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 -  (2 children)

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

[–]kiwiheretic[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

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.