Freedom Fighters: A Photo Collage of the 2 Fronts in the Fight Against Tyranny

[JohnLarue]

Are you're talking about the Mohawks who blocked CNR's Toronto-Montreal railway in 2020? I totally agree, they should've been forced to move. While the blockage disrupted the rail line, in order to mitigate major economic disruptions, CNR brokered a "workaround" agreement with CPR to share tracks in order to avoid the Mohawk protesters. You can't compare that to the Ottawa occupation or the Ambassador bridge blockade in Windsor.

I most certainly can
Ottawa streets are not vital infrastructure

I will grant he boarders crossing needed to be opened
The protestors in Ottawa were not blocking the bridge in Windsor

If you're talking about the attack on the Northern BC Pipeline, it was just that. An attack, vandalism or whatever else you want to call it. But it certainly wasn't an occupation. The investigation is ongoing.

Pipeline protestors have been active and disruptive long before that incident
They are funded by foreign money (Tides Foundation , Serria Club) and taxpayer money through grants given to NGOs (Gerald Butts roledex)

I don't care for BLM either, but when did they occupy an entire city in Canada for 3 weeks? The amount of damage they caused in the US is not relevant to this topic.

Do not mis-represent me.
BLM have every right to protest, peacefully
They had an opportunity to push for change by following Dr. Kings example of peaceful protest.
They pissed that away with arson, looting and violence

Justin broke Covid protocols to march with them

What you are not grasping is how Justin Trudeau treats the rights of one group of Canadians differently than the rights of another group of Canadians depending on how they slot into his ideological view.

Lean to the left ? Go ahead block railways and pipelines. HE will even break laws to march with you and then funnel taxpayer money at you

Lean to the right? He will restrict your ability to make a living , refuse to meet with you,, call you racists, misogynist and a Nazis, have his lap dog media try to paint you as the same, have a 1,000 lb horse trample you, have you arrested, freeze your bank account and have your insurance cancelled

That is despicable and unacceptable

 

[poker]

I most certainly can
Ottawa streets are not vital infrastructure

I will grant he boarders crossing needed to be opened
The protestors in Ottawa were not blocking the bridge in Windsor



Pipeline protestors have been active and disruptive long before that incident
They are funded by foreign money (Tides Foundation , Serria Club) and taxpayer money through grants given to NGOs (Gerald Butts roledex)




Do not mis-represent me.
BLM have every right to protest, peacefully
They had an opportunity to push for change by following Dr. Kings example of peaceful protest.
They pissed that away with arson, looting and violence

Justin broke Covid protocols to march with them

What you are not grasping is how Justin Trudeau treats the rights of one group of Canadians differently than the rights of another group of Canadians depending on how they slot into his ideological view.

Lean to the left ? Go ahead block railways and pipelines. HE will even break laws to march with you and then funnel taxpayer money at you

Lean to the right? He will restrict your ability to make a living , refuse to meet with you,, call you racists, misogynist and a Nazis, have his lap dog media try to paint you as the same, have a 1,000 lb horse trample you, have you arrested, freeze your bank account and have your insurance cancelled

That is despicable and unacceptable

I hope you didn’t lose too much in your divorce from the truth.

 

[JohnLarue]

I hope you didn’t lose too much in your divorce from the truth.

No I am good
Best of luck in your marriage to the ideology of a damn fool

 

[Valcazar]

The ask is ruing on the the governments failure to meet the standards for applying the emergency act and to determine if Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated

1. advise the government , the opposition parties that supported Trudeau and the Canadian Public that Justin Trudeau overstepped his authority and violated two separate Canadian laws
2. Issue a court order to have all illegally frozen bank accounts unfrozen
3. Advise the crown prosecutor subsequent charges were laid as a result of a unjustified / illegal use of the Emergencies act
4. Provide the legal council for all 200 defendants + any donators who had their accounts frozen, with the legal basis for their subsequent civil lawsuits

You might want to read that filing again.
I know you think me telling you to read the thing you are talking about is "ordering you about", but I still think you might want to give it a try.

CCF were quite clear they are launching a legal challenge of the implementation of the Emergencies act and a challenge of the Charter rights violations

You might want to read the actual filing and what they say they are asking for.

Trudeau thinks his rhetoric justifies his actions, the CCF belives otherwise
They are asking a court to decide

They are not asking the court to decide on Trudeau's rhetoric.

That could be up to the court to decide if they wish to take action

You might want to read the actual filing and what they are asking the court to do.

I suspect they will allow the victims of the violations to determine if they wish to pursue civil action against the Trudeau government

I doubt very much that the court will say anything on that matter at all.
Instead, the courts where the civil actions are filed will decide if those actions go forward.

CCF were quite clear they are launching a legal challenge

And then what do they expect the court to do?
You are aware that in a challenge like this the person filing asks the court to do specific things, right?

Irrelevant if their rights were violated
Omar Kadri is a killer who got $6 MM because his rights were supposedly violated

Nice "supposedly" there.

Just the ruling on the legality of the enactment of the emergencies act and the charter violation

They will leave the retribution to the civil lawyers

Hopefully a sensible judge would order the accounts be unfrozen right away

You might want to read the actual filing.

You having a difficult time understanding the implications of a court ruling the Governments actions were not legal

Not at all.
I'm trying to get you to think through what the court case actually will and will not accomplish as opposed to what you think it implies.

so pure speculation on your part

I'm not even speculating that they will. I'm saying that you insisting "all they have been charged with is mischief" as if that is important to the case isn't particularly relevant and is also just you speculating about where the charges will end up.

Oh I think a good legal beagle could argue if the individuals charter rights were violated by the arrest, a denial of bail with respect to those charges is also a violation of his /her rights

I think if it was determined that the arrest violated the charter rights, then they will be released.
The previous denial of bail will be moot.

The charter did get Omar Kadir a cool $6 MM, for our govt not acting to protect his rights while in a foreign country
So a direct violation of a persons rights within Canada by that persons government should really carry a higher price tag over and above being granted bail

Quite possibly.

What I want is quite different from my expectation that every Canadians rights are respected equally by their government

A ruling that the standards of the emergencies act were not met and that Charter Rights were violated should be enough for Jagmeet Sign to recognizes he should not support a fool any longer.
However that would require Jagmeet to value principals more than legislative bribes, so we shall se

So emotional as always.

Quick question - what if they rule that the Emergencies Act standards were not met and that no one's charter rights were violated?
Or do you think that's an impossible result?

See how your blind and absolute distain for any conservative values has you arguing in favour of a fool / empty suit violating other Canadians rights?

LOL
Again.
If you were a little less emotional about this, you might understand what I am actually arguing.

 

[JohnLarue]

They are not asking the court to decide on Trudeau's rhetoric.

I never said they were,
they are asking the court to rule if the govt meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and to rule on the Charter right violations

I doubt very much that the court will say anything on that matter at all. Instead, the courts where the civil actions are filed will decide if those actions go forward.

The court does not have to comment on civil matters at all
If the court determines the standards were not net or charter rights were violated, that will be sufficient for affected citizens to determine if they should proceed with civil cases in civil court

And then what do they expect the court to do?
You are aware that in a challenge like this the person filing asks the court to do specific things, right?

they are asking the court to rule if the govt meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and to rule on the Charter right violations

Nice "supposedly" there.

You liked that did you?

You might want to read the actual filing.

It was made clear there will be a legal challenge claiming the Govt did not meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and that Charter rights were violated
That works for me and I will await the outcome

Am I going to slash my wrists if the court rules in favor of the moron?
No I will not

Not at all.
I'm trying to get you to think through what the court case actually will and will not accomplish as opposed to what you think it implies.

Well I am not interested in what you are trying to get me to do
I prefer taking advise from people I respect and who are able to get to the point directly
Is that crystal clear enough for you?


How much confidence should the people of Canada have in Trudeau government if the ruling is they acted illegally in this matter
How much confidence will parliament have in the moron ?

I'm not even speculating that they will. I'm saying that you insisting "all they have been charged with is mischief" as if that is important to the case isn't particularly relevant and is also just you speculating about where the charges will end up.

You are speculating additional charges can be brought. I did not introduce that, you did
While this is possible , it is also speculation

I think if it was determined that the arrest violated the charter rights, then they will be released.
The previous denial of bail will be moot.

That will be up to a court to decide if it is moot or not

So emotional as always.

So obstinate and judgmental as always
I have zero interest in your opinions about my emotions
Is that crystal clear enough for you?

Quick question - what if they rule that the Emergencies Act standards were not met and that no one's charter rights were violated?
Or do you think that's an impossible result?

What part of "One can never be 100% confident how a court will respond" did you not understand ?

Of course there are several possible outcomes, including outright dismissal of both legal challenges

1. Emergencies Act standards were not met and
2. that no one's charter rights were violated?

Possible I guess
An odd combination, however I would be interested to hear the rational

The civil lawyers would then have to advise their clients if pursuing the matter still has merit
Having the court rule the standards were not met would still be an issue for the moron

LOL
Again.
If you were a little less emotional about this, you might understand what I am actually arguing.

WTF ??

If you were ever definitive and to the point , perhaps I might better understand what you are actually arguing

All you do is fence sit , criticize, second guess and toss out the occasional insult
Adding nothing of value

How many times do you need to be told?
You worry about you and I will monitor my blood pressure

 

[Valcazar]

I never said they were,

Do you not pay attention to your own posts?

they are asking the court to rule if the govt meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and to rule on the Charter right violations

You should read the actual filing.

The court does not have to comment on civil matters at all
If the court determines the standards were not net or charter rights were violated, that will be sufficient for affected citizens to determine if they should proceed with civil cases in civil court

People can proceed with their civil cases without waiting for this court ruling.
That they might think that if they win this it makes their case stronger is fine, but it isn't really necessary.

they are asking the court to rule if the govt meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and to rule on the Charter right violations

You should read the actual filing.

You liked that did you?

No. It was pretty pathetic, although revealing.

It was made clear there will be a legal challenge claiming the Govt did not meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and that Charter rights were violated

You should read the actual filing.

Well I am not interested in what you are trying to get me to do
I prefer taking advise from people I respect and who are able to get to the point directly
Is that crystal clear enough for you?

You've made your preferences in sources and ability to interpret very clear in other threads.

How much confidence should the people of Canada have in Trudeau government if the ruling is they acted illegally in this matter
How much confidence will parliament have in the moron ?

It will be a significant blow to Trudeau's position if it is ruled that he failed to meet the Emergency Act requirements.

You are speculating additional charges can be brought. I did not introduce that, you did
While this is possible , it is also speculation

Of course it is speculation, I'm not a crown prosecutor.

What part of "One can never be 100% confident how a court will respond" did you not understand ?

Of course there are several possible outcomes, including outright dismissal of both legal challenges

1. Emergencies Act standards were not met and
2. that no one's charter rights were violated?

Possible I guess
An odd combination, however I would be interested to hear the rational

You should read the actual filing.

Having the court rule the standards were not met would still be an issue for the moron

It would be a huge issue. That's a political blow that will be used against him ever after.

WTF ??

If you were ever definitive and to the point , perhaps I might better understand what you are actually arguing

You should read the actual filing.

Why you refuse to read the thing you are talking about is worth examining.

 

[JohnLarue]

Do you not pay attention to your own posts?

Apparently you do not
I never stated the court would rule on Trudeaus rhetoric
What I said was "he can not use rhetoric as evidence in a court of law'

I thought you were sharp enough to understand that


You should read the actual filing.

People can proceed with their civil cases without waiting for this court ruling.
That they might think that if they win this it makes their case stronger is fine, but it isn't really necessary.

I think it would, however they should follow the advise from their lawyer assuming they have been able to retain one with a frozen bank account



You should read the actual filing.

No. It was pretty pathetic, although revealing.

Very reveling that Justin cherishes the rights of a killer, but is willing to walk all over the rights of Canadians citizens who have "unacceptable views"



You should read the actual filing.

You've made your preferences in sources and ability to interpret very clear in other threads.

all without your advise

It will be a significant blow to Trudeau's position if it is ruled that he failed to meet the Emergency Act requirements.

and awfully difficult for Jagmeet Singh to continue to prop up him up

Of course it is speculation, I'm not a crown prosecutor.

well that is quite a turn around from

I'm not even speculating that they will.

You should read the actual filing.

It would be a huge issue. That's a political blow that will be used against him ever after.

Hopefully a career terminating blow
He was never qualified for the position to begin with
The sooner he moves onto another career the better for all of Canada




You should read the actual filing.

Why you refuse to read the thing you are talking about is worth examining.

Why you continue to try and tell me what to is perplexing
particularly after I went to great lengths to explain in plain language that your advise is neither sought or valued
Why are you unable to comprehend this ?


It was made clear there will be a legal challenge claiming the Govt did not meet the high standard for enactment of the emergencies act and that Charter rights were violated
That works for me and I will await the outcome

 

[JohnLarue]

You might want to read the actual filing.

Bruce Pardy - Law Professor at Queens University
His explanation of the standards required for enacting the Emergencies Act

you should consider watching this

Trudeau & the Emergency Act - Bruce Pardy - YouTube

 

[Frankfooter]

particularly after I went to great lengths to explain in plain language that your advise is neither sought or valued

A good reminder that exchanges with larue aren't actual conversations, they are opportunities for him to rant.
No exchange of ideas allowed.

 

[Valcazar]

A good reminder that exchanges with larue aren't actual conversations, they are opportunities for him to rant.
No exchange of ideas allowed.

The hilarious part is all I am asking him to do is read the actual filing he is so excited about.
You would think he would want to do that since it is so important.

 

[Frankfooter]

The hilarious part is all I am asking him to do is read the actual filing he is so excited about.
You would think he would want to do that since it is so important.

Even if you selectively quote the filing, with the relevant bits and then translations out of legalize he'd never read it.
Not if it gets in the way of his beliefs.

 

[whynot888]

He is something else...Poor guy probably lost all his freedom at home so i guess this is his only way to let out his frustration. I've never seen a guy so wrong and angry, he must live a very miserable life...

 

[JohnLarue]

The hilarious part is all I am asking him to do is read the actual filing he is so excited about.
You would think he would want to do that since it is so important.

There is no hilarious part
It really gets under your skin when someone does not do as you command

I said I was good 4 or 5 times.
It has been explained well enough for me to understand that a legal challenge has been filed and the govt will need to answer to a court

you cant seem to accept, the very simple fact that your advise is neither sought or valued

I said I was good 4 or 5 times.

One would think you would understand when someone tells you "No I am good" 4 times , its best to drop it

BTW if you think I am excited about any of this you are sadly mistaken