Will Politicians Learn to Stop Dividing? I Doubt it...

[Remius]

If you think that interaction was ok then you are part of the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum have condemned it.

Furniture is hardly a Freeland fan and he can see that.

 

[The Bread Guy]

An excellent opportunity to sow further division. And cosplay outrage while demanding better.

And his behaviour encouraged inclusiveness and understanding where the other side is coming from how, exactly?

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But names will never hurt me.

Someone should tell PP that, given he says he's hired security to deal with (social media) words aimed at his spouse.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1563990649200050176

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Besides being a boor, the guy did nothing illegal, well maybe profanity in public if that's still a thing. He didn't charge at her. He yelled at her. Politicians are always asking us to tell them what we think. Timing and conditions favoured him and he told her what he thought. Who among us wouldn't approach a politician in those circumstances with their ideas, displeasure or praise? Or why not?

Canadians are frustrated, feel taken advantage of, lied to, robbed and treated like a conman's mark. They feel betrayed and marginalized. Their government treats them like this guy does freeland. Except trudeau and his ministers used a bunch of made up words and hateful adjectives to describe us. I'd rather him call me a fucking bitch a la freeland, than a racist, misogynous nazi, that has no place here, and "What should we do with these people" (paraphrased that one) Freeland was treated like they treat Canadians.

There was no threat. There was no violence. He didn't charge at her. Intimidating? Sure. The same way he intimidates people in the grocery line.

A+ for truth.
A for opportunity.
A for timing.
F for delivery.
F for script.

And if there was a way to prove it, I'd bet the odds that freeland has used all of those words with as much vindictivness, more than once.

Maybe Causing a Public Disturbance. Summary trial in provincial Court.

 

[KevinB]

I’d argue disparity of force, large male rapidly approaches her yelling.
That is a threat and designed to intimidate.

You don’t need to physically assault someone to be guilty of assault.




See subsection B.

Behaving like an assclown while one may believe they are correct doesn’t make it right or legal.

 

[QV]

Think that guy was angry and out of line? Just wait until people get hungry. Slashing fertilizer use didn’t work out for Sri Lanka… so leave it to the LPC to give it a go here. With the talk of food shortages and that’s where they are going…

Between the US and Canada, Europe could be rescued from Putins energy hostage taking… but they‘ve fumbled that so badly we will likely see serious problems this winter when Putin turns the screws. What a disaster. Some politicians deserve to be yelled at. You really have to wonder what gives.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Then the solution has at least two parts: condemn what is seen now to apply a bit of peer pressure, and stop alienating people. The second part is for the arrogant clueless self-righteous 25-percenters.

 

[childs56]

I’d argue disparity of force, large male rapidly approaches her yelling.
That is a threat and designed to intimidate.

You don’t need to physically assault someone to be guilty of assault.

I just re read the definition, what part Assault did he do under the Criminal code?
You are correct with the definition, But is practice I doubt very much any Judge would charge this man with assault. He maybe intimidating due to his size and the fact he raised his voice. But he in no way broke her safety space. From the video she showed no fear while he was giving her the gears, in fact she was smiling. I would like to be in on the court case if this does see the Judge. It would be precedence setting and would make any discussion with raised voices a act of violence.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yet he threw some verbal profanities with name calling, at no time did he breach her space. He stopped at the elevator. Had he of entered the elevator things would have been different, but he did not. Honestly his feelings are she turned her back on her own back yard where she grew up. The liberals are getting their feelings hurt over people calling them names and using profanities is laughable. As their entire head of party has used extremely derogatory words to describe law abiding citizens, even calling them criminals.

I do not agree with the guys approach, but I don't feel she was in danger other then getting feelings hurt, the video shows her smiling/ laughing on the elevator.

He was big, loud, profane, unpredictable, and aggressively moving forward towards a group of defenceless women under 5ft 6in high.

A real hometown hero.

He definitely qualified for a good 'knee chop' with an issued piece of hickory under the 'I was afraid for my safety, and the safety of others, so I applied the rule of minimum force m'lud' principle.

 

[KevinB]

I just re read the definition, what part Assault did he do under the Criminal code?
You are correct with the definition, But is practice I doubt very much any Judge would charge this man with assault. He maybe intimidating due to his size and the fact he raised his voice. But he in no way broke her safety space. From the video she showed no fear while he was giving her the gears, in fact she was smiling. I would like to be in on the court case if this does see the Judge. It would be precedence setting and would make any discussion with raised voices a act of violence.

I have zero idea why you crossed out the rest of your response other than you realized you where incorrect.

You cannot use size, screaming or motions to attempt to intimidate others.
Period.

Do I think he had some valid comments - maybe, but his presentation ruined any argument he was trying to make as is yet a further example to PMJT’s campaign of idiocy that all who disagree with him are nuts.
They will just trot out this example and I suspect it will play well for him in eastern urban centers.

 

[childs56]

I have zero idea why you crossed out the rest of your response other than you realized you where incorrect.

You cannot use size, screaming or motions to attempt to intimidate others.
Period.

Do I think he had some valid comments - maybe, but his presentation ruined any argument he was trying to make as is yet a further example to PMJT’s campaign of idiocy that all who disagree with him are nuts.
They will just trot out this example and I suspect it will play well for him in eastern urban centers.

I read the CC wrong that you posted i thoughy 265 1(c) might of applied but he did not have any visiable weapons so accosting would not apply.
I didnt want to erase what i wrote thats why i crossed it out.

I am curious what section would apply to him assaulting her?

 

[childs56]

He was big, loud, profane, unpredictable, and aggressively moving forward towards a group of defenceless women under 5ft 6in high.

How were they defenseless? That is an asumption made to garner and emotional response.

 

[KevinB]

I read the CC wrong that you posted i thoughy 265 1(c) might of applied but he did not have any visiable weapons so accosting would not apply.
I didnt want to erase what i wrote thats why i crossed it out.

I am curious what section would apply to him assaulting her?

Subsection B. You need a weapon for C not B or A

How were they defenseless? That is an asumption made to garner and emotional response.

Disparity of force.
Large male, smaller female.

 

[childs56]

Subsection B. You need a weapon for C not B or A


Disparity of force.
Large male, smaller female.

That would be a stretch to charge him under 265 (1)(b). Would be interesting.
Again this goverment did order the seizurea of a couple thousand bank accounts. They lied about it.
They also stated truck protesters were armed with shotguns. Yet none were found. I guess the the truckers did weaponize their trucks. I guess anything is possible in the relm of the current goverment thought process.

As she was smiling I doubt any Judge would say she felt threatened during the interaction.

I am curious actually if they were or are friends from. Back in the day.

 

[childs56]

Subsection B. You need a weapon for C not B or A


Disparity of force.
Large male, smaller female.

Large male multiple other people still a stretch

 

[Halifax Tar]

And his behavior encouraged inclusiveness and understanding where the other side is coming from how, exactly?

You're right, a mustard stained, wife beater wearing, hick who spends too much time on FB and twitter should be held to the same account as a Federal part and politicians.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I’d argue disparity of force, large male rapidly approaches her yelling.
That is a threat and designed to intimidate.

You don’t need to physically assault someone to be guilty of assault.

View attachment 72862
View attachment 72863

See subsection B.

Behaving like an assclown while one may believe they are correct doesn’t make it right or legal.

I guess words really are violence

 

[KevinB]

That would be a stretch to charge him under 265 (1)(b). Would be interesting.
Again this goverment did order the seizurea of a couple thousand bank accounts. They lied about it.
They also stated truck protesters were armed with shotguns. Yet none were found. I guess the the truckers did weaponize their trucks. I guess anything is possible in the relm of the current goverment thought process.

I'm not defending the JT Government - I'm pointing out that what that one individual did was wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right...

As she was smiling I doubt any Judge would say she felt threatened during the interaction.

Some people smile nervously, you can't rely on a smile.

I am curious actually if they were or are friends from. Back in the day.

Sure...

I guess words really are violence

Assault is generally threatening words or gestures, the battery, aggravated assault etc are the physical side of it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Assault is generally threatening words or gestures, the battery, aggravated assault etc are the physical side of it.

I was trying to make a funny...

 

[Good2Golf]

It is also a federal criminal offense to Issue a Threat (ccc s.624).

 

[childs56]

This is a good discussion I think. I look forward to the charges agaisnt this man.
It will set another precedent by the governmentmnt in regards to current law and its application. To which protests, strikes and large or small public gatherings will be treated in the future. Especially the ones with disagreeing colorful language with large menacing men.
Heck even the meetings with upper management where they get a bit heated. Darn I cant wait until the client threatens me with their menacing stances to have them charged.