Was Trudeau justified in breaking the law?

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,904
2,873
113
Olympus Mons
So there you have it

The same great minds that do not understand science also do not understand law

what a shocker
So there you have it. The moron that asked who the surety was is suddenly a law expert.
And as far as science goes, I'll pit my knowledge against yours any f*cking day of the week. Some of us don't get our "science" from the news media.
 
Last edited:

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
I guess law is like science - it means anything a really stupid person wants it to mean.

Feelings

That's what nattys believe in
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,904
2,873
113
Olympus Mons
I guess law is like science - it means anything a really stupid person wants it to mean.
Exactly, like how 32% somehow equals 97%.
Feelings

That's what nattys believe in
Says the mathematically challenged ALT-left loser that "feels" like 32% is greater than 97%. Says the ALT-left loser that "feels" like 32% is virtually every scientist in the world. Says the ALT-left loser that "feels" like the melting ice sheet that didn't exist 1000-1100 years ago is spelling our doom. Says the ALT-left loser who has a major f*cking problem with oil and pipelines but bitches about the high price of gas.

But no, you believe in magic and call it science. You believe science is inaccurate climate models that have never come close to predicting jack shit.
In fact, even the IPCC is no longer on your side you friggin' moron.
At a press briefing, scientists said that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming projections predicted temperature increases 4 times higher than what was actually observed, and, thus, such models should in no way be used as a foundation for policy changes.
Furthermore, the IPCC had conceded this point in 2018, saying that climate change models are incapable of perfectly predicting long-term climate change and should not be used as a definitive basis for estimating long-term temperature changes.
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” the IPCC’s 2018 report states.
These experts warn the UN that current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”


But nah, you'd rather get your "science" from Greta and the leftist media.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,904
2,873
113
Olympus Mons
your anger is hilarious
Your gross ignorance, sadly, is no longer amusing. I bet you didn't even read the quoted part. It must be awful having such low self-esteem that you can't even admit when you were wrong about something, or even read something that won't confirm your bias.
Willfully blind = willfully stupid.
Your ALT-left pseudo-science is no match for reality and actual science. Just as Canadian law doesn't bend to your moral relativism.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,511
2,200
113
I guess law is like science - it means anything a really stupid person wants it to mean.
Feelings
That's what nattys believe in

Climate change denier does not like stupid people


Oh, So now we are all the way back at De nile in science terms are we?

UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball (PhD, climate science) wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAIN



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08...ll-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/

Gee poor hoid, talk about stupid racist nazis. LOL, your Legal and scientific ass Is OFFICIALLY KICKED 'dolphie.


So, keep talkin'...I need to work your heels in a little further to get past your dentures...
 
Last edited:

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
98
48
Alberta
Which. Which law was broken
Section 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or
(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,
is guilty of
(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Marginal note:Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,
(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;
(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or
(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-139.html
Any questions Flosshole?


Hehehehehe....
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
22,091
3,199
113
B.C.
So there you have it. The moron that asked who the surety was is suddenly a law expert.
And as far as science goes, I'll pit my knowledge against yours any f*cking day of the week. Some of us don't get our "science" from the news media.
Yes remember him parroting the CBC story about drought conditions in B.C. and how we were in for another record wildfire year . That sure came to pass .
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
2
36
Yes remember him parroting the CBC story about drought conditions in B.C. and how we were in for another record wildfire year . That sure came to pass .
Very fortunate for the BC NDP

They seemed to have it pegged. Budgetwise they were right on the money
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,904
2,873
113
Olympus Mons
Climate change denier does not like stupid people
Good to see you admit you're stupid. Stupid people refuse to read facts. At a press briefing, scientists said that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming projections predicted temperature increases 4 times higher than what was actually observed, and, thus, such models should in no way be used as a foundation for policy changes.
Furthermore, the IPCC had conceded this point in 2018, saying that climate change models are incapable of perfectly predicting long-term climate change and should not be used as a definitive basis for estimating long-term temperature changes.
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” the IPCC’s 2018 report states.
These experts warn the UN that current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”


So here you've been, pushing the "climate crisis" narrative only to find out that the organization that started the push admitted they were dead wrong, and your response is the usual "White natty, climate change denier". I guess the IPCC are a bunch of White natty "climate crisis" deniers now, right? So much for "the science being settled". :lol: :lol: But you'll still keep believing it has been settled because you have to. You haven't got the level of maturity or self-esteem to admit when you've been bamboozled. Don't worry Hoid, people exponentially more intelligent than you were fooled by the claims too.