NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
They're also not "seizing" bank accounts. Big difference in freezing funds involved in criminal activities vs. seizing a bank account. It's a bad faith argument in the first place.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
They're also not "seizing" bank accounts. Big difference in freezing funds involved in criminal activities vs. seizing a bank account. It's a bad faith argument in the first place.
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
They're also not "seizing" bank accounts. Big difference in freezing funds involved in criminal activities vs. seizing a bank account. It's a bad faith argument in the first place.
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
No. Summer of 2020 protests were closer to the Summer of 1919 protests, but not quite as deadly.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
They're also not "seizing" bank accounts. Big difference in freezing funds involved in criminal activities vs. seizing a bank account. It's a bad faith argument in the first place.
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
No. Summer of 2020 protests were closer to the Summer of 1919 protests, but not quite as deadly.
Notwithstanding you have the roles reversed when comparing those protests, my question here to MD and Natty is do ALL people have the right to freely assemble and protest (provided it’s not violent)? Or is it just SOME people?
And if it’s just some people, then defend your stance please….we want to know who can and who cannot protest, and why. Like with anything, the rules should be clear to everyone.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
They're also not "seizing" bank accounts. Big difference in freezing funds involved in criminal activities vs. seizing a bank account. It's a bad faith argument in the first place.
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
No. Summer of 2020 protests were closer to the Summer of 1919 protests, but not quite as deadly.
Notwithstanding you have the roles reversed when comparing those protests, my question here to MD and Natty is do ALL people have the right to freely assemble and protest (provided it’s not violent)? Or is it just SOME people?
And if it’s just some people, then defend your stance please….we want to know who can and who cannot protest, and why. Like with anything, the rules should be clear to everyone.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
They're also not "seizing" bank accounts. Big difference in freezing funds involved in criminal activities vs. seizing a bank account. It's a bad faith argument in the first place.
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:42 am
No reason given, but in reality the truckers are basically shutting down the city now for days. The price for civil disobedience has always been the exposure to jail, court, fines, etc.
And it is Canadian law, politics, etc. that make the situation there somewhat different than in the US. The level of support for the protesters is rather small...so there is little pushback in Canada with getting tough and removing the truckers by certain means beyond what you might see in the US.
Not just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
In a state of Emergency?
Or just because you don't like the other side on a protest?
Obviously, this is a very, very slippery slope and we should not want to ever see conditions under which this sort of action would even be considered.
Let's first admit that this was not a riot with some businesses burned down in a limited area (incredibly serious as that is), but rather an extended interruption of an entire economy. Not a march and loud voices but an intent to shut down an economy.
But let's put the scale aside and simply stick with the riot level for a moment, would you agree that it's qualitatively (and potentially legally) different to provide help for bail and legal defense.... compared to providing the funds for people to travel to the riot with the intent to riot and burn? Or to pay for the kerosene with which to light the fires? Or to pay for the bomb materials, or the guns?
See my question...at what point does "financial support" crossover into complicity with the illegal act?
Petey,
I avoided any comparison of the relative righteousness of the protests of the summer of 2020 vs the Canadian trucker protest of 2022. And I put aside the large scale of the impact of the trucker protests versus the very small number of actual protestors, all of whom doing the major damage intentionally, and by comparison, the enormous number of peaceful protestors doing no damage versus the few who were doing damage in 2020. I put that aside.
And I went right at the concept of rioters burning buildings, differentiating between financial support for legal defense and bail with financial support paying people to riot, with the intent of the damage. If someone buys the kerosene, the bombs, or the guns or pays people to destroy, they are complicit and subject to consequences of that complicity.
That would apply to the 2020 burning of buildings or this trucker protest aimed at bringing an economy to a halt.
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
Let them get arrested. It only makes Trudeau look weak. Raw government power is something, isn't it? Dem's are just mad they couldn't get the trucker's money to Act Blue, like they did with the BLM donations.
"I would never want to belong to a club that would have me as a member", Groucho Marx
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:42 am
No reason given, but in reality the truckers are basically shutting down the city now for days. The price for civil disobedience has always been the exposure to jail, court, fines, etc.
And it is Canadian law, politics, etc. that make the situation there somewhat different than in the US. The level of support for the protesters is rather small...so there is little pushback in Canada with getting tough and removing the truckers by certain means beyond what you might see in the US.
Not just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
In a state of Emergency?
Or just because you don't like the other side on a protest?
Obviously, this is a very, very slippery slope and we should not want to ever see conditions under which this sort of action would even be considered.
Let's first admit that this was not a riot with some businesses burned down in a limited area (incredibly serious as that is), but rather an extended interruption of an entire economy. Not a march and loud voices but an intent to shut down an economy.
But let's put the scale aside and simply stick with the riot level for a moment, would you agree that it's qualitatively (and potentially legally) different to provide help for bail and legal defense.... compared to providing the funds for people to travel to the riot with the intent to riot and burn? Or to pay for the kerosene with which to light the fires? Or to pay for the bomb materials, or the guns?
See my question...at what point does "financial support" crossover into complicity with the illegal act?
Petey,
I avoided any comparison of the relative righteousness of the protests of the summer of 2020 vs the Canadian trucker protest of 2022. And I put aside the large scale of the impact of the trucker protests versus the very small number of actual protestors, all of whom doing the major damage intentionally, and by comparison, the enormous number of peaceful protestors doing no damage versus the few who were doing damage in 2020. I put that aside.
And I went right at the concept of rioters burning buildings, differentiating between financial support for legal defense and bail with financial support paying people to riot, with the intent of the damage. If someone buys the kerosene, the bombs, or the guns or pays people to destroy, they are complicit and subject to consequences of that complicity.
That would apply to the 2020 burning of buildings or this trucker protest aimed at bringing an economy to a halt.
... Kellyanne and his tribe can't tell the difference between real grass and Astroturf.
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?
Let them get arrested. It only makes Trudeau look weak. Raw government power is something, isn't it? Dem's are just mad they couldn't get the trucker's money to Act Blue, like they did with the BLM donations.
If Trudeau allows another election (no sure thing any longer), he’ll be blown out just like American Democrats this fall.
The images this evening and this afternoon of massive horses running over women in walkers ought to play really well for him and his party next election…
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:42 am
No reason given, but in reality the truckers are basically shutting down the city now for days. The price for civil disobedience has always been the exposure to jail, court, fines, etc.
And it is Canadian law, politics, etc. that make the situation there somewhat different than in the US. The level of support for the protesters is rather small...so there is little pushback in Canada with getting tough and removing the truckers by certain means beyond what you might see in the US.
Not just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
In a state of Emergency?
Or just because you don't like the other side on a protest?
Obviously, this is a very, very slippery slope and we should not want to ever see conditions under which this sort of action would even be considered.
Let's first admit that this was not a riot with some businesses burned down in a limited area (incredibly serious as that is), but rather an extended interruption of an entire economy. Not a march and loud voices but an intent to shut down an economy.
But let's put the scale aside and simply stick with the riot level for a moment, would you agree that it's qualitatively (and potentially legally) different to provide help for bail and legal defense.... compared to providing the funds for people to travel to the riot with the intent to riot and burn? Or to pay for the kerosene with which to light the fires? Or to pay for the bomb materials, or the guns?
See my question...at what point does "financial support" crossover into complicity with the illegal act?
Petey,
I avoided any comparison of the relative righteousness of the protests of the summer of 2020 vs the Canadian trucker protest of 2022. And I put aside the large scale of the impact of the trucker protests versus the very small number of actual protestors, all of whom doing the major damage intentionally, and by comparison, the enormous number of peaceful protestors doing no damage versus the few who were doing damage in 2020. I put that aside.
And I went right at the concept of rioters burning buildings, differentiating between financial support for legal defense and bail with financial support paying people to riot, with the intent of the damage. If someone buys the kerosene, the bombs, or the guns or pays people to destroy, they are complicit and subject to consequences of that complicity.
That would apply to the 2020 burning of buildings or this trucker protest aimed at bringing an economy to a halt.
... Kellyanne and his tribe can't tell the difference between real grass and Astroturf.
And he also posts as a quote words not actually said. All one needed to do was actually watch the video to know it was not what he said...to me, this is a knowing lie. "Putinesque disinformation to inflame others". Trolling.
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?[/b]
Let them get arrested. It only makes Trudeau look weak. Raw government power is something, isn't it? Dem's are just mad they couldn't get the trucker's money to Act Blue, like they did with the BLM donations.
If Trudeau allows another election (no sure thing any longer), he’ll be blown out just like American Democrats this fall.
The images this evening and this afternoon of massive horses running over women in walkers ought to play really well for him and his party next election…
you guys didn't want asset freezes, truck forfeitures...you prefer the illegal protest to be removed by force?
BTW, the two people on the ground looked to me as if they took a dive, weren't actually hit, much less "trampled", by any horses, though failure to disperse is indeed dangerous.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 12:33 pm
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
Boy, you sure do ask tough questions.
One happened in US cities. The other took place in Canada....where I don't care what they do, and don't know the first thing about their laws.
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?[/b]
Let them get arrested. It only makes Trudeau look weak. Raw government power is something, isn't it? Dem's are just mad they couldn't get the trucker's money to Act Blue, like they did with the BLM donations.
If Trudeau allows another election (no sure thing any longer), he’ll be blown out just like American Democrats this fall.
The images this evening and this afternoon of massive horses running over women in walkers ought to play really well for him and his party next election…
you guys didn't want asset freezes, truck forfeitures...you prefer the illegal protest to be removed by force?
BTW, the two people on the ground looked to me as if they took a dive, weren't actually hit, much less "trampled", by any horses, though failure to disperse is indeed dangerous.
The lengths you go to to excuse leftist excesses are truly amusing.
Obviously you didn’t watch any video yet you still come on here and opine. lol
You can watch the video here. Please afterwards tell the fans if the women ‘took a dive’
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 12:33 pm
Can I ask you guys a simple two-part question: is your opinion of the ‘Summer of 2020’ protests (where actual buildings were burned down and stores looted) the same as your opinion of the Canadian trucker protests (where no buildings are being torched nor stores looted); if not, why not?
Boy, you sure do ask tough questions.
One happened in US cities. The other took place in Canada....where I don't care what they do, and don't know the first thing about their laws.
Whew. That was really difficult, Pete.
You don’t care what occurs with our number one trading partner and a country which shares 5,000+ miles of border with America?
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 amNot just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
So you're now supporting criminals who create a state of emergency? You're against the rule of law?
Can you show me where the Canadian government is actually seizing funds vs freezing them?
Let's check on Florida's ripe red government stance regarding seizing funds without due process in civil asset forfeiture...
If you know me, and I think others here will vouch for me, my biggest gripe in the universe is civil asset forfeiture. It is the greatest abuse of civil liberties in America today and keeps piling up innocent lives along the way. I have begged members of my party to make outlawing CAF a signature part of a party platform. The powers that want to keep it are formidable and found in both parties. I’d note that the ones most powerful who want to keep CAF are prosecutors. Be wary of them.
So far as Canadians seizing bank accounts, listen to this scary admission by Trudeaus justice minister, who simply says they will have no problem seizing the funds of anyone who simply sits the other side of their politics, not even criminal actors!
“Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti said if you are part of a pro-Trump movement you should be worried that your bank account will be seized." THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE.
If you agree with this, I’m not going to take pity on you when someone does it you, though I will of course be against it.
That's actually NOT what he said, though he did use the words "Pro-Trump movement"..."donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you should be worried about it".
Yup, if you're funding a criminal act you become complicit for that act.
So, here's the question....why inaccurately quote the official?
Why make up different words and meaning?
Yeah, we know why.
You do everything here to justify the liberal lies. Amazing.
Do you seriously think that this guy restricts his seizures to ‘pro-Trump’ accounts?!? Ayfkm?!? And whats the mention of “pro trump” anyway OTHER than to delineate political differences? Most people. donating to this cause in Canada are anti mandate, not pro Trump. He’s saying that simply to gin up outrage and justification.
There are online now, Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of Canadians claiming their accounts have been seized by TD and RBS. Do you belief they are all lying, MD?
Hundreds of Canadians... not American "pro Trump"??? You mean truckers?
I can imagine that not all on the internet are honest reports, but I have no issue with asset seizures of the truckers and protestors at this point.
And why did he say, "Pro-Trump"? Perhaps because that was the context of the immediately prior discussion, the various motivations and big money sponsors of the protest...including the MAGA crowd waving Trump flags and their right wing supporters in Canada, the US or elsewhere. And yeah, there's apparently been some very big money coming from MAGA pro-Trump world...and that's what he said, if you are donating" hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to support this kind of thing"...then you "should be worried". He's not talking about $25 donations from Canadians.
You think a protester who is in the course of a non-violent, civil disobedience should have their bank accounts seized??!? Sorry, I meant to say, without any warrant or application to a judge?!!
Certainly their trucks. If necessary other assets, especially if they are being paid to do this damage. They're doing huge damage to the economy, were warned amply that their protest had crossed over into illegal, damaging activity, and now there are consequences... for which they had prior warning and opportunity to avoid.
I'm certainly not an expert in the law, much less Canadian law, but it appears they've taken the legal steps necessary to exercise these authorities.
Or are you saying that their "disobedience" isn't doing and intended to do great harm to the economy? Perhaps you are saying they didn't have ample warning?
Would you rather that the police and military take them by force, perhaps?[/b]
Let them get arrested. It only makes Trudeau look weak. Raw government power is something, isn't it? Dem's are just mad they couldn't get the trucker's money to Act Blue, like they did with the BLM donations.
If Trudeau allows another election (no sure thing any longer), he’ll be blown out just like American Democrats this fall.
The images this evening and this afternoon of massive horses running over women in walkers ought to play really well for him and his party next election…
you guys didn't want asset freezes, truck forfeitures...you prefer the illegal protest to be removed by force?
BTW, the two people on the ground looked to me as if they took a dive, weren't actually hit, much less "trampled", by any horses, though failure to disperse is indeed dangerous.
The lengths you go to to excuse leftist excesses are truly amusing.
Obviously you didn’t watch any video yet you still come on here and opine. lol
You can watch the video here. Please afterwards tell the fans if the women ‘took a dive’
yes, that's the video I was referring to. I don't see the person in red go down, but I do see the man in brown purposely putting himself in the way and it sure looks like he took a dive after he was jostled. the guy commenting is claiming "trampling" before the horses even get to them, looks like they wanted to make it look rough...but as I said, if you put yourself where you're not supposed to be and refuse to move as horses push forward, you're gonna get bumped. Get the hell out of the way, back off.
What makes this "leftist"???
The political preferences of so many of the protestors being far right wing? so, the police are now "leftist"??
You didn't want the asset freezes as a motivator to stop interrupting the economy, and I asked whether you wanted the protests broken up instead by force...and now you're whining about the force applied??
you guys didn't want asset freezes, truck forfeitures...you prefer the illegal protest to be removed by force?