Freedom Convoy organizer Tamara Lich denied bail

46XiJCAB

HHusky said:

Swaye said:

HHusky said:

Swaye said:

HHusky said:

hardhat said:

Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?

I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.

Ann Davison voter here.

I will not go into the summer of love and your position on that, but instead will pivot and say that I actually agree with you on one vital point - the truckers should not have been allowed to shut down city and bridge movement indefinitely. I think they should have made their point for a week, made a lot of discomfort, then gone and parked the trucks legally somewhere and continued their peaceful protest complete with bouncy castles on the streets, but sans illegally parked trucks. I actually believe just not delivering supplies to the cities for about a month would have made their point way better than the bridge fiasco to be completely honest.

See I can't be a "law and order" guy and say anything else. Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest. This is how I would have done things.

So, since we are all being honest now, will you concede that labelling them all as terrorists and freezing their bank accounts is an enormous overreach and tyrannical act? Couldn't some tow truck providers have been compelled to tow the trucks without stealing the bank accounts? And what about the people who sent them 100 bucks? Should they be labelled terrorists and have their bank accounts stolen as well? I mean that is what is happening. Or is Trudy acting like a fascist and a liar? I am wondering what your honest opinion is about BOTH sides.

@HHusky

Whether you think Canada's Emergency Powers Act is a good law or not, it is a lawfully enacted statute, and we are well removed from its 1988 passage, so it isn't some hastily erected device designed to give Justin Trudeau supreme and perpetual power. Those powers have to be renewed by Parliament, as I understand it. These things alone make the situation very much unlike Vlad Putin signing a bill he asked for that makes Vlad Putin President for Life. What we have in Canada is not tyranny and it may even be wise to have such a law on the books. Whether there were better options than invoking the law in any particular case is a fair question, of course.

"Make your point with civil disobedience, then follow the law and continue your protest." I strongly agree.

I was as weary with the "Summer of Love" as anyone. Cops kill too many people unnecessarily in this country. We get it; I've said it myself. But I still don't want my town to be a war zone, and I voted against any candidate who thought we could solve society's ills by cutting some arbitrary percentage of funding from the police. If anything, we need to make becoming a police officer a more competitive process, attracting better candidates. That would imply more funding, not less.

Freezing accounts? I prefer it to open warfare, and it is one of the emergency powers the Canadian statute provides, not something the current government invented on the spot. Freezing accounts is much different than seizing them. The former is potentially a useful, temporary emergency power; the latter should require due process. As with most harsh measures, the devil is in the details.

I appreciate you answering clearly. Only question you didn't answer, and this gets to the root of it for me, is *should* bank freezes be used in *this* instance. I disagree with you that Emergency Powers should exist, but I can see how reasonable people can disagree on this.

My issue is in it's application. Even Canadas version of the ACLU (not a conservative organization) has said this is an overreach. I think most rational actors see these emergency powers being used for some 9-11 type situation, not some trucks blocking a road (incidentally that is why I believe we SHOULD not have these type of powers - they are ripe for abuse). So, fair enough that you think these powers should reside with the federal government. But do you, in this instance, think the truckers are actual terrorists? Trudy said they are, and the financial instruments being used were cited as being available to stop "terrorist networks." Are a bunch of working class truckers parked on a bridge *really* an existential threat to democracy in Canada?

I believe casting thousands of hard working people who are pissed off about Covid policies as terrorists bent on the overthrow of the government is a sad state of affairs. And clear tyrannical overreach.

edit: I am ASSUMING Canadas ACLU that came out against these action are liberal - I should be fair and say that was an assumption. I don't really know what their political bent is. Poont of clarification.

edit 2: It appears the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is a liberal group (no deep research here), and I just realized they have sued Trudy to have the Emergency Powers stopped. Interesting. I did not know that.

I think it would have been fairer to say that the effort was being substantially funded by foreign contributors. I totally get freezing the accounts if that's the case. I do mean if, because I've seen that reported, but I haven't seen a lot of detail. "Terrorists"? I don't know. some of them probably fit some definition of the term, but honestly, I'd rather talk about what they did than what label to apply.

Shitty human being says what?

46XiJCAB

Guys the judge thinks this hardcore criminal might “re-offend” so no bail. It’s not like she’s only been accused of murder.

SHE STARTED A GOFUNDME DAMMIT!

It resulted in a BLOCKADE!

TheKobeStopper

I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.

RaceBannon

TheKobeStopper said:

I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.

Link?

You're just here to dodge and deflect your hypocrisy

I affirm my position with facts and logic. Stop gaslighting. This is your team

MikeDamone

TheKobeStopper said:

I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.

WTF are you taking about? Example?

Sledog

HHusky said:

hardhat said:

Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?

I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.

Ann Davison voter here.

You're OK when they loot it empty then burn it to the ground as that's not permanent is it? Fucking moron.

HHusky

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

hardhat said:

Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?

I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.

Ann Davison voter here.

You're OK when they loot it empty then burn it to the ground as that's not permanent is it? Fucking moron.

Oh look, the retarded boy made a funny.

Sledog

HHusky said:

Sledog said:

HHusky said:

hardhat said:

Who was hysterical about 'fascism' and 'daddy' the past five years? And who is cheering on fascism and authoritarian actions now?

I don't think "protests" should be permitted to shut a city down indefinitely. I don't really care what the cause is or whether I agree with it or not.

Ann Davison voter here.

You're OK when they loot it empty then burn it to the ground as that's not permanent is it? Fucking moron.

Oh look, the retarded boy made a funny.

Never answered my question bottom boy.

46XiJCAB

TheKobeStopper said:

I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.

You’re to stupid and dishonest to understand the difference between breaking up a protest and freezing the bank account of a single mom that donated $50 to feed people.

You and Dazzler are both shitty people.

Sources

TheKobeStopper said:

I’m just hear to point out that the Trumpers constantly say shit like “it’s the law” to affirm their positions. It’s very funny how, when it’s inconvenient for them, somethings status as a law becomes irrelevant.

Begging the question: assumes a debatable part of an argument is already agreed upon.

Ad hominem: distracts from argument by attacking the person or persons making the argument.

Hasty generalization: reaching a generalized conclusion from too little evidence.