Most of it. Look at who’s backing it in the US, both with funding and on Fox “News”. The Canadian equivalents are their ideological cousins. Some truckers may hold the same views, but there are a lot of useful idiots too.
5 Likes
Yeah, I’ve gathered as much. Along with “Ha, lookit these idiots!” BB posts, this would be a great topic for another one.
5 Likes
I’m sure there will be an inquiry in Canada, one that won’t be stalled and torpedoed by their Conservatives as easily as the GOP has done with the January 6th commission. When the report comes out, confirming your supposition that this works like most other fascist movements in history, I’m sure BB will cover it.
9 Likes
I invoke the fisrt amendment.
10 Likes
The husband sounds like a real prize. His wife is crying poor about bail and being able to get back home under its conditions and then Einstein starts chiming in…
In his testimony, he said he flew to Ottawa on Feb. 2 on a private jet at a cost of $5,000, paid for by a “nice gentleman” named Joseph that he’d only recently met.
He follows up by saying he was personally opposed to the exhortations that got his bigot wife charged in the first place and then … well, can you really say someone like this “plays dumb”?
While he said he didn’t believe in the blockades or holding the line, Dwayne Lich also said he didn’t see anything wrong, equating the blockades to a large traffic jam or parked cars in a snow storm.
“I don’t see no guns. I don’t see anything criminal as far as I can see. I just see trucks parked,” he said.
And then, as you note, he decides he’s a Canadian legal scholar.
“Honestly? I thought it was a peaceful protest and based on my first amendment, I thought that was part of our rights,” he told the court.
“What do you mean, first amendment? What’s that?” Judge Julie Bourgeois asked him.
“I don’t know. I don’t know politics. I don’t know,” he said. “I wasn’t supportive of the blockade or the whatever, but I didn’t realize that it was criminal to do what they were doing. I thought it was part of our freedoms to be able to do stuff like that.”
I can see why he showed up to “help”. This Dwayne Lich probably can’t dress or feed himself without the help of his fascist wife.
16 Likes
That should be a part of any trial when someone goes on about their rights, including especially in the US.
“Yes, yes, I understand that your defence is your ‘First Amendment Rights’. Could you please tell the court what those right actually are? You don’t have to be exact. You know, ballpark will do.”
I mean, sure, they still get their rights whether or not they know what those magic words mean (because that’s what a right is), but it would be illuminating to learn what they think the magic spell they keep reciting means, beside the generic (and essentially meaningless) “mah freedoms!”
13 Likes
Especially outside the US. They couldn’t even name their rights properly, they were thinking about the first amendment, but they should have invoked the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They should stop watching American TV shows and spend more time reading Canadian law (I’m sure she has plenty of time now).
https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt\olr\htm/98-R-0143.htm
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
The charter guarantees rights equally to males and females. It must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians and not construed to abrogate or derogate from any (1) aboriginal, treaty, or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal people of Canada or (2) rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Canadian Constitution with respect to denominational, separate, or dissentient schools.
Fundamental Freedoms
The charter guarantees everyone the freedom of conscience and religion; thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication; peaceful assembly; and association.
11 Likes
I think he’s asking for a court-assigned Manitoba.
8 Likes
Oh, it’s not just in Canada.
Apparently the new hotness in the “Rejection of Medical Science” circles is a rumour that the vaccine and vaccine mandates was ruled to be illegal (possibly even unconstitutional) by the “International Common Law Court of Justice, Vienna”. Which is, despite their best efforts to make it seem so, very much not a thing that exists.
13 Likes
I’m starting to dislike New Mexico republicans about as much as Illinois nazis.
3 Likes
maybe, if their lawyers know what case law to cite
it’s hardly guaranteed
3 Likes
9 Likes
Common law in Vienna? Someone needs to learn about the history of civil law in continental Europe.
9 Likes
Yeah, whoever’s passing this shit around, I think they’re relying on people not being experts in the history of international jurisprudence.
11 Likes
It’s funny how they’re all for some kind of globalist international government when they think it’s pushing the same ideology as they are. Also, look at that signature above “Magistrate of the Court.” There is no way that’s a first name and last name. A warrant is only valid if it bears a full-name signature. Everyone knows that.
10 Likes
13 Likes
“International Common Law Court of Justice”, eh? It sure seems like one of those things like the “United States Chamber of Commerce” or “Better Business Bureau” that seem all legit and official but really isn’t.
I looked into this so-called “Court of Justice” and sure enough it’s about as “official” as you’d expect. Basically take one of those “soverieign citizen” dickheads and give them a fancy looking letterhead and this is what you get.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Tribunal_into_Crimes_of_Church_and_State
10 Likes
Weird that in their fake document they accuse the pharma companies of doing all the things they want to do to the groups they want to do them to. It’s always projection with these assclowns!
7 Likes
They could start by learning what common law is not.
To a certain strain of irrational thinker, however, especially American and often espousing extreme right-anarchist, racist, or fascist viewpoints, “common law” represents a semi-mythical body of legal theory that represents a type of idealized state free of judicial activism; in practice, the end result is generally believed to be some kind of quasi-anarchic state with very few fetters (e.g. taxes or regulations) on the individual. Manifestations of such thinking include the militia movement and often-connected extrajudicial courts, unrecognized by any governmental authority, which invoke this concept of common law to file charges and bring legal decisions against governmental authority.
3 Likes
Thanks! I know shit is serious, and I’m not making light of the dangers, but, wow, boy, that was the laugh I needed this morning.
“First amendment, what do you mean?”
“I don’t know, I don’t know politics.”
Clearly not! Nor law. Nor international boundaries.
4 Likes
