Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
In Ontario police can now pull you over to ask why you are not home
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
Apr 17, 2021 15:03:29   #
soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca
 
https://dailyhive.com/toronto/police-stop-pedestrians-drivers-ask-why-out

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 15:16:04   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
JohnFrim wrote:
As a resident of Ontario I don't see this as a problem. The law says to stay home, so if you are out on the road you MAY be breaking the law. If there is a bone to be picked it is with the stay at home order, not the authorization for police to stop you. BTW, this is not the first time this has been implemented in Ontario, so nothing new, really.

I don't expect it will affect me in the slightest... because for the most part I follow the rules. And I believe the stay at home orders make sense... because a bunch of idiots don't know how to follow the rules that were in place BEFORE the strict stay at home orders!!! These idiots bring it upon themselves as well as others. And some of these idiots are close friends. And yes, I have told them they are idiots for not following the rules!
As a resident of Ontario I don't see this as a pro... (show quote)


Soviets and Nazis had such policies as well.
So I guess there is no problem if they did it.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 15:19:47   #
JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
 
Architect1776 wrote:
Soviets and Nazis had such policies as well.
So I guess there is no problem if they did it.


And I am sure that when you were growing up you got the occasional reprimand or even spanking for breaking your parents' rules (that I know you thought were overbearing).

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2021 16:04:24   #
pendennis
 
JohnFrim wrote:
You conveniently accept certain rules/laws/regulations while complaining about others. As a simple example, many countries do not have speed limits on some of their roads; yet you think it is OK to limit your speed in America. Did you object when back in the late 70s the speed limits were reduced to 55? More importantly, did you obey the law back then?

You undoubtedly have accepted body scans and luggage X-rays at airport, as well as limits to the import of goods from abroad when you travel (e.g., alcohol and goods value limits for different lengths of time out of country). I have not heard you complain about different "age of majority" regulations between states. At one time the legal voting age was 21; did you accept that when you were younger?

The current COVID restrictions are not even like the examples I gave above in that these are temporary measures designed to get the country back to "normal" faster. I have no problem with that. I still believe and feel that I live in a free country.
You conveniently accept certain rules/laws/regulat... (show quote)


As always, you miss the point. It's not about accepting scans, x-rays, etc., to get on an airplane. In the U.S. you cede rights to privacy to get on the plane.

You throw out several canards, including age limits on voting rights and speed limits, which have absolutely no relevancy as to the 4th Amendment right to privacy. The voting age in the U.S. was 21, Congress lowered it legally in the late 1960's.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled numerous times, that being in an automobile is not cause to be pulled over by the police unless they have probable cause to do so.

You have no inherent human freedoms in Canada; they're at the beck and call of Parliament and a runaway judiciary. Your courts routinely ignore private property rights, and you have no real freedom of speech. Your courts are hardly bound by precedence, and your Parliament can define, redefine, or outright ignore, rights on a whim. Your so-called constitution is really a misnomer, since it doesn't limit the powers of government.

However, you hardly have a corner on individual rights suppression. Your forefathers in England taught you well. We just had the good sense to toss the bastards out in 1776.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 16:21:52   #
Rose42
 
JohnFrim wrote:
As a resident of Ontario I don't see this as a problem. The law says to stay home, so if you are out on the road you MAY be breaking the law. If there is a bone to be picked it is with the stay at home order, not the authorization for police to stop you. BTW, this is not the first time this has been implemented in Ontario, so nothing new, really.

I don't expect it will affect me in the slightest... because for the most part I follow the rules. And I believe the stay at home orders make sense... because a bunch of idiots don't know how to follow the rules that were in place BEFORE the strict stay at home orders!!! These idiots bring it upon themselves as well as others. And some of these idiots are close friends. And yes, I have told them they are idiots for not following the rules!
As a resident of Ontario I don't see this as a pro... (show quote)


I also read that there are police departments that won’t pull people over because thats going too far. It looks like there is a growing discontent in Canada

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 16:38:40   #
WNYShooter Loc: WNY
 
JohnFrim wrote:
I still believe and feel that I live in a free country.


Yeah, just don't get caught in Canada calling a man who dresses like a female a man, or refering to your biologically female child as ‘daughter’. You can get jail time for that.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 17:05:45   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
WNYShooter wrote:
Yeah, just don't get caught in Canada calling a man who dresses like a female a man, or refering to your biologically female child as ‘daughter’. You can get jail time for that.


Can't argue with you about that, that's because I don't argue with anyone who is obviously insane.

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2021 17:41:39   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
JohnFrim wrote:
And I am sure that when you were growing up you got the occasional reprimand or even spanking for breaking your parents' rules (that I know you thought were overbearing).


Nope

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 18:50:24   #
soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca
 
JohnFrim wrote:
And I am sure that when you were growing up you got the occasional reprimand or even spanking for breaking your parents' rules (that I know you thought were overbearing).


Americans have different attitudes, we cherish freedom and liberty

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 19:39:04   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
soba1 wrote:
Americans have different attitudes, we cherish freedom and liberty



We are NOT subjects, we are free citizens.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 20:04:48   #
Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay
 
soba1 wrote:
Americans have different attitudes, we cherish freedom and liberty


Don't fool yourself, it’s all an illusion.

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2021 20:37:47   #
JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
 
soba1 wrote:
Americans have different attitudes, we cherish freedom and liberty


You certainly are correct about the different attitude.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 21:09:08   #
thom w Loc: San Jose, CA
 
JohnFrim wrote:
You certainly are correct about the different attitude.


I don't believe that any American who wasn't insecure would attack Canadians just because they are Canadians.

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 21:11:34   #
JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.
 
Rose42 wrote:
I also read that there are police departments that won’t pull people over because thats going too far. It looks like there is a growing discontent in Canada

This is to Rose and penndennis.

Of course there is discontent. We are learning from y’all. That is truly unfortunate.

I have lived in the US and UK as well as Canada. Any differences in rights and freedoms were totally invisible/inconsequential. You can argue about Constitution vs Charter of Rights and trivial differences in legal systems, but it is all semantics. None of it makes any significant difference to the average law abiding citizen.

Do you want an example of stupid? In the Chauvin trial the defence witness raised the “possibility” of carbon monoxide playing a role in Floyd’s death. He did not have to prove anything about it. The prosecution countered with tests for CO levels in Floyd’s blood after the issue was raised, yet the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible. I understand the procedures/process/timing argument for that, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Are you pleased that the jury can now debate whether CO could have played a role when the blood tests showed it was not a factor? If exculpatory evidence were to arise after closing remarks but before a jury retired to debate a murder charge against you, would you not want it to be heard?

I don’t know if Canada has the same stupid law, but you will never convince me that your legal system is perfect or better than ours. At least we don’t go sentencing people to 300 years in prison or allowing for law suits in the millions of dollars for nonsense (a woman suing McDonalds for hot coffee spilled on her crotch... while driving; I guess it ruined her “career”).

Reply
Apr 17, 2021 21:27:36   #
Rose42
 
JohnFrim wrote:
This is to Rose and penndennis.

Of course there is discontent. We are learning from y’all. That is truly unfortunate.


That's a cop out not to mention dishonest. Canadians have their own minds...or are you saying they don't?

Quote:
I have lived in the US and UK as well as Canada. Any differences in rights and freedoms were totally invisible/inconsequential. You can argue about Constitution vs Charter of Rights and trivial differences in legal systems, but it is all semantics. None of it makes any significant difference to the average law abiding citizen.


I have lived in Europe. The differences and attitudes were indeed visible though in normal day to day life of the average person it would not be. In your country there is quite a difference between the rights of criminals and victims especially if you defend yourself - even without a gun. Criminals are treated far better than they are here - except in places like California.

Quote:
Do you want an example of stupid? In the Chauvin trial the defence witness raised the “possibility” of carbon monoxide playing a role in Floyd’s death. He did not have to prove anything about it. The prosecution countered with tests for CO levels in Floyd’s blood after the issue was raised, yet the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible. I understand the procedures/process/timing argument for that, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Are you pleased that the jury can now debate whether CO could have played a role when the blood tests showed it was not a factor? If exculpatory evidence were to arise after closing remarks but before a jury retired to debate a murder charge against you, would you not want it to be heard?
Do you want an example of stupid? In the Chauvin t... (show quote)


Yes its stupid. A lot of stupid things happen here. One reason is we have way too many lawyers per capita and who wins often comes down to who has the best lawyer or the most money, regardless of right or wrong. This country is sue happy.

Quote:
I don’t know if Canada has the same stupid law, but you will never convince me that your legal system is perfect or better than ours. At least we don’t go sentencing people to 300 years in prison or allowing for law suits in the millions of dollars for nonsense (a woman suing McDonalds for hot coffee spilled on her crotch... while driving; I guess it ruined her “career”).


Who says our system is perfect? However, I am a firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty". Easy to say but not so easy in practice sometimes. Still, due process has to apply to all or it applies to none.

No country has a perfect system.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.