Toronto Escorts

Toronto Police making up new laws to stop Trudeau from being alarmed

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4P82NqqIM

Maybe they think Trudeau is the Queen?

Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace

49 Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,

(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or

(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,451
113
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4P82NqqIM

Maybe they think Trudeau is the Queen?

Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace

49 Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,

(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or

(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

That law has been in the Criminal Code since 1867 and applies only to the Queen.

What are you going on about this time?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113

That law has been in the Criminal Code since 1867 and applies only to the Queen.

What are you going on about this time?
Maybe bud plug does not realize that the Queen is our Head of State!!

That right wing extremist that yelled at Trudeau when he came to pay his respects to the victims says it all. Off course The Rebel want to give those individuals the space to air their ignorant views. One of the mourners at the end who politely asked this individual why he came to disrupt this event but was then cut off by The Rebel.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Maybe bud plug does not realize that the Queen is our Head of State!!

That right wing extremist that yelled at Trudeau when he came to pay his respects to the victims says it all. Off course The Rebel want to give those individuals the space to air their ignorant views. One of the mourners at the end who politely asked this individual why he came to disrupt this event but was then cut off by The Rebel.
If you watched the video, you didn't play very close attention. The protester came to air his views about Trudeau being a hypocrite, not being truly compassionate towards the victim of the attack, and being generally incompetent as Prime Minister. He was disrespectful to Trudeau, not to the victims of the attack. The man who swung by to criticize the protester cut himself off. He was offered the opportunity to speak by the Rebel, even though he interrupted an interview to do so.

The police were busy making up new laws to prevent people from yelling their political criticisms in a public space in the presence of the Prime Minister. Frank Zappa would be proud - the Central Scrutinizer lives!

By the way, the right wing extremist said that he voted for Trudeau, and now he's ashamed of that fact.
 

exbrower

Member
Jan 15, 2004
260
0
16
175 (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,

(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or

(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Evidence of peace officer

(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
If you watched the video, you didn't play very close attention. The protester came to air his views about Trudeau being a hypocrite, not being truly compassionate towards the victim of the attack, and being generally incompetent as Prime Minister. He was disrespectful to Trudeau, not to the victims of the attack. The man who swung by to criticize the protester cut himself off. He was offered the opportunity to speak by the Rebel, even though he interrupted an interview to do so.

The police were busy making up new laws to prevent people from yelling their political criticisms in a public space in the presence of the Prime Minister. Frank Zappa would be proud - the Central Scrutinizer lives!

So screaming across at someone who came to pay his respects to the victims seems normal to you!! Really was this the time to do so. You have the right wingers that defend the protesters that are racists and then slam the counter protesters who protest against the racists preaching their hate speeches and intolerance. But here you think it is perfectly normal for an extremist to be disrespectful when someone like the PM comes to pay his respects. Expected from the right wingers!!

By the way that emotional person that politely asked this individual why he was so disruptive when everyone were coming to pay their respects, only got this individual to shout back about all that "hypocrisy" bs aimed at the PM. The Rebel then cut off the taping!!
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
By the way, the right wing extremist said that he voted for Trudeau, and now he's ashamed of that fact.
Maybe you buy the BS from this individual. If he does not like Trudeau as a PM, he has an alternative choice when it comes next year. But again this was just being totally disrespectful and off course The Rebel who colluded with the KKK and Neo Nazis love these individuals.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
175 (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,

(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or

(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Evidence of peace officer

(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.
Bravo, you have managed to reproduce a section of the Criminal Code! Are you saying it applies? Because the person "caused a disturbance" by "shouting" in a public place? And how do you suppose that section gets interpreted in light of the Charter? Ever heard of a political rally where there wasn't shouting in a public place?

Spoiler alert. This section of the Criminal Code cannot be enforced to prevent public political protest.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Maybe you buy the BS from this individual. If he does not like Trudeau as a PM, he has an alternative choice when it comes next year. But again this was just being totally disrespectful and off course The Rebel who colluded with the KKK and Neo Nazis love these individuals.
That post made me laugh so hard I spewed my coffee! Just wait, be silent, and vote against Trudeau? First of all, not possible under Canadian electoral law (we don't vote for PM, notwithstanding the comments of the protester). Two, this coming from you, the Grand Poobah of TDS sufferers! Too funny!

As to the Rebel, if that is how you really think, and you're not just trolling, you have a serious disconnect with reality.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Spoiler alert. This section of the Criminal Code cannot be enforced to prevent public political protest.
Apparently you — like the latest bozo being discussed — think a public memorial for the dead is an proper occasion for foul-tongued political protest over an entirely unrelated matter.

Nice company you choose.
--------
PS: Assuming against all evidence so far, that your OP was actually your topic are you ever going to let us in on what earthly reason you think connects that bit of law with what the Toronto police did to keep the peace at the memorial?
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Apparently you — like the latest bozo being discussed — think a public memorial for the dead is an proper occasion for political protest.

Nice company you choose.
I'm assuming you are making a moral/ethical point, and not a legal one. I was was making a legal point about the conduct of the police. Or are you arguing in favour of different legal regime where police get to decide when political protest isn't in good taste, and shut it down accordingly?

If we want to talk about ethics and morals, I'm a lot more concerned about the unresponsiveness and lack of interest of the highest seated political representative of our country in the motivations for this attack, and his moral position on such motivations, rather than the boorish manners of an individual citizen.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I'm assuming you are making a moral/ethical point, and not a legal one. I was was making a legal point about the conduct of the police. Or are you arguing in favour of different legal regime where police get to decide when political protest isn't in good taste, and shut it down accordingly?

If we want to talk about ethics and morals, I'm a lot more concerned about the unresponsiveness and lack of interest of the highest seated political representative of our country in the motivations for this attack, and his moral position on such motivations, rather than the boorish manners of an individual citizen.
Perhaps you should start a thread on such a topic instead of pretending the actions of the police concerned you. They shut down no political protest, they simply told the bozo he had to stop disturbing and interfering with a solemn public memorial and to take his personal politics away to a respectful distance. I believe that sort of 'keeping the peace' is well within their legally-defined duties.

And I still don't see the relevance of the law you chose to quote. Did you imagine the police cited it to anyone?
--------
BTW A tad unclassy in one post to say Bozo "… voted for Trudeau" yourself, and then to take another poster to task for the same sloppy but entirely ordinary usage.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Perhaps you should start a thread on such a topic instead of pretending the actions of the police concerned you. They shut down no political protest, they simply told the bozo he had to stop disturbing and interfering with a solemn public memorial and to take his personal politics away to a respectful distance. I believe that sort of 'keeping the peace' is well within their legally-defined duties.

And I still don't see the relevance of the law you chose to quote. Did you imagine the police cited it to anyone?
--------
BTW A tad unclassy in one post to say Bozo "… voted for Trudeau" yourself, and then to take another poster to task for the same sloppy but entirely ordinary usage.
1. I started the thread I intended to - about the law. You indicated you preferred to talk about manners and/or morality. Don't blame me if you wanted to sidetrack the discussion.

2. Your belief about the proper application of section 175 of the Criminal Code is incorrect, as was the belief of the police at the scene. Now that the explanation for why that belief is wrong has been provided to you, you should reconsider your belief.

3. I correctly and accurately referred Beaver to what the protester had said that made it unlikely that he was a "right wing extremist". Beaver chose to offer this protester a solution that doesn't exist. If Beaver was truly confused about that issue, I did him a favour by clarifying the electoral process for him.

4. The purpose of citing section 49 was to demonstrate that the police were incorrectly applying section 175 as if it were section 49. As preposterous as that is to me, and perhaps to you as well, it didn't dawn upon the officers that they were doing precisely that.

As to what the "event" was that the protester interrupted - it appears to have been a press conference where Trudeau took questions from reporters and addressed issues such as gun control - clearly political matters. He even took one question from a reporter that raised his delay in speaking about the issue (implying some level of hypocrisy and/or ineffectiveness, as the protester had shouted). Here's the incident from the perspective of the press conference: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/vide...r-while-visiting-danforth-memorial/vp-BBLh7tT
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
That post made me laugh so hard I spewed my coffee! Just wait, be silent, and vote against Trudeau?
You do not get it. This was a time where Canadians including the PM come to pay their respects to the victims of the shooting. NOT an appropriate time for screaming politics at the PM. But again the ignorant right wingers will not decipher this fact!!

First of all, not possible under Canadian electoral law (we don't vote for PM).
By the way, the right wing extremist said that he voted for Trudeau
Make up your mind as you are contradicting yourself!!. Anyway, if you vote for a certain party then you are voting also for the leader, as he is part of that party and in the end gets elected if he wins the majority seats. There is NO SEPARATE elections for a leader like there is in the US. OKAY??

Two, this coming from you, the Grand Poobah of TDS sufferers! Too funny! As to the Rebel, if that is how you really think, and you're not just trolling, you have a serious disconnect with reality.
You Trumpty Dumb Supporter, that is really what TDS is ALL about!! Maybe you worship The Rebel, but that makes you the biggest troll. That biased FAKE media only cares about conspiracy theories against anything left of the Conservatives. No doubt you cannot comprehend it!!
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,560
113
I correctly and accurately referred Beaver to what the protester had said that made it unlikely that he was a "right wing extremist". Beaver chose to offer this protester a solution that doesn't exist. If Beaver was truly confused about that issue, I did him a favour by clarifying the electoral process for him.
Just because he said that he "voted for Trudeau" does not mean that he was honest. He was there just to disrupt the Memorial visitation by the PM. Obviously, you do not get it!!
Which person with any common sense would go out of their way to heckle someone that is paying their respects to the victims and their families??? So you are absolutely wrong, unless you give us evidence of exactly why he voted for Trudeau and what did not meet his expectations. Stuff that makes sense, not nonsense. Okay?? He was a right wing extremist.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
You do not get it. This was a time where Canadians including the PM come to pay their respects to the victims of the shooting. NOT an appropriate time for screaming politics at the PM. But again the ignorant right wingers will not decipher this fact!!
Actually, you don't even have this right. The protester shouted during a press conference held after the memorial, not during the memorial. See the video link in my response to Oldjones, above. Looks like you swallowed the fake news that this happened during the memorial.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Just because he said that he "voted for Trudeau" does not mean that he was honest. He was there just to disrupt the Memorial visitation by the PM. Obviously, you do not get it!!
Which person with any common sense would go out of their way to heckle someone that is paying their respects to the victims and their families??? So you are absolutely wrong, unless you give us evidence of exactly why he voted for Trudeau and what did not meet his expectations. Stuff that makes sense, not nonsense. Okay?? He was a right wing extremist.
You're quite a mind reader. How do you know he's lying? Or maybe you just can't imagine anyone who voted for the Liberals coming to regret their vote? A blind spot that you have?
 

wigglee

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2010
9,821
1,603
113
It may or may not be illegal, but heckling the PM at a funeral type occasion designed to pay respects to the shooting victims is incredibly uncooth and deplorable. I walked by that fountain last week and saw a man holding a sign blaming Trudeau. I simply said, "Fuck you , you ignorant asshole!"

You can come on Terb and try and make the irrational claim that Trudeau caused this shooting, but don't interrupt the mourners at the shrine. I believe Harper let that guy into the country ( not that I blame him).

You alt right zealots will be pleased to know that Ford has cut social services and mental health budgets already, so you can look forward to future unfortunate violence based on poverty and mental illness. Will you heckle Ford ?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
1. I started the thread I intended to - about the law. You indicated you preferred to talk about manners and/or morality. Don't blame me if you wanted to sidetrack the discussion.

2. Your belief about the proper application of section 175 of the Criminal Code is incorrect, as was the belief of the police at the scene. Now that the explanation for why that belief is wrong has been provided to you, you should reconsider your belief.

3. I correctly and accurately referred Beaver to what the protester had said that made it unlikely that he was a "right wing extremist". Beaver chose to offer this protester a solution that doesn't exist. If Beaver was truly confused about that issue, I did him a favour by clarifying the electoral process for him.

4. The purpose of citing section 49 was to demonstrate that the police were incorrectly applying section 175 as if it were section 49. As preposterous as that is to me, and perhaps to you as well, it didn't dawn upon the officers that they were doing precisely that.

As to what the "event" was that the protester interrupted - it appears to have been a press conference where Trudeau took questions from reporters and addressed issues such as gun control - clearly political matters. He even took one question from a reporter that raised his delay in speaking about the issue (implying some level of hypocrisy and/or ineffectiveness, as the protester had shouted). Here's the incident from the perspective of the press conference: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/vide...r-while-visiting-danforth-memorial/vp-BBLh7tT
I apologize for being unable to read your mind. Now that you've explained you purposely cited only an irrelevant law to somehow show the Police acted incorrectly, I still know nothing about their conduct that I didn't know already, but I am now certain that you don't approve and cannot or will not actually say why. Telling us that: "The purpose of citing section 49 was to demonstrate that the police were incorrectly applying section 175 as if it were section 49" without mentioning 175, didn't help.

The 'event' the protester interrupted was the Prime Minister, representing the people of Canada, visiting a solemn memorial set up by those grieving the death of two innocent victims of a deranged killer. The protester was not a participant in anything like a 'press conference'. If the Prime Minister chose to take some questions, that wasn't license for Bozo's disrespect of the occasion, the place or those mourning — Trudeau included. The police were quite correct to courteously instruct him to move to a more appropriate distance before there was trouble.

You have yet to cite any sort of law suggesting they exceeded their authority. As to Section 175, I have no belief, beyond it being the law of the land. Nor am I bver, who can reply for himself.

Regarding the 'moral' side of all this, I think your term overstates what should be mere common respect, courtesy, and civility. Once again I cite Edmund Burke:

Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them in a great measure, the Laws depend. The Law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and colour to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they supply them, or they totally destroy them.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,938
68,451
113
If you watched the video, you didn't play very close attention. The protester came to air his views about Trudeau being a hypocrite, not being truly compassionate towards the victim of the attack, and being generally incompetent as Prime Minister. He was disrespectful to Trudeau, not to the victims of the attack. The man who swung by to criticize the protester cut himself off. He was offered the opportunity to speak by the Rebel, even though he interrupted an interview to do so.

The police were busy making up new laws to prevent people from yelling their political criticisms in a public space in the presence of the Prime Minister. Frank Zappa would be proud - the Central Scrutinizer lives!

By the way, the right wing extremist said that he voted for Trudeau, and now he's ashamed of that fact.

Buddy, how can the police invent new laws? The laws have to be passed by parliament.

The law you quoted about alarming the Queen has been on the books since 1867. The law about "disturbing the peace", same thing.

Stop wasting everybody's time.

We all know what your tactic is. You come up with a chunk of silly bullshit and then argue it to death. If anyone contradicts you, you play games like slightly misquoting the guy or taking what he says out of context - anything just so you can keep arguing. Your goal is to exhaust the thread and get attention. Stop it. It's silly.
 
Toronto Escorts