End the Lockdown

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
46,354
1,331
113

1616142596067.png

NHS 🤕10 Years to Recover 💰£12 BILLION a Year​

The lockdown was supposed to be about protecting the NHS...

 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
46,354
1,331
113
1616155359743.png

Police Barge Into Terrified 82 Year Old Woman's Home at 9:45pm Because She Had A Cuppa With Friends​

 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
46,354
1,331
113
Bristol: a screech of middle-class entitlement

The clashes in Bristol confirm that the left still doesn’t get the importance of freedom.

Bristol: a screech of middle-class entitlement

BRENDAN O'NEILL

EDITOR

22nd March 2021

Spiked

Let me get this right. People who spent the past year cheering on the Tory government as it enforced the most extraordinary authoritarian clampdown of modern times are now shocked that Britain has become an authoritarian country? That’s the message of the dimwitted violent disturbances in Bristol. ‘Don’t let Britain become a police state!’, cry leftists who pleaded with Boris to turn Britain into a police state. Who raged against ‘Covidiots’ for going to the beach. Who laughed as anti-lockdown protesters were beaten and arrested. Who said ‘Stop moaning’ to anyone who dared to talk about the lockdown’s economic crisis and job losses. These people are now stunned that liberty is disappearing. How dumb are they?

Yesterday evening a protest in Bristol against the Police and Crime Bill turned violent. Youths clashed with cops and burnt police vans. They smashed windows at a police station. ‘Kill the Bill’, they yelled. They’ve been condemned as thugs by Tory MPs. Others, including notable Corbynistas, have said these kinds of destructive skirmishes are inevitable when you create a ‘police state’. But who created this ‘police state’? Boris Johnson’s government, yes, but it was unflinchingly, ably backed by virtually the entire left. From the Labour Party to the leftish commentariat to the self-styled radical set, the only criticism made of Boris is that he didn’t lock down early or hard enough. The oppositional cry of the past 12 months was essentially: ‘Remove more liberty! Extend the house arrest! Close the borders!’ The leftists currently raging against the ‘police state’ are shouting at a monster they helped to create.

Where were they when anti-lockdown protesters were beaten and arrested over the past year? After all, protest has pretty much been banned in lockdown Britain, technically if not literally. How could it be otherwise in a country where for a long period of time it was illegal to meet up with people from other households? And where were these Johnny Come Lately warriors against Tory authoritarianism when people were fined for meeting friends outdoors? When cops swept Hyde Park and other public areas and sent people home for no good reason whatsoever? When people, including some experts, were thrown off social media for allegedly spreading ‘misinformation’? When the Coronavirus Act was passed, robbing us of our fundamental freedoms? We all know where they were: at home, online, cheering it all on.

This disparity between leftists’ shockingly illiberal behaviour over the past year and their sudden newfound discomfort with illiberalism should make us sceptical about the current protests and the support they are receiving in media circles. To me, the Bristol violence smacks of middle-class entitlement. It is less a serious stand against the onerous, illiberal impact of lockdown and more a cry of self-interested rage by sections of society who are determined to protect their rights. On both Clapham Common last week, when police broke up the Sarah Everard vigil, and in Bristol yesterday, what we essentially have are activists and observers saying: ‘Wait – you mean this unprecedented assault on civil liberty also applies to me? It also means I can’t protest?’ They are genuinely alarmed to discover that lockdown isn’t only for the little people.

They are not defending the right to protest. If they were, we would have seen them agitating over the past year against the blanket ban on protest. No, they are defending their right to protest. One of the sad facts of modern Britain is that protest – which is such an essential tool of the powerless and oppressed – has become almost exclusively the domain of the comfortable middle classes. From Remoaner protests against democracy to Extinction Rebellion spectacles, protest is the means through which the chattering classes express their elitist, regressive worldview and put pressure on the establishment to further institutionalise this worldview. The reason the Police and Crime Bill makes some of these people feel uncomfortable is that it seems expressly designed to criminalise these kinds of protests, protests that they approve of, notably disruptive XR-style gatherings.

Surely the lesson of the past year is that we need a consistent, principled approach to the question of liberty. The Police and Crime Bill is an insidious and dangerous threat to the right to protest. It potentially criminalises protests that cause annoyance, with severe penalties. But it is the point of protests to cause annoyance, to make a statement and to make it loudly and firmly. This assault on protest must absolutely be struck down. But it must be struck down in the name of freedom for all, not just freedom for people who believe the ‘right’ thing and organise the ‘right’ kind of protests. The freedom of expression and the freedom of association have taken a severe beating over the past 12 months, with the support of much of the left. As we come out of this nightmare, we need more voices defending liberty for every citizen and every shade of opinion. Those Bristol twats ain’t it.

 

bob the dog

Electoral Member
Aug 14, 2020
885
694
93
Pipelines never needed Gov. assistance until the Liberal funded anti pipeline protestors began interfering

Take Trans mountain for an example, it was being built until the tides foundation got in the way when the last Billion was asked to do another study the owners said enough is enough. Forcing Trudie to buy it because no other company was going to touch the endless money pit with a ten foot pole. the $3.5 Billion project is now what a $15 Billion tax payer project with no end in sight?

"The estimated construction cost for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has ballooned from $5.4 billion to $12.6 billion. " Researchers suggest shelving the project.

Engineers pockets are already full and the $12 billion is the lowest number they think they can get away with making public news. Could see another $5 b in misc expenses to probably never surface.

Typical government mismanagement. Biden's big infrastructure program will be no different.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,199
4,255
113
Moccasin Flats

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)​

Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman
  • 176(1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
    • (a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent an officiant from celebrating a religious or spiritual service or performing any other function in connection with their calling, or
    • (b) knowing that an officiant is about to perform, is on their way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
      • (i) assaults or offers any violence to them, or
      • (ii) arrests them on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process.
  • Marginal note:Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
    (2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  • Marginal note:Idem
    (3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 176
  • 2018, c. 29, s. 13.1
  • 2019, c. 25, s. 59
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
17,661
3,624
113
Twin Moose Creek
officiating clergyman

  • 176(1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who
    • (a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent an officiant from celebrating a religious or spiritual service or performing any other function in connection with their calling, or
    • (b) knowing that an officiant is about to perform, is on their way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
      • (i) assaults or offers any violence to them, or
      • (ii) arrests them on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process.
  • Marginal note:Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
    (2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  • Marginal note:Idem
    (3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  • R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 176
  • 2018, c. 29, s. 13.1
  • 2019, c. 25, s. 59
Check out the Ezra twitter where he posted a video of a Polish alderman kicking the cops out of a Calgary Polish Catholic church calling them Nazi's and the Gestapo
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave