Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

[Remius]

Yep, I'm tempted to take a gander through @Remius Search history because I'm pretty sure "overthrow the Govt" and "Occupier" have been used multiple times in the same sentences and paragraphs by them in this very thread but.....

I don't have the fortitude to suffer through the creative gymnastics that will ensue.

I'll just go watch Question Period on CPAC for my fill instead

@Halifax Tar we must be just "experiencing things differently"

Go for it. But the mental gymnastics you took to misinterpret Brihard’s words to derail the thread is impressive. If you honestly thought that his use of that word meant the cherry picked definition you used we really won’t be able to meet anywhere in the middle on this.

I mean be offended. I still don’t know why that word would offend.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

@Halifax Tar @Weinie I'd also really like to know what legal document @brihard Is using when he refers to the protestors as "Occupiers".

As someone who is "simply interested in upholding the rule of law" I'd really love to see what legal document specifically mentions the word "occupier" in it?

 

[Weinie]

I’m not taking on any fight. I’m just not offended by the word.

Why does the word offend you? Because of the negative side of it?

Because I believe in protest in a democracy. When protesters are derided as occupiers(and pre-ordained racists and miscyongists) then I push back.

What happened in Ottawa was, IMO, a travesty to democracy. It was embarrassing to see the OPS, the Ont gov't, and the PMO and the PM, react the way they did. But the narrative was built by the PM, who I would say phuqued this up. That set the stage for others to follow, with little course-correction or appreciation for public sentiment.

So for protesters to go to occupiers is re-writing history, and re-writing the dictionary

 

[Halifax Tar]

@Halifax Tar @Weinie I'd also really like to know what legal document @brihard Is using when he refers to the protestors as "Occupiers".

As someone who is "simply interested in upholding the rule of law" I'd really love to see what legal document specifically mentions the word "occupier" in it?

lol Dont use me in this!

Im enjoying my sideline sniping lol

Im going back to the AOPs thread lol

 

[Remius]

Because I believe in protest in a democracy. When protesters are derided as occupiers(and pre-ordained racists and miscyongists) then I push back.

What happened in Ottawa was, IMO, a travesty to democracy. It was embarrassing to see the OPS, the Ont gov't, and the PMO and the PM, react the way they did. But the narrative was built by the PM, who I would say phuqued this up. That set the stage for others to follow, with little course-correction or appreciation for public sentiment.

So for protesters to go to occupiers is re-writing history, and re-writing the dictionary

Protesters and occupiers can be one in the same. Or move from one to the other.

That’s what happened here. Started as a protest, became an occupation.

You don’t like that definition of it. That’s fine and your prerogative. I and others see it that way so we disagree. That’s it. Still don’t get being offended by a particular word that is a legit descriptor.

Labelling the entire thing as racist and misogynist isn’t right either. I can concede that point. Labelling the ones that are is not wrong either though.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Go for it. But the mental gymnastics you took to misinterpret Brihard’s words to derail the thread is impressive. If you honestly thought that his use of that word meant the cherry picked definition you used we really won’t be able to meet anywhere in the middle on this.

I mean be offended. I still don’t know why that word would offend.

Nobody is misinterpreting anything. A person who has openly identified as a law enforcement officer and admitted they were there at the protest in a law enforcement capacity is using the term "occupier".

That's concerning to me. Especially because words (spoken or written) coming out of peoples mouths matter, especially when they claim to be someone who "enforces the law".

We're they "removing occupiers" or were they "breaking up an unlawful assembly"? Why was the assembly declared unlawful? Why aren't we calling them protesters? What laws were being broken specifically?

 

[brihard]

The terms “occupied” or “occupation” have been used in both Provincial and Superior court in Ontario to describe the events in downtown Ottawa in February 2022. You’ll find that in R. v. Romlewski, 2022 ONCJ 502, a criminal conviction for obstructing police, and R. v. Lich, 2022 ONSC 4390, a bail review, both available on CanLII. The term has been accepted and used by judges in both of those courts. There will be more as we see more verdicts reached and reported in writing.

Those who want to quibble on the terminology can have at ‘er, but the courts are satisfied it fits. A military occupation of a conquered territory is not the only way the word is used. I will avoid the term from here on, but that’s to avoid sidetracks borne out of apparent hurt feelings: not because it doesn’t apply.

What laws were being broken specifically?

Mischief and Obstruct Police under the Criminal Code are overwhelmingly the most charged offences arising out of the freedom convoy.

One can be protesting, but also commit criminal acts. Standing out there and yelling about the government is protesting. Being part of a massed blockage of city streets using vehicles, and obstructing efforts to remove those vehicles, is crime. That’s why people were charged and are beginning to be convicted.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The terms “occupied” or “occupation” have been used in both Provincial and Superior court in Ontario to describe the events in downtown Ottawa in February 2022. You’ll find that in R. v. Romlewski, 2022 ONCJ 502, a criminal conviction for obstructing police, and R. v. Lich, 2022 ONSC 4390, a bail review, both available on CanLII. The term has been accepted and used by judges in both of those courts. There will be more as we see more verdicts reached and reported in writing.

Those who want to quibble on the terminology can have at ‘er, but the courts are satisfied it fits. A military occupation of a conquered territory is not the only way the word is used. I will avoid the term from here on, but that’s to avoid sidetracks borne out of apparent hurt feelings: not because it doesn’t apply.



Mischief and Obstruct Police under the Criminal Code are overwhelmingly the most charged offences arising out of the freedom convoy.

One can be protesting, but also commit criminal acts. Standing out there and yelling about the government is protesting. Being part of a massed blockage of city streets using vehicles, and obstructing efforts to remove those vehicles, is crime. That’s why people were charged and are beginning to be convicted.

But "occupied" and "occupation" are also different from "occupier". The first two refer to an action while the latter is referring to a person.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj502/2022oncj502.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20romlew&autocompletePos=1

The Court documents you use as your justification also label them as "protesters" not "occupiers".

Referring to protesters as "occupiers" shouldn't be done and I am glad you have reconsidered this.

I have no issue with anything else you've said. I do agree that the assembly had become unlawful and that certain protesters were breaking the law. I was also impressed with the way the Police dealt with the situation.

 

[brihard]

But "occupied" and "occupation" are also different from "occupier". The first two refer to an action while the latter is referring to a person.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj502/2022oncj502.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20romlew&autocompletePos=1

The Court documents you use as your justification also label them as "protesters" not "occupiers".

Referring to protesters as "occupiers" shouldn't be done and I am glad you have reconsidered this.

I have no issue with anything else you've said. I do agree that the assembly had become unlawful and that certain protesters were breaking the law. I was also impressed with the way the Police dealt with the situation.

Fair enough, and thanks- wall of text effect hitting tone, I think.

I think, if an “occupation” exists, or if a space is “occupied”, then those doing so must logically be “occupiers”. But anyway, it’s linguistic quibbling at this point. I would be surprised if that version of the word doesn’t also appear in case law in due course- it’s taking a while for things to come to trial.

 

[Weinie]

Fair enough, and thanks- wall of text effect hitting tone, I think.

I think, if an “occupation” exists, or if a space is “occupied”, then those doing so must logically be “occupiers”. But anyway, it’s linguistic quibbling at this point. I would be supervised if that version of the word doesn’t also appear in case law in due course- it’s taking a while for things to come to trial.

And well you should be.

 

[brihard]

And well you should be.

Lol, good catch and well played. Stupid phone keyboard.

 

[childs56]

Ah yes. The small crew who locked down Nicholas and Laurier for a few hours. They got cleared out, and nobody was hurt save for some feelings. That had nothing to do with the convoy response, or initial lack thereof. The convoy were committing criminal offences en masse from day one when they blocked numerous roads and prevented the use and enjoyment of downtown roads and properties. While enforcement took a few weeks, it was criminal right from the start, and that’s what a bunch of people were ultimately arrested and charged for.

Can you explain the CRIMINAL OFFENCES they were committing? How many were convicted, stayed and or dropped? How many charges were laid after the EMA was enacted?

 

[brihard]

Can you explain the CRIMINAL OFFENCES they were committing? How many were convicted, stayed and or dropped? How many charges were laid after the EMA was enacted?

They’ve been explained as nauseum throughout this thread, in court hearings that have been reported on, and in the course of the public order commission. You’re free to read any of the many volumes of related material; I’m not burning my time to spoon feed you.

I don’t have statistics on the charges, but there has been at least one conviction at trial, numerous guilty pleas, and most scheduled trials are still pending- I’m actually surprised any trials have happened yet, but at least one has. I provided a citation for it earlier on today.

Most of the charges will be post-EA and will stem from arrests made when police cleared them out, however those charges (mostly mischief and obstruct police) have nothing do with the the EA and don’t depend on the emergency proclamation to stand.

 

[mariomike]

Saw this about charges laid,

More than 500 charges laid during convoy protest, Ottawa police say

A summary of charges laid between Jan. 29 and March 12 was entered as evidence this week this week during the Emergency Act inquiry.

ottawacitizen.com

The Emergencies Act inquiry testimony of Acting Deputy Chief Trish Ferguson ran counter to protesters' claims that the convoy had been peaceful until police moved in after the act was invoked.

A summary of charges laid between Jan. 29 and March 12 entered as evidence at the inquiry showed police laid 12 charges of assaulting a police officer, six charges of assault, five charges of possessing a weapon, three charges of assault or intimidation with a weapon, two charges of carrying a concealed weapon, one charge of possessing a restricted firearm and four charges of uttering threats of death or bodily harm.

There were also more than 200 charges of mischief, 112 charges of obstructing a police officer and 87 charges of disobeying a court order.

 

[childs56]

They’ve been explained as nauseum throughout this thread, in court hearings that have been reported on, and in the course of the public order commission. You’re free to read any of the many plumes of related material; I’m not burning my time to spoon feed you.

I don’t have statistics on the charges, but there has been at least one conviction at trial, numerous guilty pleas, and most scheduled trials are still pending- I’m actually surprised any trials have happened yet, but at least one has. I provided a citation for it earlier on today.

Most of the charges will be post-EMA and will stem from arrests made when police cleared them out, however those charges (mostly mischief and obstruct police) have nothing do with the the EA and don’t depend on the emergency proclamation to stand.

many of those charges are what one calls catch all charges such as the Military's 129. (1) Any act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to dismissal with disgrace from His Majesty’s service or to less punishment.
It will be interesting to see how many of those charges are dropped.

 

[brihard]

Funny enough, Obstruction of a Peace Officer is s.129- but of the Criminal Code. Mischief to Property is s.430. They can both indeed capture a lot of different behaviour that reaches a criminal threshold, but the similarity to an NDA 129 Conduct Prejudicial pretty much ends there.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

This whole thing was a waste of Canadian resources. Fuel to idle for days, fuel for the drive across Canada. Waste of police resources across the country. Traffic control duties, crowd control and the force to push them out.
Waste of tax payers money to pay for extra policing, Rations & Quarters for the police etc. Was waste of EMS time, the cost to clean up after they left.
Wasted effort for changes that were demanded and nothing changed.
Wasted of donated money, as it sits in limbo awaiting court cases and freezes. Money could of actually helped some people all across Canada with real problems.
Waste of money investigating the protest and police forces.

Damages to Canadian world wide reputation, making CNN is not some we should be proud of.

Positive things ( some in jest )
gave some crazy people and not so crazy people a sense of power, belonging, and greed.
still laugh at the cars driving around with stickers that say convoy control.
gave a lot of money to lawyers to defend the protesters in court and at the enquiry.

Nothing changed, just have road blocks in places still.
Divided the country in more ways then the French and English issues.
Now dividing WEST/EAST/QUEBEC/

 

[QV]

This whole thing was a waste of Canadian resources. Fuel to idle for days, fuel for the drive across Canada. Waste of police resources across the country. Traffic control duties, crowd control and the force to push them out. Waste of tax payers money to pay for extra policing, Rations & Quarters for the police etc. Was waste of EMS time, the cost to clean up after they left. Wasted effort for changes that were demanded and nothing changed. Wasted of donated money, as it sits in limbo awaiting court cases and freezes. Money could of actually helped some people all across Canada with real problems. Waste of money investigating the protest and police forces. Damages to Canadian world wide reputation, making CNN is not some we should be proud of. Positive things ( some in jest ) gave some crazy people and not so crazy people a sense of power, belonging, and greed. still laugh at the cars driving around with stickers that say convoy control. gave a lot of money to lawyers to defend the protesters in court and at the enquiry. Nothing changed, just have road blocks in places still. Divided the country in more ways then the French and English issues. Now dividing WEST/EAST/QUEBEC/

Right. Just STFU and do what Trudeau tells you. Same goes for the gun ban and any other decree.

 

[Remius]

This whole thing was a waste of Canadian resources. Fuel to idle for days, fuel for the drive across Canada. Waste of police resources across the country. Traffic control duties, crowd control and the force to push them out.
Waste of tax payers money to pay for extra policing, Rations & Quarters for the police etc. Was waste of EMS time, the cost to clean up after they left.
Wasted effort for changes that were demanded and nothing changed.
Wasted of donated money, as it sits in limbo awaiting court cases and freezes. Money could of actually helped some people all across Canada with real problems.
Waste of money investigating the protest and police forces.

Damages to Canadian world wide reputation, making CNN is not some we should be proud of.

Positive things ( some in jest )
gave some crazy people and not so crazy people a sense of power, belonging, and greed.
still laugh at the cars driving around with stickers that say convoy control.
gave a lot of money to lawyers to defend the protesters in court and at the enquiry.

Nothing changed, just have road blocks in places still.
Divided the country in more ways then the French and English issues.
Now dividing WEST/EAST/QUEBEC/

Well at least they’ll never be able to bring trucks to the parliamentary precinct ever again. And if the new OPS chief’s reputation is anything to go by I’m fairly certain that any future convoy shenanigans will be ended well before it is allowed to get out of hand.

 

[QV]

Well at least they’ll never be able to bring trucks to the parliamentary precinct ever again. And if the new OPS chief’s reputation is anything to go by I’m fairly certain that any future convoy shenanigans will be ended well before it is allowed to get out of hand.

Lessons learned on both sides. Doubt the next iteration of discontent from the normies will allow a situation where an unlawful assembly or crimes take place and get them shut down. They'll play it much smarter.