Key takeaway, just over 1/3 (38%) of Canadians support the Conservatives. Not a glowing endorsement. We really need to be rid of FPTP so that we can get a government that actually reflects the will of all Canadians.

We are better off not having Facebook be mistaken for a source of news. There is no news on Facebook, only memes, propaganda, and misinformation.

Have you read this article?

Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.

In theory what you are saying is correct. Disruptive protest for popular causes are very effective. The problem is that these fanatics are driving a wedge between the solution they want and the people they really need on their side for their protests to be effective (the people in popular.) I’m prepared to bet that they didn’t convince a single person trying to get around the loop at YUL to join them. How many people jumped out of their cars and asked for glue? Do you think they changed any oil executive’s minds? Do you think that they convinced any bought and paid for by the oil industry politicians to change their vote? Do you think that the number of people they convinced to vote for change during the next election outweighs the number of people whos votes they galvanized against them? In order for us to achieve real change in climate policy they need to convince many millions of people to vote for change. I’m willing to bet you $1 that they have done more harm than good.

Please understand that I agree with their goals. I agree that we need to make dramatic changes and as I’ve said in other parts of this “discussion” (discussion in quotes because there is a lot of whinging, shaming, insulting, name calling, etc. being thrown at me that does not constutite a conversation.) I have made substantial changes myself and have helped hundreds of others make substantial changes. I have had a direct and personal impact on carbon reduction. I just don’t agree with their methods. I think that they are doing far more harm to the cause than they are doing good.

The UK is deporting innocent people to fucking Rwanda, lmao.

They were. The new government killed that plan on day 1.

“I acknowledge that at least some of your concerns are shared by many but since we don’t want to do anything about it because that would mean changing our western week-end-at-the-resort lifestyle, we’ll just put you in prison. Fuck you.”

“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.

“And your fanaticism makes you entirely heedless of the rights of your fellow citizens. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide that your fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, and how much disruption and harm they must suffer, simply so that you may parade your views.”

I suspect that it’s very clear to most people at this point that the actions of these fanatics and the whinging, feeble attempts at shaming, insults, name calling, and harassment by fanatics and their apologists online aren’t actually intended to change anyone’s minds. It’s a fanatical circle jerk, as the judge suggested in the quoted ruling.

Just as long as they are prepared to answer to the rest of a society who, don’t agree with their methods. The three who the judge in the UK was writing about are spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison for their protest which showed utter contempt for other citizens.

You’re upset because I pointed out that the comment about the word “sole” was wrong. Dude, you need to get over yourself.

I didn’t ask a question, I posted a snippet from a ruling from a similar case in the UK. I was set upon by apologists for the fanatics who showed utter contempt for the thousands of people trying to get to the airport by gluing themselves to the loop at YUL, refused to back down, and here we are. These people think that they can bully everyone into doing what they want them to do. They are wrong.

Here is my original comment for reference.

I didn’t even say anything. I just posted the snippet.

That’s an interesting point but I disagree. They treated thousands other people with utter contempt. That is not the act of someone who is morally superior. It’s absolutely disqualifying.

“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.

YOU have appointed yourselves as the SOLE arbiters of…

YOU is collection. The collective have appointed themselves the sole arbiters of…

Do you understand now?

you

/yo͞o,yə/

pronoun

used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.

“are you listening?”

He was referring to them collectively. In English, “you” can refer to one person or a group of people.

What did you think he got wrong?

Sole.

It’s a self satisfying parade of their absolute moral superiority. It’s a public circle jerk.

Read it again. You are NOT morally superior. The three people he was writing about are now spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison because they mistakenly believe that they are absolutely morally superior and that that absolute moral superiority justifies anything that they do to anyone they see as inferior. This is the same mistake that every extremist makes.

From a recent ruling in the UK.

“I acknowledge that at least some of the concerns motivating you are, at least to some extent, shared by many,” he said.

“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.

“And your fanaticism makes you entirely heedless of the rights of your fellow citizens. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide that your fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, and how much disruption and harm they must suffer, simply so that you may parade your views.”

Sorry…granted…SOME Americans believe that hate speech and guns make them the freest country in the world.

Most likely. As a Citizen you have right of entry so you cannot be denied entry to the country if you can get to the border. The US never has to let you in.

Totalitarian regime that ignores international law, norms of diplomatic behaviour, manages its neighbours, committed genocide against its minorities, and practices hostage diplomacy will tolerate no discussion of the fact that it ignores international law, norms of diplomatic behaviour, manages its neighbours, committed genocide against its minorities, and practices hostage diplomacy.

That was a lose interpretation.

This. So many Canadians don’t understand Section 6. Freedom of movement means that you can cross interprovincial boundaries freely, live anywhere you want to live in Canada, and leave and return to Canada any time. It doesn’t mean you can drive without license, registration, and insurance and it doesn’t mean that the government can’t require you to quarantine when you return.

The Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be a required, full semester course in highschool and a passing mark of 80% should be required to graduate.

Just to be clear, these are not Trudeau’s laws. Canadian anti-hate speech laws have been on the books for decades.

That’s exactly it. It’s always hate speech that those who are braying about free speech are trying to protect.

The funny thing is that Americans think that guns and hate speech make them the freest country in the world.

Danielle Smith is working her way through those who have been charged for violating Covid restrictions.

The National Post newsroom has the slightest hint of residual journalistic integrity. Their Opinion Pieces are straight up right wing propaganda.

“Free speech” is a right wing dog whistle for hate speech.

They are supposed to oppose things that aren’t in the best interest of Canadians, to stop government abuse they absolutely can support things that are in the best interest of Canadians.

What are the rules for the handgun and pipe bomb?

Not an expert but I did a quick Google search, read the actual rules, and called out your misinformation. Stop moaning and move on.

Which is why the government is banning then.

I’m not an expert but I can Google and I can read and it’s important to be accurate when you’re taking about firearms. Stop moaning and move on.

You said, “wilderness types” which suggests that anyone who is in the wilderness can get an ATC. That is absolutely untrue. Your being in the wilderness must be a requirement of your job for you to even apply for an ATC.

And yet mass murders and military and murder fetishists prefer military style weapons. Why is that? Why do those types choose guns based on how they look instead of how they work?

82% of Canadians supported the changes to the firearms regulations. 66% currently want stronger gun control. I’m not, “gatekeeping” anything. I’m discussing the reasons for what’s going on. Labeling anyone who says anything you don’t like a, “gatekeeper” or a Fudd diminishes the value of anything you have to say.

Why don’t you instead try to explain why you need the prohibited version of a firearm instead of the functionally identical non-restricted version?

Or try to explain why you don’t want to use the exact same prohibited firearm if it’s coated hot pink?

The gun lobby makes such a big deal about banning firearms based on their looks. Explain why looks are your criteria for selecting a firearm.

It’s highly unlikely that most people will ever encounter any scenario like that. That’s true. But that doesn’t make it a bad idea to be prepared.

It is an EXTREMELY bad idea. The chances that you’re going to kill someone you love goes up dramatically when you have a gun in your home. You’re not making yourself and your family safer you’re making it FAR more likely that they will be a victim of gun violence.

Do you grind up your hotdogs so that you won’t choke on them? Do you wear a life jacket in the bathtub? Have you stripped your bed of bedsheets? Do you wear a bee suit when you go outside? It’s highly unlikely that any of those things are going to happen to you, too.

This is a riduclous argument. Literally worthy of ridicule.

If you think you need a gun for self-defense in Canada you shouldn’t have a gun. You’re more likely to choke to death on a hotdog, to drown in your own bathtub, to die from entanglement in your own bedsheets, from being stung by a bee, or by being trampled by a cow than you are to be killed with a gun by someone you don’t know if you’re not involved in the drug trade or organized crime. In fact, you’re FAR more likely to be killed by or to kill someone you love if you have a gun than you are to be killed by a stranger.

…assault…

Did I say the word, “assault”?

… do the same thing with a wooden stock…

And yet they don’t. That’s because responsible, non delusional gun owners don’t load a bunch of guns and thousands of rounds of ammo into a trailer and take it to a “peaceful” protest.

If you’re buying a gun for how it makes you feel then you shouldn’t be buying a gun. I’ve owned guns continuously for 40 years. My 15 year old son just completed his CFSC with an overall score of 98 out of 100. We are gun people. I’m not anti gun by any stretch of the imagination. I’m very much anti the wrong people owning guns and people who stockpile military style weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition are the wrong people.

Gun ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be modified at any time. Automatic firearms were made illegal. High capacity magazines were made illegal. The government responds to the will of the people and most Canadians support the banning of handguns and military style weapons.

The guns aren’t being banned for the way they look but because of the type of people who buy them for the way that they look and the fantasies that they have about using them like the assholes who took a trailer load of military style weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition to a “peaceful” protest because the UN and/or China were going to invade Canada.

If you want to have fantasies of rising up against the gubment or shooting Liberals just substitute an oak stocked hunting rifle into that fantasy.

Trappers and other wilderness types can apply for a license to carry them for self defence from predators while in the wild from what I recall, but you need to actually get the license not just decide to tote it around, which is very much how it should be.

Not just any wilderness type.

You must also:

• be a licensed professional trapper or
• need protection from wild animals while working at your lawful occupation, most often in a remote wilderness location