Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11530 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #210 on: February 20, 2020, 04:14:21 pm »
of course Ezrant goes beyond Peter MacKay's support for vigilantism... bigly beyond, indeed!



Well at least now he has reduced his fees to reflect what he is worth.
Funny Funny x 2 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #211 on: February 20, 2020, 04:44:03 pm »
Good luck finding a lawyer for that.

Ezra Levant can find them one apparently.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #212 on: February 20, 2020, 05:45:05 pm »
of course Ezrant goes beyond Peter MacKay's support for vigilantism... bigly beyond, indeed!


Cleaning up trash is not vigilantism. Leave your crap lying around in the road, expect someone to move it or likely steal it.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #213 on: February 20, 2020, 06:59:08 pm »
Cleaning up trash is not vigilantism. Leave your crap lying around in the road, expect someone to move it or likely steal it.

oh please - try a googly on the videos showing the {verbal} confrontations between both sides. Having some good ole' redneck Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers go above and beyond the verbal to dismantle & take away the blockade (while the protestors were still there) is clearly a vigilante extension; one that certainly could have provoked violence!
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #214 on: February 20, 2020, 07:16:43 pm »
oh please - try a googly on the videos showing the {verbal} confrontations between both sides. Having some good ole' redneck Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers go above and beyond the verbal to dismantle & take away the blockade (while the protestors were still there) is clearly a vigilante extension; one that certainly could have provoked violence!
Oh bummer, what protesters are doing isn't vigilantism? The protesters aren''t provoking violence with their actions? If you were out of a job and couldn't pay your bills or feed your family because of these clowns your definition of provocation would likely be somewhat different.   If this goes on much longer it won't just be yellow vesters and truckers.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #215 on: February 20, 2020, 07:39:45 pm »
Oh bummer, what protesters are doing isn't vigilantism? The protesters aren''t provoking violence with their actions? If you were out of a job and couldn't pay your bills or feed your family because of these clowns your definition of provocation would likely be somewhat different.   If this goes on much longer it won't just be yellow vesters and truckers.

of course protestors are acting illegally with their blockades - of course, as you say, they're provocative... but their actions certainly don't fit the measure of vigilante - of defined vigilantism!

Quote
vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

so, yes... by the above definition, Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers were vigilantes... engaged in vigilantism.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #216 on: February 20, 2020, 08:41:52 pm »
They are meeting one protest with another. Tough, or do you think counter protests should never be allowed? Or just ones you don't agree with or might make Liberals look bad?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 08:44:02 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #217 on: February 20, 2020, 09:58:28 pm »
They are meeting one protest with another. Tough, or do you think counter protests should never be allowed? Or just ones you don't agree with or might make Liberals look bad?

the redneckers stepped beyond their {right to} counter-protest into vigilantism. Here, let me repeat that definition for you:

Quote
vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

perhaps you could elaborate on your, "making Liberals look bad", comment. Is that why MacKay deleted his tweet?  ;D
MacKay faces backlash over now-deleted tweet that critics say promoted vigilantism

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #218 on: February 20, 2020, 11:44:59 pm »
the redneckers stepped beyond their {right to} counter-protest into vigilantism. Here, let me repeat that definition for you:

perhaps you could elaborate on your, "making Liberals look bad", comment. Is that why MacKay deleted his tweet?  ;D

So counter protesting is vigilantism. Putting  up barricades and preventing people from having freedom of movement and earn their livings is not
Quote
members of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate
? Putting barricades up is legitimate protest, taking them down is not. Was there any violence? Was there any force used against persons?

Give me an effing break.

You're just twisted because it was some Albertans who finally stood up to these clowns.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 11:56:45 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #219 on: February 21, 2020, 12:12:20 am »
of course protestors are acting illegally with their blockades - of course, as you say, they're provocative... but their actions certainly don't fit the measure of vigilante - of defined vigilantism!

so, yes... by the above definition, Yellow Vestors/Rolling Truckers were vigilantes... engaged in vigilantism.

One group of protestors put up a barricade.  Another group of protestors took down the barricade.  Ok.  How is one bad and the other not.  They're doing the same darn thing except one is acting illegally.

"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #220 on: February 21, 2020, 12:16:50 am »
Give me an effing break. You're just twisted because it was some Albertans who finally stood up to these clowns.

member wilber... being member wilber - now joined by MAGAmanGraham!  ;D Step beyond your right-wing reflexive - try reading what I actually wrote. I said there was a right to counter-protest. Once your heroes stepped beyond the 'from a distance' shouting/hurling insults (by both sides), once they encroached into the immediate space of the protestors to dismantle the blockade, their actions became those of vigilantes.

Quote
vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

your emphasis on the absence of violence/force is meaningless - it's the action of vigilantes that increases the likelihood for violence.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #221 on: February 21, 2020, 12:26:20 am »
member wilber... being member wilber - now joined by MAGAmanGraham!  ;D Step beyond your right-wing reflexive - try reading what I actually wrote. I said there was a right to counter-protest. Once your heroes stepped beyond the 'from a distance' shouting/hurling insults (by both sides), once they encroached into the immediate space of the protestors to dismantle the blockade, their actions became those of vigilantes.

your emphasis on the absence of violence/force is meaningless - it's the action of vigilantes that increases the likelihood for violence.

They aren't acting like law enforcement, they aren't making arrests or detaining people or punishing anyone.  They're hauling debris off of rail tracks.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #222 on: February 21, 2020, 12:32:15 am »
Trudeau maintained that the best way to resolve the impasse is through further dialogue, not the use of force.

Trudeau told premiers he's ready to dispatch senior cabinet ministers to meet with Indigenous protesters to negotiate an end to the blockades — a plan Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said amounts to appeasement of "radical activists."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-rail-blockade-unacceptable-1.5469613

Dialogue?  Why are you negotiating with people who are breaking the law?  Why empower and embolden them?  What a weak fool.  Coercion by protestorss should be met with coercion by police.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Old Old x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #223 on: February 21, 2020, 12:34:36 am »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #224 on: February 21, 2020, 12:39:57 am »
Trudeau ---  What a weak fool.

the same way weakAndy hasn't been able to string together anything he would do as PM..... actually do... steps he would take - practical steps/actions, let the waldo ask you to state your want for PM Trudeau to be your, uhhh... "strong champion". What would you have PM Trudeau do; specifically do - practical steps/actions?