you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HiddenFox 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I'm 90% sure is was causing a disturbance, counseling to cause a disturbance and disobeying a lawful order.

[–]AntarchomachusAnarchist 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Sounds exactly like the kind of vague non-sensical sounding charges I was expecting

[–]monkeymagic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

in the US the blanket charge cops use (and have for decades) is disorderly conduct. the way the law is written it can mean almost anything.

[–]HiddenFox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

^

[–]kiwiheretic[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Like conspiring to honk the horns of trucks? Would the courts have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she gave the order for the honking of horns or just that they saw her honk her horn at least one time in her life?

However there may be a point there. What was on the order? Was it prohibiting trucks from being within so many kilometers of parliament or something like that?

[–]_PENCILDICK_ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the courts dont need to prove anything any more.. canada is now under martial law.. you have the right to continue breathing, if you obey.

soon, the police will have the legal right to shoot anyone.

count my words.

[–]HiddenFox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm thinking it's along the lines of: - government declared protest illegal - she tells people to stay and protest - she stays and protests herself

Tbh I only heard it in passing on the news so don't quote me on the specifics.