OT: Off Topic XXI - It's the End of the World As We Know It (and I feel fine)
- Thread starter Ace Rimmer
- Start date
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
The next house I buy will have space for the 4 of us that show up.
Last edited:
Well I already have a place for the next draft. Lots of room, nice view as it is by the lake etc
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Calgary
Flames
Hockey's
Future
If someone has a Nintendo I would play. Even a Super NES. I had an emulator but lost it all when my last PC crashed.
Flames
Hockey's
Future
If someone has a Nintendo I would play. Even a Super NES. I had an emulator but lost it all when my last PC crashed.
Rocco Galati is an Italian-born Canadian lawyer who specializes in cases involving constitutional law and also suspects of terrorism. Has filed a statement of claim against the Government and CBC at the behest of multiple groups and individuals most of which are redacted on the digital scan, but should be revealed in the future. The Statement of Claim is for the outright violation of rights with the COVID measures that are scientifically, nor medically based nor proven to be effective, whatsoever and are extreme, unwarranted and unjustified.
Digital Scan - https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-statement-of-claim-2020-redacted.pdf
(VIDEO VOLUME KICKS IN AT 2 minutes 40 seconds of video)
Digital Scan - https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-statement-of-claim-2020-redacted.pdf
(VIDEO VOLUME KICKS IN AT 2 minutes 40 seconds of video)
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
What an asshole, honestly. The government scrambles in a crisis to attempt to avoid massive, unnecessary deaths, and guys like this look for a way to turn a profit.
I would say that the decisions made by governments were based on risk assessment based on early statistical models. Nothing was or is scientifically proven because the disease was new.
If this lawsuit was to succeed, it would set a precedent that the government should not act to keep its population safe until enough people have died to generate more robust studies. It probably has a snowball's chance in hell.
EDIT: Apparently this guy is a small-time antivaxxer hot take machine on Twitter. I wouldn't take this too seriously.
Last edited:
Reading the Further facts at page 46 are interesting. From the Lawyers briefing, Medical professionals including Nobel winners from around the globe are being ignored who also think the measures are extreme and unnecessary. I'm interested in the case and I'll be following it.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
Discussion on the current court filing against Federal Government and CBC. It's easy to dismiss this as Angelsmith and InfinityIggy have, however, the more I look into this the more concern I have. Rocco Galati list facts and discusses who he is what he has done and what is currently happening. There is no theory here just what he can prove. I'm not interested in the host, his smoking on camera, his constant agreeing or his lack of professionalism, I'm (was and will be again) a broadcaster; I am only interested in the information being presented by Mr. Rocco Galati. I also remind you that I posted the link to the statement of claim in my last post.
I personally have knowledge in Government Economics and I can confirm what Rocco is saying about the international corporate interest in government.
https://youtu.be/4ZEdUSVDBqg
I personally have knowledge in Government Economics and I can confirm what Rocco is saying about the international corporate interest in government.
https://youtu.be/4ZEdUSVDBqg
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I wouldn't go too far down the rabbit hole of "truth-seeking." You wouldn't be the first to get caught up in a smart-talking con man driving a narrative with confirmation bias and spin-laden youtube videos.
Here is all I need to see to know how objective, professional and fact-based this guy is:
A man serious about objective truth would not call the government "fascists" and wouldn't engage in childish name-calling of people trying to protect their community. These are hot takes meant to draw attention from a particular demographic: the hallmarks of a spin doctor trying to make a name for himself. It's the same kind of thing that got Donald Trump elected despite a complete lack of qualification or competency for his job.
There is so much to unpack… I channeled my inner Fig.
Now I am absolutely aware that I make a lot of drive-by posts. I offer the observation freely that drive-by posting can and does make one look simpleminded, lazy and untrustworthy… However, I post that way because this is a website that follows a sport and is purely entertainment and in the grand scheme of life, hockey doesn’t matter. I simply enjoy watching and joking around when I have the opportunity. However, the rest of my life is complex so I appreciate this haven of fun. I already offered up the information on myself that I study government economics. In-fact, I work in it but not as a Government employee. I absolutely do not want to talk about myself and what I do as that would be a long boring, self-indulgent post and it takes a minimum of 2 hours to get people caught up to the basic principles through a one on one conversation. So, in-depth discussion on a hockey forum would be a nightmare to even attempt. Basically, most people end up coming to me when all else fails, for example, the bank is foreclosing or a government agent is threatening you (It happens more than you think). Finally, I certainly hope I’m not coming across as pedantic or arrogant when you read this because I’m trying to be as genuine as possible.
Dehumanizing is an abusive tactic used throughout history. It is an act that is meant to make a person or group feel, or appear to others, as subhuman and not worth any of your time. Basically, it’s an attempt to remove one’s voice from discourse. It feels more like a soulless Reddit than a close-knit group.
“Apparently this guy is a small-time (1) antivaxxer (2) hot take machine (3)”
“I wouldn't go too far down the rabbit hole of "truth-seeking”(4) “con man”(5)
I am not a doctor and nor do I pretend to be. However, I understand the science of vaccines. It seems over the last 20 years there has been a massive push by some to sway or bully people to believe in vaccine absolutism. One side is for mandatory vaccines and the other is for absolute abolishment and both sides are doing the same thing. The removal of choice. Over the last 20 years some individuals have written articles either independently or at the behest of corporations to influence people either way. I will, no matter what anyone tries to sell me, always believe in the right to choose. I have been vaccinated (even though it’s none of anyone’s business) and I’m not against vaccination. I also know that vaccination is not 100% guaranteed and it just helps the immune system, nor are all vaccines created equal. However, by this absolutist theory I am either an antivaxxer or a sheeple… Ugh. Both sides are being “fascists”. People, no matter the benefit, have the right to choose. Antivaxxer is a dehumanizing term. No, you don’t have to listen to those who don’t vaccinate but you don’t have to dehumanize either. Furthermore, the right to choose has the overwhelming stance in this country. It’s just that these two sides are annoyingly the loudest.
2015 – Named top 25 most influential Lawyers in Canada “perpetual rabble rouser Rocco Galati, who is intent on making the government actually follow the law” “A true Canadian constitutional and human rights hero.”
2015 – Awarded the President’s award from the Bar Association. The first time a Lawyer won this award. All previous winners were Judges or Organizations.
2015 – 2019 – elected a Bencher (defined in link attachment) in Ontario
Rocco Galati has made major headlines throughout his 30 year career. Here is his historic win against The Bank of Canada – “On behalf of the collective COMER, constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati initiated a lawsuit against the Bank of Canada in 2011. This historic legal action builds on constitutional issues: Rocco Galati and COMER accuse the Canadian central bank of borrowing from private banks and not to resorting to loans at low interest rates. The lawsuit filed against the Bank of Canada accuses the bank of diverting from its primary objective and harming Canadian citizens.” - The Bank of Canada against Rocco Galati, a historic lawsuit
Your claim that Rocco Galati isn’t qualified is categorically false.
Why would The Bank of Canada initiate interest loans to the government? When finance ministers are appointed, they tend to come from the finance industry. So, they’re automatically connected to those in banking and finance. This creates an atmosphere where these relationships can abuse the public through contracts between the Government and Corporate Interest. Typically, when these appointments end, for their loyal service, they will get kickbacks. Either a cushy job from the money they stole from the public or the opportunity to speak at bank/finance related functions for hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars that they stole from the public. This happens ALL THE BLOODY TIME! Those in Government (not everyone) sell the public out by using their office to create Gov’t/Corporate agreements through contract to steal our public funds and manufacture an entropic environment through the bastardization or destruction of laws designed to protect the public. It is the EASIEST way to profit.
This tells me immediately that you know nothing about the case and you know nothing about the laws he’s trying to enforce and you simply wish to judge him because he seems to be doing something you disagree with based solely on the information you’ve been given or sought to find. This is common. It’s extraordinarily hard to change one’s mind once a mind has been made.
Firstly, Mr. Galati used the term “Fascist” which you took offence too. Most people understand that term but I will offer the definition for anyone who wants to brush up.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
What is the Statement of Claim about?
The court filing is not about money as there is no dollar amount for the plaintiff. There would be a clause for paying court fees and that’s standard on all Canadian cases. The plaintiff is only seeking a declaration from the Government in regards to the unconstitutional measures that have been taken. Being that no declaration has been provided, which is necessary by law to enact the Covid Measures, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction. That’s extremely reasonable. How can the Government continue the shutdown without an official declaration? It should be impossible under Canadian Law. The Government is running the country under the pretense of Royal Prerogative. In today’s words the "Leaders of Government" are enacting Fascism and bankrupting the nation. All discourse is shutdown. Parliament and Legislation is shut down. If masks keep you and your neighbors safe then shouldn’t these federal and provincial bodies be open?
There is also an Injunction to the measures taken for Covid. Such as masking, social distancing etc. There is no declaration on these measures, and by law, there must be a declaration. Never mind the argument by forum posters if these measures are sound or unsound. A declaration MUST be made to even sniff in the direction of these policies.
An injunction on the CBC.
The CBC is being sued because they are publicly funded. They are avoiding their responsibility to openly report the news on Covid including conflicting information offered by experts in their field. In essence the CBC is reporting propaganda.
The reason why a Declaration hasn’t been issued is because it would require discourse and because of the avalanche of evidence against the Covid and Gov’t enforced measures. I again encourage you to view them in the Statement of Claim.
Here are a few in the Statement of Claim… There are hundreds.
84% of Covid Deaths across Canada have taken place in long term care. Even though most of the deaths are attributed to the conditions of the housing not Covid.
The way Covid is being measured is dishonest and fraudulent – No matter what your cause of death if you die and Covid is in your system you are listed as a Covid Death. For example, if you fall off a building and die and you’re tested and have covid. Gravity and the ground didn’t kill you, Covid killed you. It’s the same policy in the USA.
More people are dying from the non-declared Covid measures than Covid. Suicide, Alcoholism, Heart Attack, cancelled surgeries, etc…
Social distancing is not medically nor scientifically effective. It is used to punish prisoners in Guantanamo Bay because we are social creatures and we require contact.
VIT D is highly effective against Covid. People have been ordered to stay indoors.
Romania's Top Court throughout the Covid measures. They know a little bit about dictatorships.
Read the box of masks your about to buy… If made since the Covid implementation, on the back it will say “not effective for preventing Covid”. The New England Journal of Medicine also says the same thing. They are basically saying that masks outside of a hospital setting (Gowns, eye protection, etc) is useless and a talisman or placebo. It’s a visual way to measure compliance.
The Government redacted all negative reporting on the Covid Measures. Social media adopted a policy that removes conflicting information provided by the WHO and adopted by the Government Medical Administrations. Even the worldwide medical experts and Nobel Prize winning experts who were trying to reach out were removed. THAT IS NOT NORMAL, NOR OKAY. These same experts are also being ignored by Corporate media. THAT IS NOT NORMAL, NOR OKAY. How do these experts, who know more than the administrators, get banned from reporting on their own medical field?
Proper reporting, which, in my educated opinion, we haven’t seen in over a decade, always offers both sides of a matter. Today our news is filled with opinion and corporate advertising packaged up as a news story. Nothing offered in the news about Covid has anything to do with news. You are being told ideas with attached actions and there is no genuine discourse.
I posted this discussion, again, not because of the interviewer but to offer Rocco’s more than sufficient qualifications into the fold. Listen to his words not the interviewer who is trying to do Corporate media’s job. However, I agree, he’s doing it terribly. This is the only interview I’ve found so far. Media are completely ignoring this lawsuit. THAT IS NOT NORMAL, NOR OKAY!
Your comment of “truth-seeking”. This is literally a reporter’s job, however, your application of it made me feel like you are going to dehumanize me for continuing down this path. Please be respectful.
Finally, in your conspiracy frame, I stumbled on this in the claim. On page 47 “In May 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation writes a report with the study of future pandemic scenarios” I am totally paranoid to post this here. Not only at how this board may react but that it would also be terrifying and unbelievable if these Covid measures weren’t happening in the world today.
I found the report. DO NOT READ OR LISTEN IF YOU HAVE ANXIETY!
http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller Foundation.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ObDY_aytAjkLYxzHJFPBc412VHOgLwx-jHAlIaH9s0WR0a47A51nXKL0
I also found this recording and before adding it I checked out if this was actually the President of Ghana but it is not. I reviewed all of the holders of this office until 2010 (when the report was written) and nobody who held the office sounds like this man. I am only posting this for the words read from the report if you don’t want to read it yourself. I am not under the belief it is a President.
I attached an audio file - It's 9 mb.
If this lawsuit fails then you better be scared because this country is in serious trouble solely because of the people (soon to be criminals IMO) running it. The economy will completely collapse and there will be some major rule changes when that happens and they won't be in your favor.
Another Constitutional Lawyer has entered the chat.
I get that people may not like this news source but they’re the only ones reporting it.
BC Government challenged over violating Charter freedoms by COVID-19 lockdown measures
BC Government challenged over violating Charter freedoms by COVID-19 lockdown measures | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Charter Analysis – Look at the Table of Contents and your interest should get peeked.
https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-08-Charter-analysis-BC-lockdown-measures.pdf
Now I am absolutely aware that I make a lot of drive-by posts. I offer the observation freely that drive-by posting can and does make one look simpleminded, lazy and untrustworthy… However, I post that way because this is a website that follows a sport and is purely entertainment and in the grand scheme of life, hockey doesn’t matter. I simply enjoy watching and joking around when I have the opportunity. However, the rest of my life is complex so I appreciate this haven of fun. I already offered up the information on myself that I study government economics. In-fact, I work in it but not as a Government employee. I absolutely do not want to talk about myself and what I do as that would be a long boring, self-indulgent post and it takes a minimum of 2 hours to get people caught up to the basic principles through a one on one conversation. So, in-depth discussion on a hockey forum would be a nightmare to even attempt. Basically, most people end up coming to me when all else fails, for example, the bank is foreclosing or a government agent is threatening you (It happens more than you think). Finally, I certainly hope I’m not coming across as pedantic or arrogant when you read this because I’m trying to be as genuine as possible.
Dehumanizing is an abusive tactic used throughout history. It is an act that is meant to make a person or group feel, or appear to others, as subhuman and not worth any of your time. Basically, it’s an attempt to remove one’s voice from discourse. It feels more like a soulless Reddit than a close-knit group.
“Apparently this guy is a small-time (1) antivaxxer (2) hot take machine (3)”
“I wouldn't go too far down the rabbit hole of "truth-seeking”(4) “con man”(5)
I am not a doctor and nor do I pretend to be. However, I understand the science of vaccines. It seems over the last 20 years there has been a massive push by some to sway or bully people to believe in vaccine absolutism. One side is for mandatory vaccines and the other is for absolute abolishment and both sides are doing the same thing. The removal of choice. Over the last 20 years some individuals have written articles either independently or at the behest of corporations to influence people either way. I will, no matter what anyone tries to sell me, always believe in the right to choose. I have been vaccinated (even though it’s none of anyone’s business) and I’m not against vaccination. I also know that vaccination is not 100% guaranteed and it just helps the immune system, nor are all vaccines created equal. However, by this absolutist theory I am either an antivaxxer or a sheeple… Ugh. Both sides are being “fascists”. People, no matter the benefit, have the right to choose. Antivaxxer is a dehumanizing term. No, you don’t have to listen to those who don’t vaccinate but you don’t have to dehumanize either. Furthermore, the right to choose has the overwhelming stance in this country. It’s just that these two sides are annoyingly the loudest.
Rocco Galati
2015 – Named top 25 most influential Lawyers in Canada “perpetual rabble rouser Rocco Galati, who is intent on making the government actually follow the law” “A true Canadian constitutional and human rights hero.”
2015 – Awarded the President’s award from the Bar Association. The first time a Lawyer won this award. All previous winners were Judges or Organizations.
2015 – 2019 – elected a Bencher (defined in link attachment) in Ontario
Rocco Galati has made major headlines throughout his 30 year career. Here is his historic win against The Bank of Canada – “On behalf of the collective COMER, constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati initiated a lawsuit against the Bank of Canada in 2011. This historic legal action builds on constitutional issues: Rocco Galati and COMER accuse the Canadian central bank of borrowing from private banks and not to resorting to loans at low interest rates. The lawsuit filed against the Bank of Canada accuses the bank of diverting from its primary objective and harming Canadian citizens.” - The Bank of Canada against Rocco Galati, a historic lawsuit
Your claim that Rocco Galati isn’t qualified is categorically false.
Why would The Bank of Canada initiate interest loans to the government? When finance ministers are appointed, they tend to come from the finance industry. So, they’re automatically connected to those in banking and finance. This creates an atmosphere where these relationships can abuse the public through contracts between the Government and Corporate Interest. Typically, when these appointments end, for their loyal service, they will get kickbacks. Either a cushy job from the money they stole from the public or the opportunity to speak at bank/finance related functions for hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars that they stole from the public. This happens ALL THE BLOODY TIME! Those in Government (not everyone) sell the public out by using their office to create Gov’t/Corporate agreements through contract to steal our public funds and manufacture an entropic environment through the bastardization or destruction of laws designed to protect the public. It is the EASIEST way to profit.
This tells me immediately that you know nothing about the case and you know nothing about the laws he’s trying to enforce and you simply wish to judge him because he seems to be doing something you disagree with based solely on the information you’ve been given or sought to find. This is common. It’s extraordinarily hard to change one’s mind once a mind has been made.
Firstly, Mr. Galati used the term “Fascist” which you took offence too. Most people understand that term but I will offer the definition for anyone who wants to brush up.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
What is the Statement of Claim about?
The court filing is not about money as there is no dollar amount for the plaintiff. There would be a clause for paying court fees and that’s standard on all Canadian cases. The plaintiff is only seeking a declaration from the Government in regards to the unconstitutional measures that have been taken. Being that no declaration has been provided, which is necessary by law to enact the Covid Measures, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction. That’s extremely reasonable. How can the Government continue the shutdown without an official declaration? It should be impossible under Canadian Law. The Government is running the country under the pretense of Royal Prerogative. In today’s words the "Leaders of Government" are enacting Fascism and bankrupting the nation. All discourse is shutdown. Parliament and Legislation is shut down. If masks keep you and your neighbors safe then shouldn’t these federal and provincial bodies be open?
There is also an Injunction to the measures taken for Covid. Such as masking, social distancing etc. There is no declaration on these measures, and by law, there must be a declaration. Never mind the argument by forum posters if these measures are sound or unsound. A declaration MUST be made to even sniff in the direction of these policies.
An injunction on the CBC.
The CBC is being sued because they are publicly funded. They are avoiding their responsibility to openly report the news on Covid including conflicting information offered by experts in their field. In essence the CBC is reporting propaganda.
The reason why a Declaration hasn’t been issued is because it would require discourse and because of the avalanche of evidence against the Covid and Gov’t enforced measures. I again encourage you to view them in the Statement of Claim.
Here are a few in the Statement of Claim… There are hundreds.
84% of Covid Deaths across Canada have taken place in long term care. Even though most of the deaths are attributed to the conditions of the housing not Covid.
The way Covid is being measured is dishonest and fraudulent – No matter what your cause of death if you die and Covid is in your system you are listed as a Covid Death. For example, if you fall off a building and die and you’re tested and have covid. Gravity and the ground didn’t kill you, Covid killed you. It’s the same policy in the USA.
More people are dying from the non-declared Covid measures than Covid. Suicide, Alcoholism, Heart Attack, cancelled surgeries, etc…
Social distancing is not medically nor scientifically effective. It is used to punish prisoners in Guantanamo Bay because we are social creatures and we require contact.
VIT D is highly effective against Covid. People have been ordered to stay indoors.
Romania's Top Court throughout the Covid measures. They know a little bit about dictatorships.
Read the box of masks your about to buy… If made since the Covid implementation, on the back it will say “not effective for preventing Covid”. The New England Journal of Medicine also says the same thing. They are basically saying that masks outside of a hospital setting (Gowns, eye protection, etc) is useless and a talisman or placebo. It’s a visual way to measure compliance.
The Government redacted all negative reporting on the Covid Measures. Social media adopted a policy that removes conflicting information provided by the WHO and adopted by the Government Medical Administrations. Even the worldwide medical experts and Nobel Prize winning experts who were trying to reach out were removed. THAT IS NOT NORMAL, NOR OKAY. These same experts are also being ignored by Corporate media. THAT IS NOT NORMAL, NOR OKAY. How do these experts, who know more than the administrators, get banned from reporting on their own medical field?
Proper reporting, which, in my educated opinion, we haven’t seen in over a decade, always offers both sides of a matter. Today our news is filled with opinion and corporate advertising packaged up as a news story. Nothing offered in the news about Covid has anything to do with news. You are being told ideas with attached actions and there is no genuine discourse.
I posted this discussion, again, not because of the interviewer but to offer Rocco’s more than sufficient qualifications into the fold. Listen to his words not the interviewer who is trying to do Corporate media’s job. However, I agree, he’s doing it terribly. This is the only interview I’ve found so far. Media are completely ignoring this lawsuit. THAT IS NOT NORMAL, NOR OKAY!
Your comment of “truth-seeking”. This is literally a reporter’s job, however, your application of it made me feel like you are going to dehumanize me for continuing down this path. Please be respectful.
Finally, in your conspiracy frame, I stumbled on this in the claim. On page 47 “In May 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation writes a report with the study of future pandemic scenarios” I am totally paranoid to post this here. Not only at how this board may react but that it would also be terrifying and unbelievable if these Covid measures weren’t happening in the world today.
I found the report. DO NOT READ OR LISTEN IF YOU HAVE ANXIETY!
http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller Foundation.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ObDY_aytAjkLYxzHJFPBc412VHOgLwx-jHAlIaH9s0WR0a47A51nXKL0
I also found this recording and before adding it I checked out if this was actually the President of Ghana but it is not. I reviewed all of the holders of this office until 2010 (when the report was written) and nobody who held the office sounds like this man. I am only posting this for the words read from the report if you don’t want to read it yourself. I am not under the belief it is a President.
I attached an audio file - It's 9 mb.
If this lawsuit fails then you better be scared because this country is in serious trouble solely because of the people (soon to be criminals IMO) running it. The economy will completely collapse and there will be some major rule changes when that happens and they won't be in your favor.
Another Constitutional Lawyer has entered the chat.
I get that people may not like this news source but they’re the only ones reporting it.
BC Government challenged over violating Charter freedoms by COVID-19 lockdown measures
BC Government challenged over violating Charter freedoms by COVID-19 lockdown measures | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Charter Analysis – Look at the Table of Contents and your interest should get peeked.
https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-08-Charter-analysis-BC-lockdown-measures.pdf
Last edited:
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Many of your points are very popular talking points for anti-restriction folks that have been debunked for, respectively, missing the point or making a flawed comparison. For instance, the claim that more people are dying of factors X, Y and Z is absolutely true, but makes a flawed comparison by implying that other collateral deaths would not occur in the event of a healthcare system overrun. In a lot of your points regarding the anti-COVID measures, you are putting a lot of faith in fringe accounts that go against much more popularly-accepted truths. I'm sorry if I am calling out conspiracy theory tendencies, but that's one of the major ones: explaining how untrustworthy certain sources are because of complete trust in other sources. Regardless, I don't expect to change your mind on those specifics even as a scientist, but I'd rather focus on the more overarching themes here:
1) Motivations. Why do I think this guy is an asshole? His childish behaviour on twitter is a big part of it, but I really do question his motives. No, he's not going to win himself millions here, but by capitalizing on this wave of hysteria from anti-restrictionists, he's getting himself a nice payday by putting forth this lawsuit. Through his twitter and his appearances, he is also creating a decent persecution complex, which means that he can further his reputation from this even if he loses. Moreover, the motivations of those that he is going after here are beyond reproach. No matter what you think about the restrictions, the one thing I think we can all agree on is that the government has absolutely no motivation to do them other than desperately wanting to keep people as safe as possible. What the actions are that further that goal has been developing ever since the beginning of the pandemic, but that is pretty clearly the goal, and the government is going out of its way to pursue it despite taking a big financial hit that will hurt their budget, and despite what it will do to the economy, which will be linked with their term in office. This is what we want from leadership.
2) Freedom and choice. One of our most primary values in the west, sure. But we all accept limits on this, and the line in the sand for basically everyone is the same: choice is an absolutely must in all situations unless they infringe on the freedoms of others. We aren't free to choose whether or not to murder someone. We aren't free to choose whether or not to pay for a purchase. We aren't free to decide which house we sleep in each night. We aren't free to decide whether to pay taxes.
When I was growing up, people were free to choose whether to smoke in restaurants or not. Upon realizing that this infringed on others and had serious medical consequences, that changed. Various countries have different rules regarding firearms, but in general, it is not total freedom to choose whatever you want and carry it wherever you want; again, this is because of the negative impacts on others and their freedom to live in a peaceful society. Auto insurance is mandatory because not being able to pay for the damage you do to another's vehicle when it's your fault causes them undeserved financial fallout. The vaccine issue follows along these same lines. The science is extremely robust in terms of the positive effects of vaccines, which means that failing to vaccinate has a very tangible negative impact on the health and safety of the vulnerable. I don't know if legislation mandating it is necessarily going to come about, but I think the social pressure is definitely from a good place. People just want others to do the right thing and create the safest possible society.
The exact same things can be said about the COVID restrictions. We're sacrificing certain less important freedoms in order to protect our freedom to health and medical care. It really is that simple.
1) Motivations. Why do I think this guy is an asshole? His childish behaviour on twitter is a big part of it, but I really do question his motives. No, he's not going to win himself millions here, but by capitalizing on this wave of hysteria from anti-restrictionists, he's getting himself a nice payday by putting forth this lawsuit. Through his twitter and his appearances, he is also creating a decent persecution complex, which means that he can further his reputation from this even if he loses. Moreover, the motivations of those that he is going after here are beyond reproach. No matter what you think about the restrictions, the one thing I think we can all agree on is that the government has absolutely no motivation to do them other than desperately wanting to keep people as safe as possible. What the actions are that further that goal has been developing ever since the beginning of the pandemic, but that is pretty clearly the goal, and the government is going out of its way to pursue it despite taking a big financial hit that will hurt their budget, and despite what it will do to the economy, which will be linked with their term in office. This is what we want from leadership.
2) Freedom and choice. One of our most primary values in the west, sure. But we all accept limits on this, and the line in the sand for basically everyone is the same: choice is an absolutely must in all situations unless they infringe on the freedoms of others. We aren't free to choose whether or not to murder someone. We aren't free to choose whether or not to pay for a purchase. We aren't free to decide which house we sleep in each night. We aren't free to decide whether to pay taxes.
When I was growing up, people were free to choose whether to smoke in restaurants or not. Upon realizing that this infringed on others and had serious medical consequences, that changed. Various countries have different rules regarding firearms, but in general, it is not total freedom to choose whatever you want and carry it wherever you want; again, this is because of the negative impacts on others and their freedom to live in a peaceful society. Auto insurance is mandatory because not being able to pay for the damage you do to another's vehicle when it's your fault causes them undeserved financial fallout. The vaccine issue follows along these same lines. The science is extremely robust in terms of the positive effects of vaccines, which means that failing to vaccinate has a very tangible negative impact on the health and safety of the vulnerable. I don't know if legislation mandating it is necessarily going to come about, but I think the social pressure is definitely from a good place. People just want others to do the right thing and create the safest possible society.
The exact same things can be said about the COVID restrictions. We're sacrificing certain less important freedoms in order to protect our freedom to health and medical care. It really is that simple.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
rEbEL mEDIa ArE tHE OnLY OneS RepORTinG iT!!!!!111!one!!!1
That argument alone should make you reevaluate everything you think you know.
That argument alone should make you reevaluate everything you think you know.
You “love” your dehumanizing buzzwords, “anti-restriction folks“. Do you mean, I’m a law-abiding citizen and I demand that our government abide by the laws set in our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Then yes, I am. Are you referring to the very few paraphrased facts, out of hundreds, I posted from a 191 page “The Statement of Claim” written by a (as evidenced above) a highly respected Ontario Lawyer? Please debunk the Statement of Claim because the small administrative Government in control of the shutdown can’t debunk them as evidenced with the lack of a lawful declaration. You just skipped over that fact and dehumanized me with “anti-restriction folks” to ignore the logical and well-reasoned point that I made. I’ll accept that you’d rather maintain partisan and just took a knee on that fact.
You’re not calling out conspiracy tendencies. You haven’t called out or proven anything. You did, however use the buzzword “conspiracy theories” to, again, try to dehumanize and minimize my words. In effect, you’re trying to turn the discussion around on me with emotional buzzwords. I am pointing to a Statement of Claim written by a highly respected lawyer that has focused his body of work for the public for over the last 20 years.
There are no “more popular accepted truths” in this lockdown or in the Covid measures. You’re literally getting news delivered through statements from a disgustingly small administration. Hence no declaration and no rule of law. THERE IS NO CONVERSATION. Doctors are not being asked or polled their opinion. I will believe John Ioannidis over an administrative board ignoring rule of law and over you as a scientist. Dr. Ioannidis is the qualified Doctor I stumbled upon in March. “John Ioannidis is a lion of medical science. The Stanford University professor is the author of some of the most cited journal articles in medical history. His research in statistics and biomedicine has arguably changed the practice of medicine. A 2010 article in The Atlantic said “Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive.” And you would never know any of this from reading comments about him today.”
What YOU think of the guy is immaterial. You asserted that he was a “smart-talking con man driving a narrative with confirmation bias and spin-laden youtube videos”. I proved you wrong and I even stated that you were “categorically false”. That leaves you with either this emotional response and back pedaling or what you should have said, “You’re right Corpus X. You’re my daddy. (I’m teasing)” Instead you chose to dig deeper into nonsensical justifications that don’t matter.
The wave of hysteria from citizens demanding the Government follow the law? Can you play up some more? You are jumping into a conspiracy theory by trying to guess his motives. He listed his motives in the press conference that was ignored by Corporate Media and the second video I posted. He doesn’t need more exposure to improve his standing. He is widely respected by his peers and I have evidenced.
No matter what, I think these measures are for safety? Have you read anything I posted? If the actions are beyond reproach there would be a paper trail of laws being followed. The small administrative body is causing more harm than it appears your able to comprehend or refuse to see logic to. I’ll ask you a simple question. What happens to a multibillion-dollar corporation when it’s failing and eventually fails and goes bankrupt? What happens to a country in that same manner? What happens when government fails? What happens when budgets can’t be met? When the financial laws have no financing to back them up? What is a junk grade economy? What will happen to government jobs when there is nothing in the budget? What will happen to the private sector when the consolidated revenue fund is bankrupt? What will your pension be worth? What will your RRSP’s and your homes that will foreclose be worth? The public who took money from the government will have assets seized to cover debts and you are literally showing true ignorance to say “despite the economy”. You’ve been living in a first world for too long. Suicides, violence, and food shortages are going to be the real pandemic. Anyone worth their salt in Economics would point out the same thing. I’d go further into the actions that would be taken but you need to understand these noted actions before jumping ahead or it wouldn’t make sense to you and you’d start attacking my credibility and me a conspiracy theorist. I’m not being smarmy. I am being truthful and literal.
Most freedoms given up are through signed contracts. You sign up for the Army, you sign up to get your driver’s license, your phone contract, banking, employment contract and CRA salary agreement (I can’t remember the form number)… You sign them every day. You cannot be forced by government; they require an agreement. The green text I hope is sarcasm.
Smoking was a corporate lobbyist issue. A Firearms license is another contract you sign and based on the jurisdiction you are in you are adhering to laws created by their legislative assembly. Except the recent “changes”. Again, unconstitutional, and they will be reversed if or once legislation opens up. Auto Insurance or having $200000, or $50000 in Quebec, set aside in place of insurance, is part of the agreement in the Driver’s license you sign. Auto Insurance just covers that obligation for you. It’s not required. Vaccines are medical and Government controlled. They cannot force a person into medical treatment of any kind without bastardizing the highest of Canadian Law. Vaccination again only boosts the immune response and a shot does not mean you have a cure. Lobbyists are trying to circumvent the laws. Your favorite Lawyer named above talks about it but you wouldn’t know because you seem to have no need of evidence. You’ve made up your mind. The social pressure is from lobbyists and a small obnoxious group. You can’t mandate “safe”. You cannot bubble wrap the earth. One can, however, choose to bubble wrap themselves and then full stop.
All Jurisdictions that have not shut down or have thrown out the restrictions are doing fine. The balance news reporting has confirmed this… Oh, wait…
I get the need to grasp on to the logic that everything will be fine. The situation is being handled by honest Liberals that haven’t ignored the law or abused power ever in the last 5 years... The problem is:
A highly respected lawyer that has ALWAYS worked for the people (It doesn’t matter what you think of him and calling him a meanie doesn’t change his accomplishments nor discredit the lawsuit) has amassed a 191 page document filled with an “avalanche” of evidence including timelines, experts in their field including Economists, Dr.’s, and scientists including Nobel winners. Professionals with a reputation wouldn’t do that willy-nilly and I would listen to them before you and a small administration breaking the highest of Canadian law under the guise of public safety.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 16,108
- 7,638
so are you arguing that we should be more like Florida and Arizona and Texas?
I’m all for standing up to the government about maintaining our rights and freedoms, but when it’s to sit at home for a few months. Social distance and wear a mask. To save hundreds of thousands of people’s lives. Then it is just common sense to do that.
the reason people call this lawyer a douche is because he’s making this an issue when it shouldn’t be. It’s a global pandemic and countries like Canada successfully contained the virus with our actions. More people didn’t die because the plan worked.
I never heard the outrage from the far-right (where the outrage is coming from) when North Americans sacrificed their freedoms in laws like “bill c51” In Canada or “the Patritot act” in the USA... gotta stop them terrorizers who kill like 5 people a year...But how could we possibly sacrifice our freedoms for a virus that’s killed hundreds of thousands? (I had 4 students who lost their father in his late thirties)
Once again, I am in agreement that Justin Trudeau must follow the law and make a declaration. Everything else can be debated after. All the "experts" will have their say and the truth, whatever it will be, will rise to the top... Like refreshing cream.
EDIT: I also want to say that I am not a partisan individual. Sometimes I agree with Liberals and sometimes I agree with Conservatives. It's always what's best for the Country because that's what is best for the maximum amount of people in the Country. I care about all of you and your futures... Perhaps a bit too much.
Last edited:
I’d tend to disagree that jurisdictions who did not shutdown or have thrown out restrictions are doing fine
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
Corpus your last several replies really unveil that your 'arguments' and support of Rocco's actions are simply guises for your emotional dislike of Trudeau/'Liberals'.
You don't have to like Trudeau or 'Liberals' of course, but when you lecture Anglesmith over using 'emotional buzzwords', it really rings hollow as you're doing much the same thing.
You don't have to like Trudeau or 'Liberals' of course, but when you lecture Anglesmith over using 'emotional buzzwords', it really rings hollow as you're doing much the same thing.
Flameshomer
Likeaholic
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I assure you that you are putting more thought into semantics than I am. I am aiming to have a conversation. I am not a poet. I do not load my words with hidden meanings. If I don't know each of the names of the people who lobby against restrictions, I will look for an accessible word to refer to them collectively.
I'm not seeking to prove anything. I was merely pointing out that the practice of ignoring most of the community and blindly trusting the ones who support your narrative is a tendency of conspiracy theorists. It is also a tendency of pop science reporting, though.
That's a whole lot of assumptions there being lobbed from the moral high ground. I am not, in fact, getting my information from "the administration" (and I'm unsure of what in my posts got you to that conclusion). Both they and I are aligned in where we are getting our information from, however, which is the entire field of research on the subject. And yes, that includes John Ionnidis et al. From the beginning, research on this subject has been developing at an insane speed. As is common in this sort of thing (research on a raw and novel topic), early results have had divergent results. Not all scientists agree. Conclusions have varied from one extreme to the other, leaving scientists on either extreme perhaps feeling overlooked or ignored if they are egotistical. What doesn't make sense is to take one extreme as the truth and throw out the entire rest of the field. The revelation that a scientist is not being blindly believed because of his track record is a very, very good thing from the perspective of how science is done. Scientists are merely spokespeople for their work, and do well not to forget that. It is not about people, it's about their work.
Decisions are being made that appear to contradict certain scientists' findings because the field, as a whole, has reached a divergent conclusion. It happens. I have been in symposia where two scientists are going at each other over the structure of water molecules and the air-water interface after each had been studying the same thing for a decade. Being wrong is not an indictment, either. Whatever Ioannidis' findings, his work is valid and valuable to the scientific community, and helps to inform and further the field's knowledge. His results are part of the general conclusion. They just shouldn't be seen as the conclusion itself.
I'm having a tough time following what you're talking about through most of this, but I'm not arguing that actions are beyond reproach, I'm saying that the intent is. The same is not true for Mr. Galati unless he really is just requesting an amendment in the way the process is being followed. His words and actions (and everything I find out about the guy) suggest a lot more than that, though, and a lot more that is socially detrimental and personally rewarding than anything else.
You hope it is sarcasm because it is an exception to your rule? I highlight those specifically because they do not come from a contract. Freedom in any society is restricted in cases where our choices affect others negatively or infringe on the freedoms of others. You did not respond to that. And when you talk about those contracts, where is the contract where we agreed that a licence should be necessary? Why can I only sign up for "the Army" instead of starting my own? Those are collective social decisions.
Another way to look at the topic of freedoms is this: we are truly free to do anything (including murder). We are also free as a society to choose how we deal with the choices of individuals. We choose to lock up criminals and strip them of their freedom, and we choose what the criteria are to make someone a criminal. The only real restriction on our freedom as a society is the constitution, but we as a society chose circumstances where exceptions could be made to those restrictions.
I do agree with you that vaccines likely won't be made mandatory through legislation, at least not in the near future. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be morally or ethically correct. You invoke the slippery slope fallacy when talking about bubble wrap. When we find things like vaccines that have a well-understood positive influence on public safety without a downside, it should be a no-brainer. I think there is an interesting parallel with the issue of blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's witnesses that has repeatedly come up in courts. I think the general conclusion right now is that it is lawful to force a child to receive transfusions even against their will if it has life-altering consequences not to. Perhaps one day the same will apply to vaccines.
This is a bit lazy and unsubstantiated. You spend a great deal of time putting words together to try to create the impression that you have done your research and are more informed, but then you throw out statements like this, or "social distancing has been shown to be ineffective," or the popular lines about collateral damage or the intentionally myopic statements about the disease's preference to attack the elderly.
At the end of the day, Canada developed its initial approach based on the warning from Italy. Whatever we say and whatever we choose to deny, the situation in Italy with healthcare overrun, patients being denied treatment and being left to die in tents due to lack of available equipment, doctors unable to protect themselves from contracting the disease, students being put into the field full-time out of need.... all of that indicated the risk of taking only minor precautions. It undermines any statement of "none of this is making a difference." On top of the toll in terms of human life, consider the collateral effects in terms of mental health and trauma experienced by the average Italian during the worst of the outbreak.
The initial reaction was extremely harsh in terms of our freedoms, sure, but since then we have been lifting those restrictions gradually based on improved research and a better, more informed risk assessment. The changing of messages along the way may seem to belie the failing of science, but in fact this is a very good case study in scientific research doing its job. It is a gradual process that constantly improves and refines and sometimes contradicts itself. In the absence of proof, the government is doing its best to apply risk assessment and think about probabilistic conclusions. Where they have forced people to sacrifice, they have looked to compensate through government aid. All in all, there isn't much to complain about objectively.
I am in 100% agreement that a Declaration must be made and the laws must be followed. I read, not all, of the statement and I am in full agreement of this. I don't hide that. Also, my opinions don't matter. I didn't write that an I should have. The Declaration is what matters.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
BONUS SPORTSBOOK CHRISTMAS BONUS - PLEASE CLICK EVENT DETAILSWagers: 23Staked: $23.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-