Xenon, the White Supremacist
-
Gee, that's one cover that hasn't aged well...
-
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
Normally, the twitter thread will post. You can probably cut and paste that address.
Regardless, it's a case of the speaker cutting off a MP, citing bad video and audio (which is quite clear) for asking a question about Klaus Schwab. Klaus has boasted he has infiltrated the Canadian government.
I thought it a very innocuous question to be tamped down so quickly. In the midst of a civil rights protest debate, I thought it odd to dismiss it so crudely.
Stop explaining yourself and read Section One of the Charter.
I've read it. I cited it a couple of days ago. I feel Fidel Trudeau has violated it.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Speaking of...
-
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
Normally, the twitter thread will post. You can probably cut and paste that address.
Regardless, it's a case of the speaker cutting off a MP, citing bad video and audio (which is quite clear) for asking a question about Klaus Schwab. Klaus has boasted he has infiltrated the Canadian government.
I thought it a very innocuous question to be tamped down so quickly. In the midst of a civil rights protest debate, I thought it odd to dismiss it so crudely.
Stop explaining yourself and read Section One of the Charter.
I've read it. I cited it a couple of days ago. I feel Fidel Trudeau has violated it.
You read it and not understood one word of Section One.
hint : Look up the word “notwithstanding” .
-
Ain't irony ironic?
-
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
Normally, the twitter thread will post. You can probably cut and paste that address.
Regardless, it's a case of the speaker cutting off a MP, citing bad video and audio (which is quite clear) for asking a question about Klaus Schwab. Klaus has boasted he has infiltrated the Canadian government.
I thought it a very innocuous question to be tamped down so quickly. In the midst of a civil rights protest debate, I thought it odd to dismiss it so crudely.
Stop explaining yourself and read Section One of the Charter.
I've read it. I cited it a couple of days ago.
Maybe, although I suspect you are lying through your teeth. And if you did read it, you didn’t understand it. Or more likely your pride in your ignorance didn’t want to you to understand it. No surprise.
“Little by little I am learning the art of being quite content by doing very little slowly” ~ Lionel Hardcastle
-
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
Normally, the twitter thread will post. You can probably cut and paste that address.
Regardless, it's a case of the speaker cutting off a MP, citing bad video and audio (which is quite clear) for asking a question about Klaus Schwab. Klaus has boasted he has infiltrated the Canadian government.
I thought it a very innocuous question to be tamped down so quickly. In the midst of a civil rights protest debate, I thought it odd to dismiss it so crudely.
Stop explaining yourself and read Section One of the Charter.
I've read it. I cited it a couple of days ago.
Maybe, although I suspect you are lying through your teeth. And if you did read it, you didn’t understand it. Or more likely your pride in your ignorance didn’t want to you to understand it. No surprise.
I cited Section 8.
And you, lad, can go fuck yourself or the nearest unwilling sheep.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
Normally, the twitter thread will post. You can probably cut and paste that address.
Regardless, it's a case of the speaker cutting off a MP, citing bad video and audio (which is quite clear) for asking a question about Klaus Schwab. Klaus has boasted he has infiltrated the Canadian government.
I thought it a very innocuous question to be tamped down so quickly. In the midst of a civil rights protest debate, I thought it odd to dismiss it so crudely.
Stop explaining yourself and read Section One of the Charter.
I've read it. I cited it a couple of days ago.
Maybe, although I suspect you are lying through your teeth. And if you did read it, you didn’t understand it. Or more likely your pride in your ignorance didn’t want to you to understand it. No surprise.
I cited Section 8.
And you, lad, can go fuck yourself or the nearest unwilling sheep.
That was yesterday and this evening I told you in response to read Section One and posted the links. So stop trying to say otherwise, it makes your nose look long and your pants smoulder.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).
When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional. As usual you responded by your usual bullshit memes and distractions. You have been caught in you
You need to read and understand Section One. Section One governs all subsequent sections of the Charter. Here in a nut shell is what Section One states:
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R v Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R v Butler).
When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by law namely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional.
So, you are wrong. Section One spells out that a person’s charter rights are not absolute as you claim, but are subject to reasonable limitations.
In response to your last barb, you can just go fuck off and die.
-
Be careful, I think you have now crossed over into the vaunted Canadian definition of hate speech, which is to say, any speech the government does not like .
Again, a case where your government upholds it's Charter or ignores it, as the whim strikes it
And if you just want to die, go ahead. I won't stand in your way
-
https://news.yahoo.com/canadian-freedom-convoy-ottawa-police-203356635.html
They fell down? A woman in a mobility scooter fell down, as her scooter was turned over by a horse? With video evidence?
If Ottawa Bob is going to lie, he undermines anything else he has to say.
Now, waiting for Renaudata to come to the defense of anything done to the protesters in 1, 2, 3,...
-
-
Good. Although $20M may be a bit excessive. Ottawa's economy was not completely shut down. In fact, I'd guess some businesses actually saw an uptick in revenue.
And Canada's national economy was not adversely impacted, since the truckers never went on a nation-wide strike.
I posted Hunter's column today on Canadians and personal liberty. He's right.
-
Elsewhere Tamara Lich, one of the convoy organizers, appeared for a bail hearing in an Ottawa courtroom before Ontario Court Justice Julie Bourgeois. No publication ban was requested in the proceeding.
Lich faces a charge of counselling to commit mischief.
She promised to give up her advocacy of the protest and return to Alberta, leaving Ottawa by vehicle. She told the judge she doesn’t have the required vaccine passport to travel by commercial air and her bank accounts are now frozen.
She pledged a $5,000 bond, saying that was all she could afford, while her husband, Wayne, promised the same amount.
Under cross examination, Wayne Lich told the court that he flew to Ottawa on a private jet to meet his wife in early February. The $5,000 bill was paid for by a man he hardly knew.
He also questioned whether the Emergencies Act was invoked unlawfully by the current Liberal government, saying that people’s right to protest in Canada “was part of our first amendments.”
Bourgeois interjected: “First amendment? What’s that?”
Lich said he didn’t follow politics, and just wanted to make sure his wife was safe.
The judge reserved her bail decision on Lich. She will return to jail until a court appearance on Tuesday morning..
