Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Its always fun trolling Lefties 
Full story: https://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/news/charges-laid-in-downtown-hate-related-incidents.aspx
Full story: https://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/news/charges-laid-in-downtown-hate-related-incidents.aspx
How to deal with illegal protests that disrupt and prevent others from going about their normal business. There are proper ways to achieve change. This is not it. This is occurring on campuses and these protesters are learning a good lesson.
Last edited:
Completely wrong. We have laws for a reason.
The point of protest is to be heard, not to disrupt. Civilized people protest and respect other rights at the same time. Hooligans disrupt. Seeing as these people are protesting on behalf of Hamas it's not surprising that they don't care about other people's rights. Their love language is violence.
Wikipedia:
Public nuisance is actually a crime but can also give rise to a claim in tort if the crime committed endangered a section of the community or community as a whole.
Microsoft Word - Alastair_Lucas-EN.docx (cirl.ca)
Historically, the common law developed doctrine to protect health and safety of the general public. The Supreme Court of Canada has summed it up as “any activity which unreasonably interferes with the public’s interest in questions of health, safety, morality, comfort or inconvenience.”1
Criminal Code of Canada - section 180(1) - Common nuisance (criminal-code.ca)
Section 180(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits anyone from committing a common nuisance that endangers the lives, safety, or health of the public, or causes physical injury to any person. This section is designed to protect the public from various forms of misconduct that may pose a risk to their well-being or cause them harm. A common nuisance is anything that may cause harm, injury, inconvenience, or material losses to the public. An individual who commits a common nuisance in Canada is guilty of an indictable offense and may face imprisonment for a maximum term of two years. This provision applies to any individual regardless of social status, gender, or race. The section provides that actions like spreading viruses or diseases, leaving dangerous obstacles on public roads, and hosting events that block public places are examples of committing a common nuisance. The provision is broad and applies to a wide range of acts or omissions that may harm the public, thereby creating a safer and healthier environment for Canadians.
You are going to have to clarify that.
Because it really comes across as "we will protest peacefully, but if you don't give in to our demands, we will protest violently".
Also that you think the George Floyd protests turned violent because various governments didn't do what the protesters demanded.
So I would like you to clarify both of those things.
1) Are you saying that if these protests don't result in action the protesters like, they will become illegally violent and that is the correct and necessary thing for them to do?
2) Are you saying that you think this is what happened in 2020?
Why are you under the impression Joe Biden is behind these arrests and that they are being driven by those numbers?
Of course it can happen again.
But you have some problems with your theory.
One - the George Ffloyd protests were not notably more violent than previous BLM protests.
Where they were more violent, it was not due to the powers that be not giving them what they want. (As I'm sure you know, no police departments were defunded and there has been very little movement on policing reform in general)
The violence was mostly caused by police attacking the protesters.
Two - the Rodney King riots were in response to a jury decision, not a protest for policy change.
Three - Vietnam protests were mostly non-violent and remained so. (Again, most violence there is started by the cops.)
Four - You have not answered the important part of the first question - are you, in fact saying that if the protesters don't get the change in US policy that they want - " violence unfortunately and counter intuitively becomes necessary" ?
Not that violence will happen if the protests go on long enough, but that the protesters will be correct and justified to use violence to gain their policy changes?
I didn't say it was just due to police.
It was mostly due to police.
There was, as you say, though, people unaffiliated with the protests who also used them to engage in violence.
Which, if you want to say that any protest that is large enough and lasts for long enough time will have someone engage in violence eventually - ok.
But we are talking about violence in response to not getting a policy demand met.
How are those two positions different?
The violence is necessary in the view of the protesters.
Therefore it is correct and justified or - as you say - they won't get what they want.
In fact, by this logic, aren't the student protests doing this all wrong?
Chauvin was charged within days of the murder, after the riots and looting.
Shouldn't the students be initiating violence already?
And you attribute that to the violence, not the protests?
What does "listening to people NOW" entail?
If the University divests some, but not all, of its Israel investments and maintains ties to Israeli universities, what then?
Correct, but with qualifications.
Correct. That's why blocking the overpass on Avenue Rd. and 401 was not legal. The truckers blocking roads in Ottawa were not legal. Protestors on campuses intimidating other students are not legal.
And that is why protests that are going to result in that are not preapproved. They will not pass those legal requirements you mention. Protests at Queens Park are fine because everyday life or ordinary citizens are not disrupted. Protests in front of Mt. Sinai hospital that spill over onto University Ave. or intimidate patients from entering the hospital are not fine. Protesters blocking bridges in NYC or Frisco or a bridge connecting the US and Canada are not fine because of the disruption they cause.
But pro-Palis don't care. They feel that they are above the law so that they can support the Hamas terrorists that you also support.
The common theme here is that protests which inconvenience everyday life like getting to airports or hospitals are not an intrinsic right. They are not fine and that is why people get rightfully arrested. That is concrete proof that even if people want to protest and hopefully disrupt other people's lives are not considered an accepted part of protesting. Disruption is illegal. PERIOD.
Protests are meant for people with a cause to be heard. They are NOT an approved tactic to inconvenience people. It is not a carte blanche to enable hooliganism.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Criminal Code of Canada - section 180(1) - Common nuisance (criminal-code.ca)
Section 180(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits anyone from committing a common nuisance that endangers the lives, safety, or health of the public, or causes physical injury to any person. This section is designed to protect the public from various forms of misconduct that may pose a risk to their well-being or cause them harm. A common nuisance is anything that may cause harm, injury, inconvenience, or material losses to the public.
Go write a letter or 10,000 to your MP and inconvenience them. That is allowed.
Last edited:
The growth continues
vancouver.citynews.ca
Palestine solidarity encampment starts at UBC
Students and community members from across the Lower Mainland started an encampment at UBC early Monday morning.
vancouver.citynews.ca
Ah.
Your comment is merely that some protesters will think violence is justified if they don't get what they want.
I misunderstood.
Well. Sure.
There are always some people who think that.
The question is what you, I, and society think about that.
My general rule is that the bar for justifying violence to achieve political gain is very high.
I disagree.
The question needs to be asked of other people as well.
Obviously, when gauging how much of a threat the protests are, one has to ask the students.
Do they think that violence is justified for them to get what they want?
One of the main accusations being used to sic the cops on them is that they do, in fact, think that.
So finding out if it is true or not would be helpful.
I think the violence had great impact.
Without it, much more progress would have been made, but the narrative of "these were merely Black people being violent" was used to tremendous effect to de-legitimize the protests.
No, it isn't.
The protests that are getting all the press are mostly at Universities and many of them have been directed at getting those universities to divest from Israel.
For instance, the Columbia protester have three demands:
U of T had divestment demands. If I recall, McGill here in Canada has divestment demands.
The University protests (which are the ones getting all the coverage and driving the press narrative) are primarily about the thing the students feel the University can do - divest from Israel and weapons manufacturers.
All bluster and no ideas? Guess what Eggo, if you can't step up to the plate, you can't play the game. Frankie has you on the run too. When you want to join the adult table, feel free to refute what I said with something real. A concrete origional idea or premise.
That's your plan? That question was to you.
woah again
We've been through the ravage, slaughter and steal part....
