[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The simple fact is, the NDP MP who got elbowed, got elbowed while Trudeau was trying to get all physical with the Conservative Whip.

Wrong. He wasn't "getting physical" with the whip, he was trying to help him get through the NDP blockade! You'd call helping an old lady across the street "trying to get all physical"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh yeah bud. I guess it was just too far for the Whip to walk around the table there so Trudeau, being the ultimate gentleman that he is, gently guided him through the crowd. But let's go with your little old lady scenario. If you're going to help an old lady across the street, do you ask her first if she needs help or do you just stride up to her and start dragging her across the street? See the difference?

Grabbing someone and yanking on them isn't helping them, it's called rushing them along because you're an impatient little fuck. It's also called assault. If you're having trouble with that concept, I suggest you look up Section 265 of the Criminal Code, paragraph (1) subparagraph (a).

I would also hazard a guess that the standard mantra of Conservatives being a bunch of cold hearted bastards can't possibly be true if the Whip was too meek and mild to make his way through the tiny crowd of Dippers without "help" from our illustrious PM.

[Thanos]

They won't admit it but Trump's campaign manager basically got demoted to the lower ranks and lost most of his powers as head bully & chief ratfucker for yanking on someone's arm. Be funny if this triggered some kind of resistance inside the Libs to JT being so pushy and control-freaky. Not that you'll hear any of it from the Canadian media but odds are good that with what kind of personality he's displayed so far that JT's PMO is as much of a top-down do-what-you're-told dictatorship for the Liberal MP's as Demon Harper's one was. Sunny ways, sunny days, for the bosses in the party machine anyway. Probably not so much for the rest of the schlubs.

[shockedcanadian]

peck420 peck420:

Filibustering is the epitome of political self entitlement...and should have had limits placed on it a long ass time ago.

Nothing like holding up government business, on tax payer dime no less, for no other reason than to hear your own voice.

I disagree. It has its place, especially when fighting draconian legislation.

We are supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship. The country doesn't shut down because someone draws attention to a particular bill.

[shockedcanadian]

Considering the damage the RCMP has done to Canadas image, this event pales in comparison.

Trudeau needs to gently direct Bob Paulson. If Bob cant change the culture and ensure the RCMP do their job properly, it's time for him to be gently dismissed of his duties.

[peck420]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

I disagree. It has its place, especially when fighting draconian legislation.

We are supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship. The country doesn't shut down because someone draws attention to a particular bill.

And here I was thinking that democracy was when the government that was democratically elected to a majority government could actually do the things they said they were going to do....

[andyt]

Democracy isn't when the majority govt acts like a dictatorship. Both sides of the house use procedural tricks to try to get their way. Otherwise, why have an opposition - just let the majority govt rubber stamp it's agenda on day one of Parliament. Done, time for a 4 year vacation.

It's probably good if these delaying tactics prevent C-14 from being passed, since it's been found to be unconstitutional (at the provincial level) before it's even been passed. Time to try again.

[Delwin]

It did seem like the NDP and Cons were working in cahoots to avoid the vote by crowding the isle and then pretending to no be able to get through. Like, oh im th conservative whip but im just too passive to make it through this crowd to do my job. That being said, if the house is in disorder, it is the role of the speaker to restore order. What Trudeau did was out of line but not nearly as serious as people are making it out to be.

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh yeah bud. I guess it was just too far for the Whip to walk around the table there so Trudeau, being the ultimate gentleman that he is, gently guided him through the crowd. But let's go with your little old lady scenario. If you're going to help an old lady across the street, do you ask her first if she needs help or do you just stride up to her and start dragging her across the street? See the difference?

Who said anything about dragging? Putting an arm around one's shoulder or taking their arm used be just that, gentlemanly.

PA9 PA9:

Grabbing someone and yanking on them isn't helping them, it's called rushing them along because you're an impatient little fuck.

"Grabbing and yanking"? I guess you didn't watch the video.

PA9 PA9:

It's also called assault. If you're having trouble with that concept, I suggest you look up Section 265 of the Criminal Code, paragraph (1) subparagraph (a).

WRONG! There is no assault unless there is criminal intent. But since you're giving a law lesson, you already knew that.

PA9 PA9:

I would also hazard a guess that the standard mantra of Conservatives being a bunch of cold hearted bastards can't possibly be true if the Whip was too meek and mild to make his way through the tiny crowd of Dippers without "help" from our illustrious PM.

They're all a bunch of pussies. If this "incident" exemplifies one thing only, it's that.

[peck420]

andyt andyt:

Democracy isn't when the majority govt acts like a dictatorship. Both sides of the house use procedural tricks to try to get their way. Otherwise, why have an opposition - just let the majority govt rubber stamp it's agenda on day one of Parliament. Done, time for a 4 year vacation.

It's probably good if these delaying tactics prevent C-14 from being passed, since it's been found to be unconstitutional (at the provincial level) before it's even been passed. Time to try again.

Removing filibustering doesn't mean removing debate.

Ever person in the House has the opportunity to debate at each reading, and every bill must be read in the House 3 times.

If you can't sway votes during that period, you aren't going to sway them. Anything past that is just being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist.

As for draconian laws being passed...you guys do realize that the House can't just pass bills into law. It still has to pass another 3 readings in the Senate and receive Royal Assent. And, on top of all of that, survive any legal challenges against the Charter.

We have ample checks and balances in place, there is no need to waste more for political brownie points.

[maldonsfecht]

still laughing

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

WRONG! There is no assault unless there is criminal intent. But since you're giving a law lesson, you already knew that.

No, you're WRONG!

$1:

The basic definition of an assault is if a person intentionally uses force on another person without their consent.

Former Ontario Crown Prosecutor - Daniel Lerner

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin- ... -1.3590357

[shockedcanadian]

Aaah Strange Brew, seen this movie 100 times, maybe more. Best scene was when they went into the beer store and tried to get a free case of beer when they "found" a mouse in their case.

Or maybe the possessed hockey match...so many in that movie. I had never heard a Canadian call another Canadian a hoser before this movie.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

That is not what we expect of our leaders.

We expect our leaders and government to allow debate in the House and not create new rules to create new powers to prevent that debate. We should also expect our leaders to act accordingly in the HOC. Something JT has had numerous issues with during his time as MP and now PM.

In the last 6 months, Trudeau and his team have shut down debate on 4 separate bills. It doesn't matter which party does it, it's not right.

The action taken by the opposition came after debate was shut down on 4 bills and House Leader Dominic LeBlanc gave notice that he would bring in a motion that would give the Liberals new and largely unchecked power to control the business of the Commons.

This was an issue of things not going JT's way and he wanted it done now, and his way.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

WRONG! There is no assault unless there is criminal intent. But since you're giving a law lesson, you already knew that.

No, you're WRONG!

$1:

The basic definition of an assault is if a person intentionally uses force on another person without their consent.

You're out of your league now, dummy. In Canadian law, you're not guilty unless you have committed the actus reus of the crime (as described by the code) and have committed the act with mens rea (criminal intent). This is true of EVERY crime in the criminal code. No mens rea, no crime.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're out of your league now, dummy. In Canadian law, you're not guilty unless you have committed the actus reus of the crime (as described by the code) and have committed the act with mens rea (criminal intent). This is true of EVERY crime in the criminal code. No mens rea, no crime.

Now you're twisting and trying to deflect.

You said an assault is only an assault if there is criminal intent.

A lawyer says you're wrong.

And I know what you'll do, because you never admit to being wrong even when it's painfully obvious, but perhaps you should contact the lawyer in question and tell him that he's a dummy.

I'm sure he'll respect your opinion.