Forums
Epidemics, Pandemics, Outbreak
Quick find code: 23-24-581-66177526
Joel
said
:
Ok, so people got in trouble for *violating* Covid-19 orders by having a house party when they shouldn't be having house parties? Because that's what the headline said, right?
Now, you understand that this "house party" was actually a family of 6, 5 adults and a child, along with another individual who lives alone, which, under the orders, is permitted to join another household, or have another household join them in their house.
There was no violation.
There was no right for police to enter private property to look through the windows so that they could count how many people were inside in order to extort money from them.
This is the behavior that you're defending.
You're defending this behavior because "the orders right now are what they are".
I'm not going to defend unconstitutional behavior simply because "well, that's the rules".
I keep asking what your breaking point would be... you know, the point at which you would finally stand up and say "forget the rules, this isn't right"?
Obviously the rules don't apply to everyone... those that are telling you the rules... the rules don't apply to them.
Joel said :
nobody is getting snatched from their homes I disagree, and I can keep posting examples of people getting snatched from their homes by the police.
And it's not like it's a secret that they do this:
RCMP Can Now Make Home Visits, Arrests To Ensure Citizens Self-Isolate
Ok, so people got in trouble for *violating* Covid-19 orders by having a house party when they shouldn't be having house parties? Because that's what the headline said, right?
Now, you understand that this "house party" was actually a family of 6, 5 adults and a child, along with another individual who lives alone, which, under the orders, is permitted to join another household, or have another household join them in their house.
There was no violation.
There was no right for police to enter private property to look through the windows so that they could count how many people were inside in order to extort money from them.
This is the behavior that you're defending.
You're defending this behavior because "the orders right now are what they are".
I'm not going to defend unconstitutional behavior simply because "well, that's the rules".
I keep asking what your breaking point would be... you know, the point at which you would finally stand up and say "forget the rules, this isn't right"?
Obviously the rules don't apply to everyone... those that are telling you the rules... the rules don't apply to them.
https://www.cp24.com/news/i-told-karla-we-can-have-no-more-than-10-ford-sows-further-confusion-with-thanksgiving-guidance-1.5134849
Joel said :
nobody is getting snatched from their homes I disagree, and I can keep posting examples of people getting snatched from their homes by the police.
And it's not like it's a secret that they do this:
RCMP Can Now Make Home Visits, Arrests To Ensure Citizens Self-Isolate
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/rcmp-quarantine-act-powers_ca_5e90ca86c5b672672149d714
I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
23-Feb-2021 18:40:23
Joel
said
:
if you break the law, you'll receive some form of penalty. How is that different from any other time? Because they cannot create laws or orders that violate your constitutional rights without invoking the Notwithstanding clause. That's the law. That's literally written into the constitution to prevent your rights from arbitrarily being violated or removed by other laws or orders. That's the rule. That's the rule above all the other rules. That's the one rule that is above the constitution.
A seatbelt law does not violate your constitutional rights. Being arrested or incarcerated without criminal justification is a violation of your constitutional rights. I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
if you break the law, you'll receive some form of penalty. How is that different from any other time? Because they cannot create laws or orders that violate your constitutional rights without invoking the Notwithstanding clause. That's the law. That's literally written into the constitution to prevent your rights from arbitrarily being violated or removed by other laws or orders. That's the rule. That's the rule above all the other rules. That's the one rule that is above the constitution.
A seatbelt law does not violate your constitutional rights. Being arrested or incarcerated without criminal justification is a violation of your constitutional rights. I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
23-Feb-2021 18:44:47 - Last edited on 23-Feb-2021 18:45:26 by NexOrigin
Joel
said
:
And this is exactly why it's never good to start speculating on specific situations when all you have is a video that only shows a small portion of what happened, conflicting comments from both sides and since neither you or I were there, hardly appropriate to comment on it with any certainty is it? Of course it's appropriate to comment on it. Do you think only certain people are allowed to have opinions?
Joel said :
So you said it was a family of 6 and an extra person? Ok, it doesn't state that in the article and neither does it make clear how many of those actually reside at that address. All the article does state is that "There were six adults and one child in the house at the time, but Quebec's current Covid-19 restrictions prohibit such gatherings" . It's unconstitutional to restrict a citizen's right to assembly. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. lol.
I probably grabbed the details from the wrong article, but the point is the same. You're defending unconstitutional behavior simply because someone told you they were allowed to do that.
Joel said :
If all 6 resided there and had proof of that, why would this have become such an issue? Because "Papers, please" has never ended well. What makes you think anyone in a free country has to put up with people invading their house to extort money from them? Why should anyone, not having committed any crimes, have to prove that they haven't committed any crimes? Reverse onus is unconstitutional.
Joel said :
Again, speculating on the circumstances.
It's fine for you to speculate though, right? I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
And this is exactly why it's never good to start speculating on specific situations when all you have is a video that only shows a small portion of what happened, conflicting comments from both sides and since neither you or I were there, hardly appropriate to comment on it with any certainty is it? Of course it's appropriate to comment on it. Do you think only certain people are allowed to have opinions?
Joel said :
So you said it was a family of 6 and an extra person? Ok, it doesn't state that in the article and neither does it make clear how many of those actually reside at that address. All the article does state is that "There were six adults and one child in the house at the time, but Quebec's current Covid-19 restrictions prohibit such gatherings" . It's unconstitutional to restrict a citizen's right to assembly. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. lol.
I probably grabbed the details from the wrong article, but the point is the same. You're defending unconstitutional behavior simply because someone told you they were allowed to do that.
Joel said :
If all 6 resided there and had proof of that, why would this have become such an issue? Because "Papers, please" has never ended well. What makes you think anyone in a free country has to put up with people invading their house to extort money from them? Why should anyone, not having committed any crimes, have to prove that they haven't committed any crimes? Reverse onus is unconstitutional.
Joel said :
Again, speculating on the circumstances.
It's fine for you to speculate though, right? I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
23-Feb-2021 19:50:25
Joel
said
:
Then there were accusations of the assault of a police officer and so on You're aware that even poking someone without their consent is assault, right? Not complying is "assault".
The laws surrounding "assault" are so vague that almost anyone can be charged with assault. You don't even have to touch another person to be charged with assault. If you make a gesture that someone believes is threatening, that is assault. If I did a karate chop gesture, and someone else found that was threatening, I could be charged with assault, even if they're 10 feet away.
Don't speculate that "charges of an assault on a police officer" means actual violence.
The ironic thing is that they can come and physically assault you, but if you resist the physical assault, you're the one who will be charged with assault.
Joel said :
especially when you're trying to use it to make a point that you think is solid. LOL. "don't you dare use your evidence to prove your point! How dare you? How dare!"
lol.
Joel said :
Nobody is randomly getting snatched from their homes, unless of course there seems to be something else happening that triggers a check or a call for something to be looked into (e.g a gathering, someone not isolating when they should be). Do you need help moving those goalposts? They look heavy, and I don't want you getting tired from moving them over and over.
Joel said :
And at this point, round and round we go... Then get off of the ride? No one is forcing you to engage in any conversation here. If you don't like the conversation, then find a different one. I'm certainly not forcing you to be in this conversation.
I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
Then there were accusations of the assault of a police officer and so on You're aware that even poking someone without their consent is assault, right? Not complying is "assault".
The laws surrounding "assault" are so vague that almost anyone can be charged with assault. You don't even have to touch another person to be charged with assault. If you make a gesture that someone believes is threatening, that is assault. If I did a karate chop gesture, and someone else found that was threatening, I could be charged with assault, even if they're 10 feet away.
Don't speculate that "charges of an assault on a police officer" means actual violence.
The ironic thing is that they can come and physically assault you, but if you resist the physical assault, you're the one who will be charged with assault.
Joel said :
especially when you're trying to use it to make a point that you think is solid. LOL. "don't you dare use your evidence to prove your point! How dare you? How dare!"
lol.
Joel said :
Nobody is randomly getting snatched from their homes, unless of course there seems to be something else happening that triggers a check or a call for something to be looked into (e.g a gathering, someone not isolating when they should be). Do you need help moving those goalposts? They look heavy, and I don't want you getting tired from moving them over and over.
Joel said :
And at this point, round and round we go... Then get off of the ride? No one is forcing you to engage in any conversation here. If you don't like the conversation, then find a different one. I'm certainly not forcing you to be in this conversation.
I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
23-Feb-2021 20:00:02
Joel
said
:
a tactic to drop high rates of ICU admissions, I'm no mathemagician here... but... 283 ICU admissions... 384 hospitals in Ontario... that's less than one ICU patient per hospital. Is the possibility of having an addition ICU patient considered "a high rate"?
You talk about me "fear mongering" but... you're here fear mongering about "high rates of ICU admissions" when in reality, the ICU admission rate is relatively minimal, and results in an average of less than 1 ICU patient per hospital.
a tactic to drop high rates of ICU admissions, I'm no mathemagician here... but... 283 ICU admissions... 384 hospitals in Ontario... that's less than one ICU patient per hospital. Is the possibility of having an addition ICU patient considered "a high rate"?
You talk about me "fear mongering" but... you're here fear mongering about "high rates of ICU admissions" when in reality, the ICU admission rate is relatively minimal, and results in an average of less than 1 ICU patient per hospital.
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations
https://www.statista.com/statistics/440923/total-number-of-hospital-establishments-in-canada-by-province/
I'm better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not great!
23-Feb-2021 20:27:24
Quick find code: 23-24-581-66177526 Back to Top