Canada Kicks Ass
Elections Canada censors book critical of Turdeau

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6



BeaverFever @ Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:25 pm

N_Fiddledog wrote:
# 2 best-seller: The Libranos:

Image

But but but How can it be a best seller if its been silenced and censored? The total lack of even basic reasoning skills on the right here never ceases to amaze me.

   



fifeboy @ Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:02 pm

N_Fiddledog wrote:
# 2 best-seller: The Libranos:

Image

What the hell, Canadian Tire has Twelve rolls of Purex butt wipe on for $10.99! Why pay more?

   



BeaverFever @ Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:54 pm

BeaverFever wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
# 2 best-seller: The Libranos:

Image

But but but How can it be a best seller if its been silenced and censored? The total lack of even basic reasoning skills on the right here never ceases to amaze me.


* conservative crickets *

   



Freakinoldguy @ Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:23 pm

BeaverFever wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
# 2 best-seller: The Libranos:

Image

But but but How can it be a best seller if its been silenced and censored? The total lack of even basic reasoning skills on the right here never ceases to amaze me.


* conservative crickets *


Sorry I didn't know you expected a response or I would have been here sooner.

And, yes you're right. This technically isn't censorship but it is harassment and that harassment has a purpose.

Whomever filed the complaint obviously knew that Elections Canada would react in the most negative way possible towards Ezra Levant given his history of less than friendly relations with the department .

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politi ... federation

So, if all went well for the complainant the interrogators from Elections Canada would cow him into submission with their threats and intimidation tactics which, would in the future make him think twice about publishing anything else that wasn't complimentary to the PM or Liberal Gov't.

So, if it's the terminology that's keeping you up at night don't worry, you can call it harassment if you think that's a better descriptor than censorship. [B-o]

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:46 am

Punishing people for breaking the law isn’t harassment. The only behaviour they are trying to intimidate is unauthorized third party advertising during an election, which is explicitly illegal.

By your logic if someone in Ontario is investigated for robbing a bank and donating the proceeds to the Ontario liberal party, he should complain that Doug Ford is trying to “cow him into submission with their threats and intimidation tactics which, would in the future make him think twice about” making campaign donations

Thanks for the link detailing all the illegal campaign donations various conservatives have made.

   



Freakinoldguy @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:24 am

BeaverFever wrote:
Punishing people for breaking the law isn’t harassment. The only behaviour they are trying to intimidate is unauthorized third party advertising during an election, which is explicitly illegal.

By your logic if someone in Ontario is investigated for robbing a bank and donating the proceeds to the Ontario liberal party, he should complain that Doug Ford is trying to “cow him into submission with their threats and intimidation tactics which, would in the future make him think twice about” making campaign donations

Thanks for the link detailing all the illegal campaign donations various conservatives have made.


You're welcome, especially since it's public knowledge and anybody with a clue about Google could have found it.

But back to the topic at hand. Apparently you've watched the video and are fine with the lack of transparency by Elections Canada and refusal of them to allow the accused to face or even know his accuser.

Why am I not surprised?

BTW loved you analogy. Not many people would or could try and equate bank robbery to election advertising. Oh, but a quick question since you've watched the video. Why do the Elections Canada investigators talk more about the "book" than the signs since the books publication is perfectly legal and has minimal bearing on the alleged criminal act, which was placing illegal "campaign" signs out during an election?

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:41 am

Freakinoldguy wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
Punishing people for breaking the law isn’t harassment. The only behaviour they are trying to intimidate is unauthorized third party advertising during an election, which is explicitly illegal.

By your logic if someone in Ontario is investigated for robbing a bank and donating the proceeds to the Ontario liberal party, he should complain that Doug Ford is trying to “cow him into submission with their threats and intimidation tactics which, would in the future make him think twice about” making campaign donations

Thanks for the link detailing all the illegal campaign donations various conservatives have made.


You're welcome, especially since it's public knowledge and anybody with a clue about Google could have found it.

But back to the topic at hand. Apparently you've watched the video and are fine with the lack of transparency by Elections Canada and refusal of them to allow the accused to face or even know his accuser.

Why am I not surprised?

BTW loved you analogy. Not many people would or could try and equate bank robbery to election advertising. Oh, but a quick question since you've watched the video. Why do the Elections Canada investigators talk more about the "book" than the signs since the books publication is perfectly legal and has minimal bearing on the alleged criminal act, which was placing illegal "campaign" signs out during an election?


I guess you didn’t catch my sarcasm in thanking you for the laundry list of right-wing election cheats.

A crime is a crime.

What makes yo even thin there’s an “accuser”? His advertising ing is out there for everyone including elections canada to see. The “accuser” if there even is one is irrelevant and is just another red herring for the gullible. . This isn’t a lawsuit where an individual is claiming to be personally wronged If I get arrested for robbing a bank it doesn’t matter who tipped off the police the tipster or informant isn’t the “accuser” if there even is one isn’t something that I’m entitled to know.

And let’s do another reality check here. He’s facing a maximum possible fine of $5,500. He’s hardly being dragged to the gallows. Such a small penalty is not “intimidating “ Ezra or his ilk from committing more of these crimes in the future. He’s already received several times that amount in free publicity and donations from suckers by distorting this whole affair and playing his favourite phoney victim game.

Also if Alberta’s election commissioner is also investigating Levant for similar crimes in the Alberta election how is that Trudeau’s doing? Trudeau isn’t the premier of Alberta and election commissioners are independent bodies. Also note that in that case the investigation was in response to a complaint from Elections Alberta, not some secret accuser as you would have us believe.

   



CharlesAnthony @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:15 am

Eazy LeVant: "Hey, EleXion Xanadu! I have a great idea!"
EleXion Xanadu: "What is it now?!?"
Eazy LeVant: "Your crew will "censor" my book and the...."
EleXion Xanadu: "What?? You want my crew to censor your book?? How the hell are they supposed to do that???"
Eazy LeVant: "No. Not censor. Your crew will WINKcensorWINK my book...."
EleXion Xanadu: "Wait.... that still makes no sense.. what do you want them to do?!?"
Eazy LeVant: "Nothing. My crew will make sure that the audience thinks my book is being censored."
EleXion Xanadu: "Oh! I get it... you are trying to pull 1 of those tricks... "
Eazy LeVant: "Yup. The tard-nation will get all excited and...."
EleXion Xanadu: "....you will sell more books. Okey, dokey....... how much in the brown bad??"

   



Tricks @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:32 am

Freakinoldguy wrote:
You're welcome, especially since it's public knowledge and anybody with a clue about Google could have found it.
I gotta say, that is hilarious coming from you.

   



Freakinoldguy @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:41 am

Tricks wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
You're welcome, especially since it's public knowledge and anybody with a clue about Google could have found it.
I gotta say, that is hilarious coming from you.


At least your're consistent. No matter the topic or who's having the discussion you just can't can't keep from insulting people, can you?

Well, at least now I know what I'm dealing with so I'll temper my expectations about your civility in the future. [B-o]

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:55 am

If an independent agency that’s not even under the PMs control issues a small fine to Ezra Levant for breaking the law its still because Trudeau ordered it.

If an independent provincial agency in CONSERVATIVE ALBERTA not even under federal jurisdiction ALSO issues a small fine to Ezra for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING there, it’s still because Trudeau ordered it.

If Ezra gets caught cheating on his taxes and the CRA comes after him it’s because Trudeau ordered it. If Ezra shoots a cop and the police give chase it’s because Trudeau is persecuting him. If Ezra drops his coffee mug and it smashes it’s because Trudeau used his dark powers to make it fall to the floor.

Conservative logic. No brains required

   



Freakinoldguy @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:01 pm

BeaverFever wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
Punishing people for breaking the law isn’t harassment. The only behaviour they are trying to intimidate is unauthorized third party advertising during an election, which is explicitly illegal.

By your logic if someone in Ontario is investigated for robbing a bank and donating the proceeds to the Ontario liberal party, he should complain that Doug Ford is trying to “cow him into submission with their threats and intimidation tactics which, would in the future make him think twice about” making campaign donations

Thanks for the link detailing all the illegal campaign donations various conservatives have made.


You're welcome, especially since it's public knowledge and anybody with a clue about Google could have found it.

But back to the topic at hand. Apparently you've watched the video and are fine with the lack of transparency by Elections Canada and refusal of them to allow the accused to face or even know his accuser.

Why am I not surprised?

BTW loved you analogy. Not many people would or could try and equate bank robbery to election advertising. Oh, but a quick question since you've watched the video. Why do the Elections Canada investigators talk more about the "book" than the signs since the books publication is perfectly legal and has minimal bearing on the alleged criminal act, which was placing illegal "campaign" signs out during an election?


I guess you didn’t catch my sarcasm in thanking you for the laundry list of right-wing election cheats.

A crime is a crime.

What makes yo even thin there’s an “accuser”? His advertising ing is out there for everyone including elections canada to see. The “accuser” if there even is one is irrelevant and is just another red herring for the gullible. . This isn’t a lawsuit where an individual is claiming to be personally wronged If I get arrested for robbing a bank it doesn’t matter who tipped off the police the tipster or informant isn’t the “accuser” if there even is one isn’t something that I’m entitled to know.

And let’s do another reality check here. He’s facing a maximum possible fine of $5,500. He’s hardly being dragged to the gallows. Such a small penalty is not “intimidating “ Ezra or his ilk from committing more of these crimes in the future. He’s already received several times that amount in free publicity and donations from suckers by distorting this whole affair and playing his favourite phoney victim game.

Also if Alberta’s election commissioner is also investigating Levant for similar crimes in the Alberta election how is that Trudeau’s doing? Trudeau isn’t the premier of Alberta and election commissioners are independent bodies. Also note that in that case the investigation was in response to a complaint from Elections Alberta, not some secret accuser as you would have us believe.


The reason I think that there was an accuser is because when he asked the investigators about the complaint they danced around the subject rather than saying there was no accuser and that it was a standard Elections Canada investigation.

So did they initiate the action against Levant themselves or did they receive a complaint?


Quote:
As we prepare for the next election, Elections Canada is coordinating with other federal organizations that contribute to election security, including:

The Commissioner of Canada Elections, whose office is charged with enforcing the Canada Elections Act and investigating complaints about possible offences under the Act
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE)
The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS)
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
The RCMP
Public Safety Canada
Global Affairs Canada
Canada's National Security and Intelligence Advisor
We meet regularly with these agencies to share information; discuss roles, responsibilities and protocols under potential scenarios; and plan communications.

Collaboration is not new for Elections Canada. It's been our practice to work with national security agencies before each election to plan how we respond to potential incidents in the election period.

In parallel to Elections Canada's collaboration described here, the Government of Canada has introduced other initiatives to safeguard elections


https://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx? ... gal&lang=e

My guess is that we'll never know because they seem to be reluctant to give out that information.

As for the Alberta investigation. Levant was let off with a reprimand but there's a bit of a difference in the cases. The Alberta case was using a billboard to directly attack a member of the Legislature whereas the Federal case was in aid of publishing and promoting his book. A fact which if Levant and his lawyer are to be believed is perfectly legal.

Do I really give a shit about Ezra Levant? Well the answer is actually no. But, since i'm not a fan of anyone including Levant being dragged into an interrogation room and getting questioned by a Gov't Dept without the benefit of being read his charter rights and being given the right to see the accusations levied against him. A fact which means I'm going to be less than enthused that a gov't agency would do this to anyone no matter of their political affiliation. And no, the letter he received isn't the complaint it's a veiled demand for him to appear before the interrogators.

So, like I said before, if he actually has this second part of the video which he claims is even worse than the first half then it's going to get very interesting. But one thing people are right about is the fact that he's playing it to the hilt but what neither you, I or anyone else on this forum can tell is if it's for personal gain or just because he hates Trudeau, Elections Canada or the Liberal gov't that much.

   



BeaverFever @ Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:05 pm

Freakinoldguy wrote:

The reason I think that there was an accuser is because when he asked the investigators about the complaint they danced around the subject rather than saying there was no accuser and that it was a standard Elections Canada investigation.

So did they initiate the action against Levant themselves or did they receive a complaint?


It’s totally irrelevant and makes absolutely no difference whether the authorities received a complaint from a member the public or whether they saw the authorities saw the public advertising themselves. It’s public advertising for christ sake you really need it spelled out how the authorities of wind of your crime when the crime was literally advertising to the whole country?

Besides, it not like a rape accusation where he’s entitled to know who he’s accused of raping. He’s not being accused of wronging a specific individual so there is no official “accuser”. other than the authorities. Maybe they got a a complaint,maybe they didn’t. Maybe the complaint was anonymous maybe it wasn’t. It’s irrelevant. The alleged offence is a violation of the the Election Act , not an offence against another person. How are you not understanding this?

Quote:
As we prepare for the next election, Elections Canada is coordinating with other federal organizations that contribute to election security, including:

The Commissioner of Canada Elections, whose office is charged with enforcing the Canada Elections Act and investigating complaints about possible offences under the Act
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE)
The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS)
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
The RCMP
Public Safety Canada
Global Affairs Canada
Canada's National Security and Intelligence Advisor
We meet regularly with these agencies to share information; discuss roles, responsibilities and protocols under potential scenarios; and plan communications.

Collaboration is not new for Elections Canada. It's been our practice to work with national security agencies before each election to plan how we respond to potential incidents in the election period.

In parallel to Elections Canada's collaboration described here, the Government of Canada has introduced other initiatives to safeguard elections


https://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx? ... gal&lang=e

My guess is that we'll never know because they seem to be reluctant to give out that information.

As for the Alberta investigation. Levant was let off with a reprimand but there's a bit of a difference in the cases. The Alberta case was using a billboard to directly attack a member of the Legislature whereas the Federal case was in aid of publishing and promoting his book. A fact which if Levant and his lawyer are to be believed is perfectly legal.

Do I really give a shit about Ezra Levant? Well the answer is actually no. But, since i'm not a fan of anyone including Levant being dragged into an interrogation room and getting questioned by a Gov't Dept without the benefit of being read his charter rights and being given the right to see the accusations levied against him. A fact which means I'm going to be less than enthused that a gov't agency would do this to anyone no matter of their political affiliation. And no, the letter he received isn't the complaint it's a veiled demand for him to appear before the interrogators.

So, like I said before, if he actually has this second part of the video which he claims is even worse than the first half then it's going to get very interesting. But one thing people are right about is the fact that he's playing it to the hilt but what neither you, I or anyone else on this forum can tell is if it's for personal gain or just because he hates Trudeau, Elections Canada or the Liberal gov't that much.[/quote]

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6