General Canadian Politics eh.

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
If you don't see the humour in the government saying "Buy it from our website and also don't buy it from our website." I really don't know what to tell you.
If you don’t see the humour in the mistaken assumption that people that previously weren’t concerned with breaking the law to smoke weed are suddenly so conflicted two months later, that they go without it, I really don’t know what to tell you.

I see it more as the government saying, “you can choose to use this product, but there may be negative consequences to your decision, here’s why...” Are you opposed to health warnings on cigarettes and alcohol or government advertising in casinos that discourages gambling?
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
If you don’t see the humour in the mistaken assumption that people that previously weren’t concerned with breaking the law to smoke weed are suddenly so conflicted two months later, that they go without it, I really don’t know what to tell you.
Who made that assumption?
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Show me an article where the Canadian government said that crossing the border wouldn’t be an issue.
The Canadian government does not think legal marijuana users, workers and investors will face widespread problems crossing into the United States despite a U.S. warning that they will continue to risk being barred, a Canadian spokesperson suggested on Friday.
Trudeau government suggests most Canadian marijuana users and employees won’t face problems at U.S. border | The Star
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
Did you bother to read the article? That headline is a tad misleading. Here’s a quote on the government’s position, you might not have seen it because it was buried at the bottom of the article.

“Asked what advice the government would give legal users, the Blair spokesperson said: “Although the possession of cannabis is legal in some U.S. states, cannabis remains illegal under U.S. federal law. Canadians who wish to enter the United States or any other country have to adhere to its laws. Previous use of cannabis, or any substance prohibited by U.S. federal laws, could mean that you are denied entry to the U.S. Involvement in the legal cannabis industry in Canada could also result in your being denied entry.”“
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Did you bother to read the article? That headline is a tad misleading. Here’s a quote on the government’s position, you might not have seen it because it was buried at the bottom of the article.
They actually didn't clarify if the spokesperson they're referring to in the opening paragraph is Blair or someone else.

That being said, even if it is just Blair, and the Star is completely misrepresenting their facts. Do you not see the difference between "you might have problems" and "stop buying it"?
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
You are the guy that I learned the term ‘Toronto red star’ in reference to he Toronto star lacking credibility and pushing a narrative, now you are referencing it as a source.




 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
They actually didn't clarify if the spokesperson they're referring to in the opening paragraph is Blair or someone else.

That being said, even if it is just Blair, and the Star is completely misrepresenting their facts. Do you not see the difference between "you might have problems" and "stop buying it"?
They made it very clear in the article that the person that they spoke to was Blair’s spokesperson. They referenced the person twice. First they simply stated that it was a spokesman...

“a Canadian spokesperson suggested on Friday”

Then they clarified that it was Blair’s spokesman. Bill Blair is the former Toronto chief of police and a member of parliament.

“Asked what advice the government would give legal users, the Blair spokesperson said:“
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
You are the guy that I learned the term ‘Toronto red star’ in reference to he Toronto star lacking credibility and pushing a narrative, now you are referencing it as a source.
You asked for an article and were provided with one. I realize you're completely incapable of ever acknowledging you might be wrong, but you should probably just let this go.
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
You asked for an article and were provided with one. I realize you're completely incapable of ever acknowledging you might be wrong, but you should probably just let this go.
The article that you posted says the exact opposite that you claimed. Unfortunately you only read the headline and the first line of commentary then proceeded to jump the gun.

If you would have read the entire article, you would have came upon the actual quote of the government’s position, which doesn’t fit your narrative.

“Asked what advice the government would give legal users, the Blair spokesperson said: “Although the possession of cannabis is legal in some U.S. states, cannabis remains illegal under U.S. federal law. Canadians who wish to enter the United States or any other country have to adhere to its laws. Previous use of cannabis, or any substance prohibited by U.S. federal laws, could mean that you are denied entry to the U.S. Involvement in the legal cannabis industry in Canada could also result in your being denied entry.”“
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
The article that you posted says the exact opposite that you claimed.
I gave you the first paragraph from the article, and as has been pointed out to you. There's a marked difference between "Well, you might have problems." and "Don't buy it."
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
I gave you the first paragraph from the article, and as has been pointed out to you. There's a marked difference between "Well, you might have problems." and "Don't buy it."
You gave me the first sentence of the article out of context, not a paragraph. The article goes on to elaborate the spokesperson’s position..

“But border officers do not ask most travellers about their drug use or their occupation. A spokesperson for Bill Blair, the Canadian minister of border security, suggested that the government does not expect large-scale U.S. hassling after legalization takes effect on Oct. 17.

“Despite one-in-eight Canadians using cannabis today, 400,000 people move between our two countries every day almost entirely without incident,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.”

I was wondering if you simply did not finish the article. The fact that you think a sentence is a paragraph is a pretty clear indicator.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
You gave me the first sentence of the article out of context, not a paragraph. The article goes on to elaborate the spokesperson’s position..

“But border officers do not ask most travellers about their drug use or their occupation. A spokesperson for Bill Blair, the Canadian minister of border security, suggested that the government does not expect large-scale U.S. hassling after legalization takes effect on Oct. 17.

“Despite one-in-eight Canadians using cannabis today, 400,000 people move between our two countries every day almost entirely without incident,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.”

I was wondering if you simply did not finish the article. The fact that you think a sentence is a paragraph is a pretty clear indicator.
Are you aware that in this post of yours it says the government doesn't expect it to be an issue?
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
Are you aware that in this post of yours it says the government doesn't expect it to be an issue?

That is commentary from the author and the initial line of an article meant to draw in a reader, not a statement from the spokesperson. Here is the actual quote from the spokesperson that followed...

“Despite one-in-eight Canadians using cannabis today, 400,000 people move between our two countries every day almost entirely without incident,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

Either the initial line drew you in, you read the article, and couldn’t even figure that out (or whether they were talking to Bill Blair or his spokesperson) or you read it and jumped the gun before reading the entire article and posted it. I don’t know which is worse.

You have also previously been critical of the Toronto Star but now you are making the pieces fit because it suits your narrative. You can’t have it both ways.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
That is commentary from the author and the initial line of an article meant to draw in a reader, not a statement from the spokesperson. Here is the actual quote from the spokesperson that followed...

“Despite one-in-eight Canadians using cannabis today, 400,000 people move between our two countries every day almost entirely without incident,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

Either the initial line drew you in, you read the article, and couldn’t even figure that out (or whether they were talking to Bill Blair or his spokesperson) or you read it and jumped the gun before reading the entire article and posted it. I don’t know which is worse.

You have also previously been critical of the Toronto Star but now you are making the pieces fit because it suits your narrative. You can’t have it both ways.
You really don't see the difference in tone between the statements in that article and the one Gusto posted where the government is telling people not to buy weed at all?
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
You really don't see the difference in tone between the statements in that article and the one Gusto posted where the government is telling people not to buy weed at all?
Do you not realize that the caution put out to Canadians was put out by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and not the Trudeau government?

Of course there’s a difference.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is a non-partisan ombudsman and officer of the Parliament of Canada that investigates complaints filed by Canadians who feel their privacyrights have been violated and reports to Parliament on whether there has been a violation of the Privacy Act. This deals with personal information held by the Government of Canada, or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which deals with personal information held in federally regulated private sector industries.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,547
56,268
Do you not realize that the caution put out to Canadians was put out by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and not the Trudeau government?
I do, I also realize that the federal government isn't who decided Ontarians had to buy their grass online.

Of course there’s a difference.
Yet you just spent two hours arguing over it. You're adorable.
 

DiSmAnTLeR

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
906
890
I do, I also realize that the federal government isn't who decided Ontarians had to buy their grass online.



Yet you just spent two hours arguing over it. You're adorable.

The difference is that the Privacy Commissioner is non-partisan, not beholden to the Liberal Party, and does not represent them, while Bill Blair’s spokesperson is. Apples and oranges.


 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Makes me wonder, does American border security put this much scrutiny on visitors from say Portugal or the Netherlands when they come to visit America?
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Justin Trudeau's Approval Rating At Lowest Point Since 2015, Poll Says
The wave of popularity Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rode to a majority government in 2015 seems to be at its lowest point yet, a new poll suggests.

Trudeau's approval rating among Canadians is now at its lowest level since he was elected, according to the Angus Reid Institute's latest survey.

The polling firm found that 35 per cent of respondents approve of the PM's performance. That's quite a drop from the 63 per cent rating he received in a similar poll conducted in his first month in office.

Thirty-nine per cent of respondents in the new survey said they "strongly disapprove" of the prime minister, while just eight per cent said they "strongly approve."



NDP really shit the bed with Singh.

 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
B.C. Appeal Court says RCMP ‘manufactured’ terrorism plot against B.C. legislature
An undercover RCMP investigation of a couple accused of plotting to bomb the B.C. Legislature was a “travesty of justice” and facilitated the crime, says a unanimous ruling by B.C.'s Appeal Court that upheld a judge’s decision to stay terrorism charges even though a jury found the pair guilty.

The Appeal Court decision in the case of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody of Surrey, B.C., also urges Parliament to overhaul anti-terrorism sections of the Criminal Code, saying they are “unnecessarily complex and cumbersome," and need to be comprehensible, for juries in particular.

In the ruling released on Wednesday, Appeal Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted the police were justified in beginning an investigation into the pair because of a “reasonable suspicion” they might commit a crime.

But during an operation that spanned six months of 2013, concluding with the couple’s arrest on July 1, Justice Bennett wrote officers crossed the line when they “pushed and pushed and pushed the two defendants to come up with a workable plan. The police did everything necessary to facilitate the plan. ...

“I can find no fault with the trial judge’s conclusion that police manufactured the crime that was committed and were the primary actors in its commission,” she wrote.


One of the charges against the couple was facilitating a terrorist action, but the appeal-court ruling noted that the Criminal Code needs to define this more clearly.

In a statement on Wednesday responding to the ruling, the RCMP said it respects the judicial process and judgment of the appeal court, and urges Canadians to be vigilant and report suspicious activities, but had no further comment.

The federal Public Prosecution Service of Canada said it has 60 days to decide whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Nuttall’s lawyer said the appeal court had delivered a “strong judgment” and that she saw no merit in such a legal option.

"But, of course, that’s for the Crown to decide,” Marilyn Sandford told a news conference in Vancouver alongside Ms. Korody’s lawyer, Scott Wright.

Ms. Sandford denounced the actions of police and the Crown in the case.

“One thing I think this judgment represents is a repudiation of American-style sting operations targeting vulnerable people,” she said.

“This operation was unique north of the border, but this style of operation of police-manufactured crime is very common now in the United States. What the judgment shows is we have a robust notion of entrapment in Canada, one that has been substantially eroded in the U.S. … and the courts are going to draw the line and have drawn the line.”

The couple became targets of an undercover RCMP investigation after police received information that Mr. Nuttall had openly endorsed violent jihadist views, according to Wednesday’s ruling.

A Surrey Mountie reported that a woman heard Mr. Nuttall on the street speaking on a cellular phone about “the afterlife” and “blowing up” Islamic countries, the ruling said.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service sent letters to the RCMP Integrated National Security Team in 2013. One described Mr. Nuttall as a potential threat to national security, and the second reported Mr. Nuttall tried to buy potassium nitrate – a chemical used in explosives – from Lower Mainland pharmacies.

Police, according to the ruling, also noted Mr. Nuttall’s criminal record, which included convictions for carrying a concealed weapon, robbery, kidnapping and aggravated assault.


Mr. Nuttall, who had medical and mental-health issues as well as drug dependency, lived with Ms. Korody in a basement suite with his grandmother. They were unemployed and receiving social assistance, and rarely left a four-block radius.

The couple were arrested on Canada Day, 2013, after planting what they thought were pressure-cooker bombs at the legislature.

A jury found Mr. Nuttall and Ms. Korody guilty in 2015 of conspiring to commit murder and possessing an explosive in a public place on behalf of a terrorist group.

But the convictions were put on hold, and the B.C. Supreme Court trial judge ruled a year later that undercover police officers entrapped the pair using trickery, deceit and veiled threats.

In the appeal, the Crown argued that the couple developed and proceeded with the bombing plan and the RCMP operation was neither manipulative nor an abuse of process.

Ms. Sandford and Mr. Wright said their clients are relieved at the appeal court ruling, but keeping a low profile as they rebuild their lives after their legal ordeal. Ms. Sandford said the consequences of the case have been devastating.


“It’s not something that’s going to, even with the release of today’s judgment, be completely in the rear-view mirror," Mr. Wright said. "It’s going to be a long haul for them.”
A big ol' derp by the RCMP.