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?
wrote on 19 Feb 2022, 02:54 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 19 Feb 2022, 03:26 last edited by
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?
-
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?
wrote on 19 Feb 2022, 03:33 last edited by@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
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 01:48 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 01:58 last edited by Jolly
Is it because there are some outside influences in Canada?
https://mobile.twitter.com/LoveMTB/status/1495068948861100038?s=20&t=gdrPuvqsG_HXQviqkV7jGA
-
Is it because there are some outside influences in Canada?
https://mobile.twitter.com/LoveMTB/status/1495068948861100038?s=20&t=gdrPuvqsG_HXQviqkV7jGA
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:04 last edited by Renauda@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.
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:10 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:14 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:15 last edited by
Gee, that's one cover that hasn't aged well...
-
@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.
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:16 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:18 last edited by
Speaking of...
-
@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.
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:22 last edited by@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” .
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:26 last edited by
Ain't irony ironic?
-
@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.
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 02:59 last edited by Renauda@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 04:25 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 05:12 last edited by Renauda@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.
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 12:49 last edited by
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
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 12:58 last edited by
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,...
-
wrote on 20 Feb 2022, 14:13 last edited by
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.