The Truth About the Trucker Convoy

[BlahTheCanuck]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Injunction wasn't about the protest. The injunction was the use of horns after a certain time and before a certain time in the morning. The judge ruled that they could use their horns and Blair them and that this was legitimate protest, but that if they did it all night then it represented an infringement on the rights of Houston enjoyment of the people in the area and therefore offended their rights more than the offense to the right to protest if it was shut down. So he said they weren't allowed to honk their horns at night and they complied

At no point did he rule that there was anything illegal going on in the slightest, he said that they had a right to protest and that the owner had the right to use and enjoyment of their property and that in order to balance the rights of the two individual groups honking would be limited to certain hours

No, it was extended because the protest was extended beyond the original time given for the injuction. Don't make things up 

The article mentioned that it was complied with, but within a few days some were violating that so the judge warned there would be punishments and after that it seems to have worked again, 

And the point is that if someone DID break that injuction they would be found to be in contempt and arrested. 

Nothing to do with the ottawa protest. 

So you're not being honest.  Sure, in OTHER protests in DIFFERENT places they did, but why not here if something illegal was going on. If anything the fact they did it elsewhere and not for this one makes the question even more important. 

 

SO.  Back to the question you've been dodging.  

If what they were doing in ottawa was so illegal, why no injunction? The girl got it for excessive honking. Other protests had that, that IS hte traditional thing to do.  Soooooo... why not?

 

Directly from the article re: the horns;

'The hearing came as an interim 10-day injunction to silence the horns was about to expire. The injunction was brought by a private citizen, 21-year-old Zexi Li, who said the sound of constantly blaring horns was unbearable.

Initially, the injunction worked with the truck horns falling silent soon after the court order was issued. Within days, however, the horns started up again. Lawyer Paul Champ, who represented Li at the hearing, promised to take additional steps to ensure the order was enforced.'

 

Obviously the injunction wasn't about the protest per se - you can't have an injunction against protests because act of protesting is completely legal in Canada (as it should be). The injuctions were about specific actions being committed by the protesters that were illegal - the honking was one of them, as was blocking the Ambassador Bridge.

As I mentioned, there was injunction recieved by a government, the city of Windsor. You argument is literally 'it happened somewhere else so it doesn't count'. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge was also a part of the convoy protests, as were the events in Ottawa.

 

Edited March 22 by BlahTheCanuck

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

Lib supporters are calling for her to be fired for "disrespecting" Carney.

She's as responsible as anyone for setting the standard for journalistic integrity in Canada to "super-sycophant", so it's quite amusing to see her hoisted on her own petard.

Quote

And in the US, previous darling of the green agenda EV movement, Elon Musk, they're burning down Tesla dealerships, vandalizing and setting Teslas on fire.

It's interesting watching the Left eat themselves.

"Global warming is our #1 issue! Nothing else matters! Tank the economy if you have to! Thank you for saving the planet with your electric cars, Elon!"

"We don't like Elon anymore because he likes Trump. Let's burn all the Teslas! To hell with the environment!"

It doesn't have to make sense 😂

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

Directly from the article re: the horns;

'The hearing came as an interim 10-day injunction to silence the horns was about to expire. The injunction was brought by a private citizen, 21-year-old Zexi Li, who said the sound of constantly blaring horns was unbearable.

Initially, the injunction worked with the truck horns falling silent soon after the court order was issued. Within days, however, the horns started up again. Lawyer Paul Champ, who represented Li at the hearing, promised to take additional steps to ensure the order was enforced.'

 

Congratulations, once again you posted exactly what I've already said.

Quote

Obviously the injunction wasn't about the protest per se - you can't have an injunction against protests because act of protesting is completely legal in Canada (as it should be). The injuctions were about specific actions being committed by the protesters that were illegal - the honking was one of them, as was blocking the Ambassador Bridge.

That's an absolute fabrication.

I'm sorry that you're not capable of understanding this and that it's too complicated for you but it would have been easy for them to have an injunction against the activities of the protest itself  As has been the case a million times in Canadian history. They can ban protesters from being on those particular streets, they can do all kinds of things and there's dozens of examples in our history 

THere's no arguing this, it's been done in MOST protests that people want to clear away.

What you were literally saying is there was nothing illegal about what they were doing other than the honking of horns late at night. You're cleaning that the protest and all of the other activities around it were perfectly legal because the active protesting is perfectly legal.

Well if they were perfectly legal and there was nothing illegal about it  and there was nothing they could have gotten an injunction on ....  then why was it stopped in the first place. 

And pretending that you can't possibly get an injuction against it while pointing out another protest had an injunction against it isn't just childish, it's flat out dumb. 

Why did they not get an injunction to shut down the protest if they were protesting illegally? And if it wasnt' illegal why let it go on?

[BlahTheCanuck]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Congratulations, once again you posted exactly what I've already said.

That's an absolute fabrication.

I'm sorry that you're not capable of understanding this and that it's too complicated for you but it would have been easy for them to have an injunction against the activities of the protest itself  As has been the case a million times in Canadian history. They can ban protesters from being on those particular streets, they can do all kinds of things and there's dozens of examples in our history 

THere's no arguing this, it's been done in MOST protests that people want to clear away.

What you were literally saying is there was nothing illegal about what they were doing other than the honking of horns late at night. You're cleaning that the protest and all of the other activities around it were perfectly legal because the active protesting is perfectly legal.

Well if they were perfectly legal and there was nothing illegal about it  and there was nothing they could have gotten an injunction on ....  then why was it stopped in the first place. 

And pretending that you can't possibly get an injuction against it while pointing out another protest had an injunction against it isn't just childish, it's flat out dumb. 

Why did they not get an injunction to shut down the protest if they were protesting illegally? And if it wasnt' illegal why let it go on?

Why do you always go on weird tangents when you're repeatedly proven wrong?

And yes, many of the protesters were not doing anything illegal, those people weren't the issue. The issue were the people who honked horns, blocked roads, blocked the Canada-US border, etc. Those things happened at the convoy protests, even if it was by some individuals. IIRC there were also people arrested for illegal possession of weapons at the Coutts blockade in Alberta, but I'd have to go back and look that up (since they were arrested I imagine that an injunction would not really have been necessary there).

Basically injunctions were used in some cases when there was illegal activity going on, but like I said in my original post a decentralized/diverse movement so not everyone was like that. It would be a violation of the Charter to remove a protest completely if the people removed didn't violate any laws. (Yes they can ban them from streets/certain places but they can't prevent them from protesting altogether)

Edited March 22 by BlahTheCanuck

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

Why do you always go on weird tangents when you're repeatedly proven wrong?

It's because he's a malignant troll who can't abide being wrong and having the last word is paramount.

[BlahTheCanuck]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's because he's a malignant troll who can't abide being wrong and having the last word is paramount.

Maybe it's best not to feed the trolls then.

[CouchPotato]

On 3/22/2025 at 2:46 PM, CdnFox said:

So he said they weren't allowed to honk their horns at night and they complied

Sure they complied, but isn't it horrible enough that they did it in the first place. We all know that 'honk honk' really means "Heil Hitler".

Edited March 23 by CouchPotato

[CdnFox]

On 3/22/2025 at 12:39 PM, BlahTheCanuck said:

Why do you always go on weird tangents when you're repeatedly proven wrong?

LOL theres's no tangent here, you're just wrong and now you want it to be my fault somehow  

 

Quote

And yes, many of the protesters were not doing anything illegal, those people weren't the issue.The issue were the people who honked horns, blocked roads ,blocked the Canada-US border, etc.

So what you're saying is you've realized you were wrong and are trying to expand it to other protests  

In ottawa nobody blocked a border.  They did block roads of course and honked horns. 

You claimed or strongly implied earlier that was illegal.  If it was illegal then why not get an unjunction.  If it WAS legal, why harass them?

It's a very simple question, spare me your attempts to distract and either answer it or admit you can't. 

 

 

 

 

On 3/22/2025 at 12:39 PM, BlahTheCanuck said:

Basically injunctions were used in some cases when there was illegal activity going on, but like I said in my original post a decentralized/diverse movement so not everyone was like that.

They weren't used at all. When it comes to the truckers protest and freedom convoy which arrived in ottawa not a single injuction was filed or even attempted by any gov't body at all. Not one. 

So are you saying everything they did was legal? If so why were they attacked like that? and if it wasn't why was their no injunction.