Dr Jordan B. Peterson was right all along, this bill has never been and never will be good for anyone who isn't a leftist or follows/submits to their dogma and blatant attempts at free speech and logic.
The National Post still doesn't get it: the "legal experts" they contacted who were dubious about Shepherd's lawbreaking was one Brenda Cossman @brendacossman who denied all dangers associated with C16 last year http://nationalpost.com/wcm/ec928707-2691-4e05-94f3-5bd1beb51d97 … via @nationalpost
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@scrowder keeps making a move to Texas seem like the right option...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ha. "Denied all dangers". Of course it's dangerous. Thankfully for us in
, SCOTUS understood full well that protecting only 'harmless'' speech is "a mere shadow of freedom".pic.twitter.com/SPCyPvZuzo
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You nailed it then JBP! Despicable and anti-west, illiberal, can it be considered communism yet?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
... The corruption of the National Post was obvious in today’s column- written by someone who has never been published by the NP to my memory.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"The Charter says the exact opposite... 'freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.' If someone launched a legal case against Shepherd, the Charter would be the document most likely to protect her." But she said this had nothing to do with her own thoughts/opinions...
-
She said she was careful not to interject her opinions. I wonder... If the tape is admitted as evidence, might not the plaintiff claim that she has nothing to protect, whereas the other party does have a case for being made to suffer harm? Who knows.. just a layman's thoughts.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So Cossman is to blame b/c some foolish ppl at Laurier misunderstood the bill she has tried so hard to get ppl to accurately understand? Or b/c her explanation of how courts will interpret the law didnt include random non-legal people's interpretations outside a legal setting?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In the NP article, Cossman clearly disagrees with the people at Laurier. So is your problem that while she limited her comments to how courts would interpret the law, you feel she should have considered all random non-legal-experts' possible misunderstandings of the law?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.