and served in the MOST difficult parts of Toronto. Respect earned.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
Printable View
and served in the MOST difficult parts of Toronto. Respect earned.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter06
Democracy and freedom are both pillars of a free country, as are the laws brought about and changed through the centuries to fit modern-day needs. Some laws are antiqued and the process to change them can sometimes be at a glacial speed. The government however does have at its' disposal the right to suspend these laws when or if they feel they need them. Even the inquiry that was chaired by a liberal appointee did not fully support what the liberals did with the War Measures Act, but that was to be expected.
Laws are there to protect, and it is not up to the government to decide which ones they think they can sweep under the rug to fit their "woke" agenda. 1 glaring example is to look into the number of Catholic churches which were victimized by arson in the last 5 years in Canada. The number is triple digits if anyone even cares. The number of suspects arrested........yup. If those were city halls, police stations, schools, anything else do you think it would be swept under the rug?
Woke has gone too far and the Karens are running the asylum.
Just my opinion.
John
Thanx Bluebulldog-i was honestly thinking about "peacefulness"of the protest or the lack of it ......stated by Birdbuff......I am not sure,if any of from your list meets the "lack of peacefulness "definition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Unlawful maybe-but not peacefull?
Result of a quick query:
What is the definition of a peaceful protest in Canada?
According to Canadian case law, assemblies cease to be peaceful when people begin rioting or when gatherings seriously disturb the peace.
They may be in the wrong in: The right to assembly also does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities........but that is different chapter,then not being peacefull.
When a court orders the collective protest to cease blowing air horns etc during late and early hours....that then meets the definition of not keeping the peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
Alternately, you are being far too literal in your interpretation of the word "peaceful".
When a person is issued a "peace bond", they are required to "keep the peace", meaning, not to conduct anything unlawful to society. ( For the record, this is also while LEOs are known as "peace officers").
Thanx Gilroy-however why we do not stay on the topic (for me at least) i was actually enquiring about - the protesters not being peaceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
In Ottawa.
Not lawful or unlawful-but peaceful or not.
Again, you are being far too literal.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
KEEPING THE PEACE Definition & Legal Meaning
Definition & Citations:
the term that means to maintain public order and to prevent violence and other unlawful behaviour.
So no. The protest in Ottawa ceased to be "peaceful" the minute laws were broken.
Hard to listen to it for 2 minutes can't imagine 24/7. Would you agree this is disturbing the peace?Quote:
Originally Posted by gbk
https://youtu.be/8yCvN3TAD74
There's absolutely no doubt that many minor laws and bylaws were broken within minutes of the arrival of the protestors from impeding traffic to cause disturbance with unnecessary noise and rowdy behavior just for starters. I've read most of Mr. Justice Rouleau's decision. By reading between the lines, I get the distinct impression that he was exceedingly uncomfortable coming to those conclusions,but,was unwilling to "rock the boat" with The Liberal Party of Canada. This tells me two things....that he's a staunch supporter who disagrees with the party line and,also,this was a purely partisan decision. As such,it is what it is and there isn't a whole lot we can do about it other than recognize that enacting the Emergencies Act was likely legal,but,the question will remain forever with the vast majority of Canadians if it was,in fact,necessary. I guess we'll see after the next election won't we?
The protest was certainly not "peaceful" but on the scale of protests in Canada it was not wildly violent either. Far more serious protests have been met and defeated under current legislation and the federal emergencies act was entirely unnecessary.
When the War Measures Act was used in1970 it was in the face of a serious terrorist threat that included kidnappings, murder and bombings. To use the current version of the legislation for a bunch of loud-mouthed yahoos in central Ottawa goes far beyond the original purpose of the legislation.
I can agree that it was not necessary IF the local and provincial police could have taken care of the situation. It became clear after a week that they could not and were being embarrassed by the protestors (gas can fiasco). So why the shortcomings with the Ottawa police and the OPP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch