore can't be held to liable or defamation. e may even argue innocent dissemination in that he did not intend it for it to be defamatory and thought that as a simple statement whih was based on facts it wouldn't have done him any harm or the like.

It would really depend on theture of the claim and exactly the circumstances under which Trudeau delivered the information which I haven't actually looked up. But even if the information is false or Trudeau is unwilling to prove it to be true he may still be able to offer a perfectly valid defense.

Jordan would only have to prove that it injured him financially.

 

[Moonbox]

5 hours ago, User said:

Are you starting to see what a dishonest game you are playing?

Ding Ding Ding!!!!

Like clockwork, User falls back on whining about dishonesty when he can't refute a point.  If this forum got a nickel for every time you tossed this wet rag out into a debate, it'd be the richest website on the interweb.  

🙄

Edited October 21, 2024 by Moonbox

[SkyHigh]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, he wouldn't need to prove that he lied knowingly. The burden would be on Trudeau to prove that it was true

This time it was a case of being misspoken and not mistaken I was trying to say that if the statement was true, libel doesn't apply 

But, I'm giving you another credit for not calling me kiddo once. Hahahaha 

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

This time it was a case of being misspoken and not mistaken I was trying to say that if the statement was true, libel doesn't apply 

 

Ahhh well that is correct. 

Quote

But, I'm giving you another credit for not calling me kiddo once. Hahahaha 

Yeah but in fairness i totally had to backspace  

However it is interesting to note that he could be wrong and it might still not be liable or defamation. There are even circumstances although they wouldn't apply here where you could knowingly say something wrong and it's still not defamation. Or where something you said turned out to be wrong but you reasonably believed it was right to begin with and therefore wasn't defamation.

Defamation is a hard one to prove in court in a lot of cases. Especially considering you have to show the damage.

But at the end of the day Trudeau is still a complete scumbag for doing it.

[SkyHigh]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah but in fairness i totally had to backspace

In that case I only owe you 1.5 hahaha 

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

However it is interesting to note that he could be wrong and it might still not be liable or defamation. There are even circumstances although they wouldn't apply here where you could knowingly say something wrong and it's still not defamation. Or where something you said turned out to be wrong but you reasonably believed it was right to begin with and therefore wasn't defamation.

Defamation is a hard one to prove in court in a lot of cases. Especially considering you have to show the damage.

But at the end of the day Trudeau is still a complete scumbag for doing it.

That's a much more eloquent way to say what I was trying to express in my original post.

In my defense, my mom (I recently moved back to Ontario to be able to help her out, and even though I only spent a few years with her, I still call her mom) had a really good day, so I went out and grabbed a couple good bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon ( it's what she likes, I don't drink much and almost never wine) so I may be slightly intoxicated at the moment and like I've said I'm not at my best in writing things even on my best day 

Though today was a great day, I haven't seen Linda like this since she had the foster home 

[User]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Ding Ding Ding!!!!

Like clockwork, User falls back on whining about dishonesty when he can't refute a point.  If this forum got a nickel for every time you tossed this wet rag out into a debate, it'd be the richest website on the interweb.  

🙄

Can't refute a point?

Holy crap, are you a pedophile too, in the same ring? How many children do you have in your basement?

 

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau has advisors telling him what he can get away with.  He knows that he can disparage Peterson and Poilievre and the courts and media will give him a pass. Poilievre didn’t want to go before the tribunal into foreign interference because he knew he would be gagged and unable to disclose the egregious facts he learned about the extent of foreign interference in the federal government.  He would have no way of raising questions publicly.  “Reasons of national security” have become the cloak used by people to hide their questionable behaviour and motives.  It’s called deflecting responsibility.  Trudeau is good at that.  

Poiliever won't get a clearance because then he can't make shit up. He doesn't care if his party has been compromised. You can't repeat classified stuff because it is classified. People could get hurt and investigations compromised. How would he know what "egregious facts" are when he isn't interested in finding out? What egregious facts has he disclosed other than what comes out of his ass?

The guy is a pure political animal. Full stop.

Edited October 21, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Poiliever won't get a clearance because then he can't make shit up.

He won't get it because then he can't speak the truth.

Say what you like, but that's a simple fact

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Ding Ding Ding!!!!

🙄

To his credit, the reframing is much more balanced and relevant.

 

Trudeau going after an individual is, at best, odd 

[blackbird]

What is the use of a security clearance to hear supposed high security information if it prevents you from speaking about what you hear or going public with the names?

If you are a political leader, it seals your mouth shut.  That benefits Trudeau and the government because you can't talk about the details of information in Parliament or in public and the media.  Trudeau and the Liberals are the ones who benefited from foreign interference.  China helped elect Liberals.

Also, why should the names of MPs who participated in foreign interference be kept confidential anyway?

How is that protecting Canadians from foreign interference?

Conservatives are much wiser to not agree to any kind of security clearance which is just a way to silence people.  In politics, if you can't speak, you have been neutralized.

[User]

The whole security clearance bit is a ruse. 

If this was sensitive information that somehow the PM couldn't share how he knows the Russians are paying Jordan Peterson, then why is he publicly stating that he knows the Russians are paying Jordan Peterson?

What is sounds like, is that the PM was speaking out of his ass off the cuff in grasping at names he knows. 

And now he is hiding from any scrutiny. 

The only question is if the Canadian Press, the actual mainstream press that has access to him, will actually press him on ever answering for this or not. 

I don't understand how your political system works either, but I doubt anyone will hold him in contempt or if there is any process to do so for what he said under oath either. 

 

[Aristides]

52 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What is the use of a security clearance to hear supposed high security information if it prevents you from speaking about what you hear or going public with the names?

If you are a political leader, it seals your mouth shut.  That benefits Trudeau and the government because you can't talk about the details of information in Parliament or in public and the media.  Trudeau and the Liberals are the ones who benefited from foreign interference.  China helped elect Liberals.

Also, why should the names of MPs who participated in foreign interference be kept confidential anyway?

How is that protecting Canadians from foreign interference?

Conservatives are much wiser to not agree to any kind of security clearance which is just a way to silence people.  In politics, if you can't speak, you have been neutralized.

So you don't think anything should be classified or secret?

PP  doesn't want to know what is going on in his own party because then he would have no excuse not to deal with it. 

How do you know who benefited and how. You make my point, because you don't know anything you are free to make stuff up.

MP's are entitled to the same due process as anyone else. 

CSIS and the RCMP

Not getting a clearance and finding out what is actually going on just allows them to make crap up and not have to deal with any issues that affect their party.

Why do you think ignorance is a virtue?

[User]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you don't think anything should be classified or secret?

Why is the PM naming names publicly if they are classified and secret?

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Not getting a clearance and finding out what is actually going on just allows them to make crap up and not have to deal with any issues that affect their party.

Make up crap... like the PM appears to have done about Jordan Peterson?