The Next Canadian Government

[Kirkhill]

It was that, plus icing back to the ears and a look of no regret.


Give than argument a try when you get caught on radar, a red light camera or forgot to report that T5 income and let us know how it works out.
At what point does taking a calculated risk become a sovereign citizen.?

Ah give over. You're just trying to make up the local tax shortfall.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail's editorial board says that the Trudeau regime has made a good choice. We must hope that the next (Poilievre) government follows through and expands on it:

----------​

There is no Charter right to intimidation​

THE EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGO

The federal government’s decision this month to confront extremists by listing the registered charity Samidoun as a terrorist entity is an important step in making this country safer for all its people. But there are other steps that could and should be taken.

Consider the speech given by a masked woman at a Samidoun event on Oct. 7 this year, in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery. Samidoun, according to the U.S. State Department, is a “sham charity” – an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is considered a terrorist organization in both Canada and the United States.

“Men who have lived their entire lives under the thumb of one of the most powerful settler colonies in the world built paragliders to fly over walls so high that it blocked out the sun when you stood underneath it,” the speaker said, celebrating the massacre of 1,200 women, men, babies, old people and revellers at a music party, a year earlier, just inside Israel’s border with Gaza.

And then, in the next breath: “Do not wonder how revolution can be done. We must do it. Death to Canada, death to the United States and death to Israel.”

Here we have what might be termed, for police, the low-hanging poisonous fruit of the post-Oct. 7 era in Canada. Free speech should have a wide ambit, but it is not an absolute right. Indeed, the very first section of Canada’s constitution states that rights are subject to “reasonable limits” that can be justified in a free and democratic society.

The right to free speech is not a license to harm others; counselling an audience to commit terrorist activity is a crime in the Criminal Code, for instance. And this is so whether the incited terrorism happens or not.

Protests by their nature aim to disrupt. The mere fact that protests are inconvenient is not sufficient reason for police to intervene. But as this space has previously argued, police do have a duty to intervene when protests morph into something else, when demonstrators assert control over streets and sidewalks, school board meetings or public skating rinks. And there are already legal tools police can use, without resort to draconian measures.

Freedom of speech is important, as is public safety. But laws on mischief, intimidation, unlawful assembly and disturbing the peace have their place, too.

About that masked revolutionary. As a general principle, masks worn by demonstrators are not and should not be against the law – though to be clear, we don’t like them because they can create a mob-like atmosphere and shield the wearers from accountability.

Wearing a mask to conceal one’s identity during the commission of an offence is itself a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Police in Toronto laid such a charge just last week, in connection with a pro-Palestinian protest. In that case, police allege that a woman and man, each masked, entered a private building in March, followed a woman and prevented her from entering her workplace, causing her to flee. They were charged with mischief, which the police said meant to obstruct, interrupt or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

We do have sympathy for the police, who need to protect public safety and enforce the Criminal Code while also respecting free speech. But some of what has gone on is simply baffling, as when a small group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocked a man from entering a federal Liberal fundraiser in Toronto’s Yorkville area in March, and police merely watched. Weren’t the demonstrators obstructing property? Didn’t their lawful assembly become unlawful at this point?

Bubble zones around religious institutions, schools and daycares are a worthy idea, striking a reasonable balance that gives room for demonstrations while minimizing the potential for intimidation. Such zones would be akin to those around abortion clinics: opponents have a right to hold up signs with pictures of a dead fetus but not to shove those signs in the face of a woman on her way into a clinic.

The city of Vaughan, north of Toronto, has adopted the bubble-zone approach in response to concerns over intimidation, restricting protests within 100 metres of certain institutions. Both Jewish-Canadian and Muslim-Canadian groups have voiced support for such an approach.

Bubble zones would protect everyone’s right to be free of harassment as they go into community spaces. The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate.

----------​

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate," is exactly right.

I need to repeat myself; not all, not even, I suspect, most Muslims are out trying to intimidate their fellow citizens; most are just trying to be good citizens and good neighbours.

 

[OldSolduer]

Personally I think she should be very publicly arrested and exposed as the hate monger she is. AND if she is not a Canadian expelled forthwith.

Good bye to bad rubbish.

 

[RedFive]

We do have sympathy for the police, who need to protect public safety and enforce the Criminal Code while also respecting free speech. But some of what has gone on is simply baffling, as when a small group of pro-Palestinian demonstrators blocked a man from entering a federal Liberal fundraiser in Toronto’s Yorkville area in March, and police merely watched. Weren’t the demonstrators obstructing property? Didn’t their lawful assembly become unlawful at this point?

Man, that utter lack of support, demands for defunding and more levels of accountability and liability than probably any other profession in the country, most of which has accumulated over the last 20 years or so, really suck huh?

The public doesn't have the stomach for the type of Police work necessary to make this kind of thing stop. And that is not to say excessive force or arbitrary detention, but large masses of Police making large masses of arrests against protestors, some of which will turn violent, and the blanket laying of charges is the only way we're getting rid of this "Death to Canada" trash from out streets. And the bill, from overtime to court time will be immense.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

----------​

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate," is exactly right.

I need to repeat myself; not all, not even, I suspect, most Muslims are out trying to intimidate their fellow citizens; most are just trying to be good citizens and good neighbours.

My wife loves her devout family, but also knows that as Muslims they would turn on her if she crosses a line. That is the reality of most Muslims is that they are very nice till they are not. If you allow the radicals to take over the local mosques, city councils, run private schools. then the moderate Muslims will be a potentially dangerous herd that will do as they are told and it won't be nice.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There is no Charter right to intimidation​

Someone should pound that into trudeau's empty brain housing group. He can't open his yip without trying to demean and intimidate those that don't share his platform, edicts or ideas.

 

[dimsum]

There is no Charter right to intimidation​

Someone should pound that into trudeau's empty brain housing group. He can't open his yip without trying to demean and intimidate those that don't share his platform, edicts or ideas.

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate”

So I’m guessing that equally applies to the folks who had that 3-week block party in Ottawa, right?

Right?

 

[Good2Golf]

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate”

So I’m guessing that equally applies to the folks who had that 3-week block party in Ottawa, right?

Right?

It should, for sure.

That said, the question then arises as to action taken against whom, so the outlier response of freezing a struggling single-mother’s bank account for a $50 GoFundMe donation from when the various levels of Government self-guided themselves into the position of being force to take belated action, overreach for those demonstrably less instigative in action wouldn’t occur.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate”

So I’m guessing that equally applies to the folks who had that 3-week block party in Ottawa, right?

Right?

Apples and oranges. In trudeau's case, it has been the conduct he has used since 2015. He's a narcissistic, divisive whiner. He's used the us v them gambit all along. It's who he is.

Feel free to defend his actions and blame the last nine years on the Freedom Convoy. Including his unconstitutional use of the Emergency Act.

 

[OldSolduer]

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate”

So I’m guessing that equally applies to the folks who had that 3-week block party in Ottawa, right?

Right?

I will agree with that. It could have been handled in much more reasonable ways.

 

[Furniture]

"The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate”

So I’m guessing that equally applies to the folks who had that 3-week block party in Ottawa, right?

Right?

I'd be more convinced they were similar actions if the convoy protestors had been calling for the death of all Trudeau supporters, and the elimination of the province of Quebec...

But sure, if you view honking and being a jackass as the same as calling for the genocide of Jews, and the elimination of the state of Israel... They're exactly the same thing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and bringing a bouncy castle

 

[Remius]

I'd be more convinced they were similar actions if the convoy protestors had been calling for the death of all Trudeau supporters, and the elimination of the province of Quebec...

Or say the removal of the legitimate gvt via unconstitutional methods…

But sure, if you view honking and being a jackass as the same as calling for the genocide of Jews, and the elimination of the state of Israel... They're exactly the same thing.

or preventing freedom of movement, blocking businesses and intimidating the locals and things like trying to get free food at the shepherds of good hope?

I’m happy dealing with all of them the same way. My tolerance for civil disobedience that crosses lines isn’t limited to whatever groups grievances or biases are.

 

[Furniture]

Or say the removal of the legitimate gvt via unconstitutional methods…

They were so serious about that, that they didn't even try to prevent the government from going into their offices to work... MPs could pass through the protest with little more than a few shouts.

There is a difference between a few nutjobs writing a manifesto, and a crowd chanting for genocide.

or preventing freedom of movement, blocking businesses and intimidating the locals and things like trying to get free food at the shepherds of good hope?

Jackass behaviour, but not on the same scale as wishing for the destruction of a nation, and genocide.

There are layers to being terrible. The convoy protestors were often idiots, but they weren't genocidal idiots.

I’m happy dealing with all of them the same way. My tolerance for civil disobedience that crosses lines isn’t limited to whatever groups grievances or biases are.

I'm with you on this part. That still doesn't make the two different groups/protests equal though.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm with you on this part. That still doesn't make the two different groups/protests equal though.

No one said they are, and that's kind of the point. The point is to apply the concept of "The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate” - regardless of the cause. Draw the line and stick to it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No one said they are, and that's kind of the point. The point is to apply the concept of "The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate” - regardless of the cause. Draw the line and stick to it.

What, apply the law uniformly to everyone, with neither favour nor prejudice?

 

[George Wallace]

Or say the removal of the legitimate gvt via unconstitutional methods…

or preventing freedom of movement, blocking businesses and intimidating the locals and things like trying to get free food at the shepherds of good hope?

I’m happy dealing with all of them the same way. My tolerance for civil disobedience that crosses lines isn’t limited to whatever groups grievances or biases are.

Now that is a lot of Liberal propaganda, there. The facts don't match the Liberal fiction.
The actions taken since, by the Trudeau Government, have not been anything other than vindictiveness.

 

[Remius]

Now that is a lot of Liberal propaganda, there. The facts don't match the Liberal fiction.

What part is fiction? All of those things are completely verified.

 

[George Wallace]

No one said they are, and that's kind of the point. The point is to apply the concept of "The right to demonstrate cannot become a licence to intimidate” - regardless of the cause. Draw the line and stick to it.

I would like to know how "Bouncy Castles" are a form of intimidation? Other than Trudeau and his Government, who was "actually" intimidated?
What I saw, was a bunch of whinny Ottawa Center Liberal Riding residents offended that people actually did not agree with Trudeau's policies. Add in a "Liberal" (former Ontario Liberal MPP) Mayor and you can see how Liberal vindictiveness progressed.

 

[George Wallace]

What part is fiction? All of those things are completely verified.

Verified by whom? It was actually broadcast on CTV Ottawa that the Convoy actually donated food to the Mission; not tried to take food from the Mission.