I don’t care what you stand for. If you chant, “Death to Canada” you can get fucked with a fire hydrant.

It’s all about grievance.

And drag queen’s and the people who load children into boxcar and hunt them from horseback.

It wasn’t about winning the argument. It was about terrorizing the victim.

and his supporters were outside “jeering” his victim. Truly the worst of us.

Everyone is entitled to a defense lawyer who mounts a spirited defense. This guy didn’t have much to work with.

Ducking autocucumber!

Face. My new phone hasn’t learned how to read my Swyping yet.

Key takeaway, just over 1/3 (38%) of Canadians support the Conservatives. Not a glowing endorsement. We really need to be rid of FPTP so that we can get a government that actually reflects the will of all Canadians.

We are better off not having Facebook be mistaken for a source of news. There is no news on Facebook, only memes, propaganda, and misinformation.

Have you read this article?

Think about it, really, imagine this was coming from someone you respect enough to make you consider changing your mind; should protests that cause no bodily harm be a criminal offence? Should the people not have a way to truly disrupt the system if our existence is at stake? Is the convenience of the ignorant more important than our survival? I’d love to hear your honest answers to these questions.

In theory what you are saying is correct. Disruptive protest for popular causes are very effective. The problem is that these fanatics are driving a wedge between the solution they want and the people they really need on their side for their protests to be effective (the people in popular.) I’m prepared to bet that they didn’t convince a single person trying to get around the loop at YUL to join them. How many people jumped out of their cars and asked for glue? Do you think they changed any oil executive’s minds? Do you think that they convinced any bought and paid for by the oil industry politicians to change their vote? Do you think that the number of people they convinced to vote for change during the next election outweighs the number of people whos votes they galvanized against them? In order for us to achieve real change in climate policy they need to convince many millions of people to vote for change. I’m willing to bet you $1 that they have done more harm than good.

Please understand that I agree with their goals. I agree that we need to make dramatic changes and as I’ve said in other parts of this “discussion” (discussion in quotes because there is a lot of whinging, shaming, insulting, name calling, etc. being thrown at me that does not constutite a conversation.) I have made substantial changes myself and have helped hundreds of others make substantial changes. I have had a direct and personal impact on carbon reduction. I just don’t agree with their methods. I think that they are doing far more harm to the cause than they are doing good.

The UK is deporting innocent people to fucking Rwanda, lmao.

They were. The new government killed that plan on day 1.

“I acknowledge that at least some of your concerns are shared by many but since we don’t want to do anything about it because that would mean changing our western week-end-at-the-resort lifestyle, we’ll just put you in prison. Fuck you.”

“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.

“And your fanaticism makes you entirely heedless of the rights of your fellow citizens. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide that your fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, and how much disruption and harm they must suffer, simply so that you may parade your views.”

I suspect that it’s very clear to most people at this point that the actions of these fanatics and the whinging, feeble attempts at shaming, insults, name calling, and harassment by fanatics and their apologists online aren’t actually intended to change anyone’s minds. It’s a fanatical circle jerk, as the judge suggested in the quoted ruling.

Just as long as they are prepared to answer to the rest of a society who, don’t agree with their methods. The three who the judge in the UK was writing about are spending 2, 2, and 3 years in prison for their protest which showed utter contempt for other citizens.

You’re upset because I pointed out that the comment about the word “sole” was wrong. Dude, you need to get over yourself.

I didn’t ask a question, I posted a snippet from a ruling from a similar case in the UK. I was set upon by apologists for the fanatics who showed utter contempt for the thousands of people trying to get to the airport by gluing themselves to the loop at YUL, refused to back down, and here we are. These people think that they can bully everyone into doing what they want them to do. They are wrong.

Here is my original comment for reference.

I didn’t even say anything. I just posted the snippet.

That’s an interesting point but I disagree. They treated thousands other people with utter contempt. That is not the act of someone who is morally superior. It’s absolutely disqualifying.

“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.

YOU have appointed yourselves as the SOLE arbiters of…

YOU is collection. The collective have appointed themselves the sole arbiters of…

Do you understand now?

you

/yo͞o,yə/

pronoun

used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.

“are you listening?”

He was referring to them collectively. In English, “you” can refer to one person or a group of people.

What did you think he got wrong?

Sole.