It was for our current subPrime Minister so yes I do. What was your interpretation?
The battle will be between deciding if some buildings can be protested because they are funding genocide or protected because they are also religious.
If you're protesting on private property, vandalizing any property, threatening passerbys, I don't care what your cause is, you should be arrested.
Framed vaguely to encompass everything, if it's too specific it limits them.
Careful. Private property could also mean a polluting business. And exploitive business. Could apply to Unions on strike. They needs to be Grey area a judge can work with based on circumstances
Add Bill C-22 with it and it's not going to be so good for the majority of people.
Little do the loonie left realize, calling Pierre Poilevre PeePee falls under the bill so I suspect there will be lots of them surprised when they wake up one morning only to find their hero has removed them from the internet permanently. The terms are written so vaguely that saying cats are annoying could be interpreted as hate speech.
Explain why, please?
Ah, this one.
