Xenon, the White Supremacist
-
@Renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
I would expect Phibes to understand the nuance, but not you.
There's definitely a different feeling over here regarding their Head of State than there is about the PM, who it's worth emphasizing is not Head of State.
The kind of reverence with which certain groups in the US held both Obama and Trump really wouldn't work in any sane parliamentary democracy.
The Brits all know Boris is a conniving twat, even people who voted for him do. Some of you lot talked about Obama and Trump although they were the second coming.
The only PM my father (possibly the nicest and kindest man I ever met) ever spoke about respectfully was Winston Churchill, and he was kind of special.
-
@George-K said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
AP wrote some of the police were carrying automatic weapons
C'mon. Do you really thing the Associated Press knows the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons?
BTW, I've been watching some of the footage. Some of the police are definitely carrying AR's. I can't conceive of why they would need them - by all accounts, these protesters are not armed - or why you would discharge such a weapon in a crowd setting.
The other weapons I noticed are tear gas guns with revolving cylinders. Besides normal sidearms, which any officer down here would carry.
-
I thought it was pretty much standard practice in America to shoot people who didn't do what the police told them.
There are certainly plenty of examples of people saying 'I don't know why people just don't do what they're told when challenged'.
Or is that just black fellah's pulled over for minor traffic violations?
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
I thought it was pretty much standard practice in America to shoot people who didn't do what the police told them.
There are certainly plenty of examples of people saying 'I don't know why people just don't do what they're told when challenged'.
Or is that just black fellah's pulled over for minor traffic violations?
No, just snobby Brits
-
@Jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
When you seize people's bank accounts, you have violated Charter Rights.
No you are wrong, dead wrong. Read the following and if you do not understand the first time read it again. If a third time is over your pinhead, it let me know. I am happy to explain.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
Wish I remembered Section One of the Chartervl yesterday, but then I don’t pretend to be a civil liberties expert.
-
Is it because there are some outside influences in Canada?
https://mobile.twitter.com/LoveMTB/status/1495068948861100038?s=20&t=gdrPuvqsG_HXQviqkV7jGA
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:
Is it because there are some outside influences in Canada?
https://mobile.twitter.com/LoveMTB/status/1495068948861100038?cxt=HHwWjICpubXSxr8pAAAA
I don’t have a twatter account.
Stop punting your bullshit distractions back and avoiding facts when they are presented to you. Just fucking read Section One. If it’s not clear to you, it’s clear to me and follow my earlier advice.
-
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.
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:
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.
“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:
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. -
@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” .
-
@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,...
-
