“World Events, Politics & News”

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 263960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you care for privacy don't use any technology and move into the woods. Otherwise, you will never have privacy. most if not all the newer devices all listen to some extent and some even record etc. I don't care personally because the age of privacy died many years ago. America, England, France, Germany and most countries probably all at this point spy on their own people. So, when it comes to privacy and if you really want it then leave all technology behind and move far away into a secluded wooded area and then maybe you will get the privacy you want. besides everything you do links back to you no matter what. That is why the only way in modern times to be private is use hardly or no tech at all. to me it doesn't matter because who cares if some random Indian scammer or American big tech company knows everything about me, I have nothing to hide nor care about what people know about me. I get that others do care and my advice to those people is to leave all or most of your tech behind and that way you can have your privacy you want.
 
American Badger said:
That's kinda funny when you think about it, Canada literally stole cash from the truckers during the Covid mandated shots but NOW is worried about internet privacy ? 🤣
Click to expand...
good point, in fairness, the trucker convoy made a serious mistake- they briefly published a manifesto calling for the illegal /overthrow -replacing of the Canadian Government.

That's what got the feds really peeved- and contributed to the govr triggering the Emergiencies Act (former known as the "War Measures Act" which in turn allowed for the seizing of bank accounts etc (something that had a lot of people worried)
 
American Badger said:
That's kinda funny when you think about it, Canada literally stole cash from the truckers during the Covid mandated shots but NOW is worried about internet privacy ? 🤣
Click to expand...

H.R. PufnStuf said:
good point, in fairness, the trucker convoy made a serious mistake- they briefly published a manifesto calling for the illegal /overthrow -replacing of the Canadian Government.

That's what got the feds really peeved- and contributed to the govr triggering the Emergiencies Act (former known as the "War Measures Act" which in turn allowed for the seizing of bank accounts etc (something that had a lot of people worried)
Click to expand...

They didn't steal or seize any money from bank accounts though did they?

Didn't they just freeze them for a short time because the source of the money in the funding campaigns were shady with at least half of it coming from the US and because the protest was getting way out of hand causing chaos and violence? I'm pretty sure the crowd funding website eventually denied their service because of violence.
 
Inkandtatts said:
They didn't steal or seize any money from bank accounts though did they?
Click to expand...

No actual funds - to my knowledge, but accounts were frozen, initial reports said a lot of money was coming from the USA
 
rapinoes smirking revenge said:
if you're talking about ernst Zundel, he was a bit more than just "a denier". jfc

​

Click to expand...
I’d say that the majority of deniers are more than just deniers tbf. This guy was raised in a fiercely traditional and conservative milieu and that’s basically the context in which he operated. It’s like the people who were involved in the attack on the capitol. Most of them were involved in all kinds of hateful acts, not just one specific act. People always act from within a socio-cultural framework or context, in this case a culture de-emphasizing the importance of critical thinking, education and an open-access society, making them prone to conspiracy theories and scapegoating. I mean, you’ve got to be utterly delusional and morally corrupt to deny something as horrible as the Holocaust.
 
Inkandtatts said:
Wasn’t that in the 80s as well - 40 years before holocaust denial became a criminal offence - and the only person in Canada to ever be prosecuted for it?
Click to expand...
yeah he was prosecuted a few times in the 80's. the convictions were eventually overturned because even back then they decided it was a civil rights violation. in the early 2000 he was deported from the u.s. to canada for overstaying on a visa. then once back in canada they eventually deported him back to germany for being deemed a threat to national security.

guy was a neo-nazi and published or co-authored works like .....The Hitler We Loved and Why and Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last.

so to boil it down to a denier that was convicted and deported especially in regard to the current topic is kind of misleading.
 
Zundel was convicted crfiminally of spreading "false news" in relation to "denying" and beat the charge in the SCC as "spreading false news" was deemed unconstitutional. Later- He was deported to face criminal trail, elsewhere. Canadians cant be extradicted to a diff country unless a similar law exists here they are accused of-- so he was deported for hate speech accusations.

Not to be confused with Keegstra who was convicted of denying under hate speech laws,
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
Zundel was convicted crfiminally of spreading "false news" in relation to "denying" and beat the charge in the SCC as "spreading false news" was deemed unconstitutional. Later- He was deported to face criminal trail, elsewhere. Canadians cant be extradicted to a diff country unless a similar law exists here they are accused of-- so he was deported for hate speech accusations.
Click to expand...
Think Sesame Street GIF


Zundel didn’t quite “beat the charge in the SCC though, did he? They ordered a retrial and he was convicted again.

Zundel wasn’t Canadian. He had no right to be in Canada after leaving Canada, living in the US, being deported from the US and returned to Canada.

The ironic thing is that he then applied to Canada for refugee status to swerve a German arrest warrant.

I particularly like the guy from CBC’s comment "If Ernst Zündel is a refugee, Daffy Duck is Albert Einstein…Some propositions are so ludicrous that they are a betrayal of common sense and human dignity if allowed a moment's oxygen."

He wasn’t deported for hate speech accusations at all.

He was deported because he was a threat to National Security due to his links to neo-Nazi groups


H.R. PufnStuf said:
Not to be confused with Keegstra who was convicted of denying under hate speech laws,
Click to expand...
Tell Me More Jeff Goldblum GIF by National Geographic Channel


It was a little bit more than “denying” though, wasn’t it?

He was a teacher brainwashing his students with anti-Semitic views, racist views, conspiracy theories about Jews trying to conquer the world, and that the holocaust was a hoax. Hardly just a “denier”
 
Inkandtatts said:
Zundel didn’t quite “beat the charge in the SCC though, did he? They ordered a retrial and he was convicted again.
Click to expand...
he was convicyed a second time, however AFTER that he sucessfully appealed to the SCC which overturned his conviction as the provision he was convicted under was unconstitutional.

Zundel immigrated to Canada, and thus has the full protections of Canadian Law,

Inkandtatts said:
He wasn’t deported for hate speech accusations at all.
Click to expand...
He was deported to face thiose accusations, Canadians whether citizens, refugees or landed immigrants ALL have the same Charter protections.

Canadians cannot be extradicted to face charges elsewhere unless a similar offence exists here. The government of the day deported him, to face trial in Germany, which if tried here, would have resulted in the exact same outcome. (conviction and deportation)

The bar to deport based on an extradition request is very low- and its clear to all those who know- the govt wanted him out. The rest is semantics.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
he was convicyed a second time, however AFTER that he sucessfully appealed to the SCC which overturned his conviction as the provision he was convicted under was unconstitutional.

Zundel immigrated to Canada, and thus has the full protections of Canadian Law,


He was deported to face thiose accusations, Canadians whether citizens, refugees or landed immigrants ALL have the same Charter protections.

Canadians cannot be extradicted to face charges elsewhere unless a similar offence exists here. The government of the day deported him, to face trial in Germany, which if tried here, would have resulted in the exact same outcome. (conviction and deportation)

The bar to deport based on an extradition request is very low- and its clear to all those who know- the govt wanted him out. The rest is semantics.
Click to expand...

Can’t possibly imagine why anyone would want that type of character out of their country, semantics or not. It does show all those protections that exist against a tyrannical Government though
 
Inkandtatts said:
Can’t possibly imagine why anyone would want that type of character out of their country, semantics or not. It does show all those protections that exist against a tyrannical Government though
Click to expand...

I added the bold) the Conservative leader of his Majesties Loyal Opposition has vowed to remove those protections, via the "notwithstanding clause" a section of the charter that lets governments iggy any court decision, including those of the SCoC which is very alarming.

In effect one branch of government making the next irrelvant.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
I added the bold) the Conservative leader of his Majesties Loyal Opposition has vowed to remove those protections, via the "notwithstanding clause" a section of the charter that lets governments iggy any court decision, including those of the SCoC which is very alarming.

In effect one branch of government making the next irrelvant.
Click to expand...
Alarming but passable in Parliament? Unlikely.
 
Inkandtatts said:
Alarming but passable in Parliament? Unlikely.
Click to expand...
The nothwithstanding clause can be triggered by the governemnt. It was intended to be rarely used and never pre emtively, however thats changing, Leader of Opposition says if they win, he will use it to over ride decisions they dont like- after the fact OR when tabling legislation. The latter is shocking as it effectively removes any judicial oversight relating to the Constitution.

The only way it could be stopped is if its a minority Parliament.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
The nothwithstanding clause can be triggered by the governemnt. It was intended to be rarely used and never pre emtively, however thats changing, Leader of Opposition says if they win, he will use it to over ride decisions they dont like- after the fact OR when tabling legislation. The latter is shocking as it effectively removes any judicial oversight relating to the Constitution.

The only way it could be stopped is if it’s a minority Parliament.
Click to expand...
Here’s hoping for another Trudeau administration, or If not and the opposition gets a big enough majority that the Leader does what all of them do - bluster before an election to get the votes then abandon it when they’re in office (except Starmer. He seems to be doing alright so far)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top