April 19th, 2024

People don’t have the right to disrupt lives because they don’t get their way

By Lethbridge Herald on February 19, 2022.


Just to clear up any confusion as to whether the Alberta highway blockade was a lawful or unlawful protest:

Under the Charter, “Canadians have the right to protest – regardless of whether the cause is left, right, centre, trucker, whatever. 

But any time that interferes more than minimally and temporarily with the rights of others – and particularly when it moves from persuasion by words to physical interference – it ceases to enjoy the protection of the law.” (stole that from the Globe and Mail because it sums it up nicely). 

 In addition, in Alberta we have Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act (which the UCP brought in). This Act protects essential infrastructure from damage or interference caused by blockades, protests or similar activities, which can cause significant public safety, social, economic and environmental consequences.

And it legally defines essential infrastructure to include highways. As such the blockade of Highway 4 at Coutts was unlawful and is not saved by s. 2 of the Charter. 

I am not a fan of Trudeau and I did not vote for him, but he openly ran his platform on vaccine mandates and was elected. How is anyone surprised that he continues supports vaccine mandates? 

That is how democracy works. Just because you don’t get your way or have the party you wanted elected does not give you a legal right to throw a tantrum and screw up everyone else’s lives and the economy.

Grace Richmond


Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, was enacted by the UCP government in a hysterical response to a 12-hour rail disruption in 2020. This along with the War Room and the Allan Commission were designed to chill Indigenous and environmental activism. All have been embarrassing failures.

But when an intentional blockade of critical infrastructure actually occured, the notion of enforcing the law suddenly vanished. Why?

One reason might be because Bill 1 is likely unconstitutional and the government does not want to test it. But the government claims this decision is up to the RCMP and municipal police forces. So, who decided not to enforce this law?

Or, perhaps, the bias in enacting the Bill was reflected in its enforcement. In other words, the law wasn’t designed to be used on good ol’ boys. Ironically, the Edmonton police were said to have threatened counter-protesters with charges under this law for blocking a convoy for an hour.

Given the apparent bias in intention when enacting this law, and the subsequent reluctance in enforcing it on ‘very fine people’, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act should be repealed.

Fedup Conservative

In Edmonton it was a case of the police wanting everyone who didn’t support it to stay home and let the police handle it. In other words let the police do their job. You get both sides fighting back and forth and it becomes hard for the police to figure out whose who. I think the police were right.


Good point, and I agree, Fedup. But why trot out the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act for one group and not the other? It’s this selective bias I’m trying to understand.


belittle the issue(s) as you wish, but the central point is about the fundamental right to one’s body: it is not about what party got elected. i expect you actually know that, but have just chosen to be foolish. it is further imperative to acknowledge that just because a majority of people want something to be so, it does not mean they get trample on the rights of the minority. i expect you actually understand the difference between a free society with a democratic system (despite that we are a constitutional monarchy), and a tyranny of the majority.
that the libs were elected because they “ran on vax mandates” does not give a govt the right to usurp the right of a person to their body. it also does not give a govt the right to trample on the right of each to their conscience. vax mandates coerced and forced people to either take vaxes they did not wish to take, or be hit with a bevvy of autocratic consequences that included creating two classes of citizens: an equal class with full privileges relative to others that chose to vax, and an unequal, effectively disenfranchised class that exercised their fundamental right to their body by choosing to not vax. that latter underclass of citizens faced consequences that included not being able to socialise like those choosing to vax, not being able to travel, and loss of their jobs.
i understand that people have their preferences and their beliefs; a basic expectation in a free society. however, what is further a basic expectation in a free society is that we can have our differences without being marginalised/consequenced into a lesser, disenfranchised class. most significantly, we each must have the right to choice with regard to our body, without interference, threat, coercion, and what amounts to force. do we not agree that our rights end at the body of another? scary if we do not. no one has the right to expect that another will take (or ingest) or not take (or not ingest) something because another person or the state prefers or demands that one does.
what i have been observing, and increasingly so, is that people are willing to accept infringements/abridgements on rights and freedoms SO LONG AS IT SUPPORTS THEIR POSITION/PREFERENCE ON AN ISSUE. we had a good number of people that were more than fine with our police breaking the law with regard to their actions vis a vis shannon phillips: those folks were opposed to the ndp, and opposed to shannon getting in the way of anything that curtailed their yahoo approach to what we have left of nature around here. they supported breaking the law because breaking the law supported the outcomes they wanted. with regard to the ignorant vax mandates, we again have a large number that support infringement on the bodies of others, and the snuffing out of the conscience of others, because it supports their preferences. while that might seem acceptable to people in the immediate, one better know it will prove otherwise in the long term. that folks, is far more totalitarian and autocratic than democratic and free. but, then again, i expect you actually know that, too.

Last edited 2 years ago by biff

No one is holding anyone down to ingest anything, which YOU actually also KNOW, speaking of that, and no one cares about what you do with your body, but if you choose to eschew protection, ostensibly because you don’t trust “big pharma” or cringe at animal torture (being a super-serious vegetarian apparently), you are also eschewing SCIENCE, not just “conscience.”
And is “conscience” not the standard defence for religion actually, that seminal delusion for the “big lie” that currently threatens to take down American democracy itself? Not your usual wheelhouse but again, apparently your new cohort…
And then as an attempt to rationalize the irrational, you deny the scientific designation of a pandemic altogether? Classic “oh what tangled webs you weave….” brings us back to a) you’re scared of needles or b)classic ODD.


you are proving to be a piece of work. you are trampling on conscience as though it is meaningless – it is a right, and rightfully so. your obsession with my diet is kind of scary. just to say, there is a massive difference between killing for food, when done humanely, and torturing/inflicting pain and misery over a period of time so as to gain “knowledge.” that is not eschewing science – a science you know nothing about really, as you are not anywhere near the source of info, and nor is anyone else, save for whatever pharma chooses to share from their secretive and proprietary dungeons.
as for your first point: when one is forced choiced to either take a covid vax or lose their livelihood, that is quite akin to being held down; ditto when one choosing to not covid vax is rendered a lesser class of citizen such that they do not have the same rights as those “choosing” to vax. when a govt gets to control one’s choice around one’s body, govt thus owns one’s body; when govt gets to override one’s conscience, well, we have totalitarian and autocratic govt.
really, are you able to think rationally? your rambling take on conscience really makes me wonder about your state of mind. pardon me for being a little upset here, but conscience is the basis upon which we either conduct ourselves as humane. compassionate humans, or whether we behave as sick, nasty, psychopathic humans. what kind of a person dismisses conscience? reread the sentence that began this paragraph for the answer.


As usual, you are being disingenuous. The reason I “ramble on” about “conscience” is obviously because it’s your latest “reason” and because it strikes me as grasping at straws because it’s usually trotted out to justify the delusion of religion.
None of your arguments are rational UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, and to deflect that, you come up with the profound lie that “there are no circumstances.” Right. None of these epidemiologists or medical people are telling the truth and the sky isn’t blue. You may as well deny the sky as deny a virus for gods’ sake. And all these anti-vax martyrs for what cause exactly, freedom?! How old are you all already? Just get vaccinated and quit acting like selfish children who want attention constantly. It’s by far the worst thing about social media, all those idiots in Ottawa holding up their phones before a line of police, totally immersed in their own inflated, obsessive self-regard, imagining their moment online without any grasp of any context whatsoever, like WHY exactly the hundreds of police are even THERE or why THEY are either for that matter.


i have stated the reasons for my choice to not covid vax so very many times, from the get-go, and without contradiction. while we each have the right to choose to use pharma products, we also each have the right to choose not to use pharma products: and, for whichever reasons we each have. those reasons do not require your support or approval, and nor do they require the support or approval of any other body. we each have the right to our beliefs, and to our conscience where one has as much.
furthermore, no body has the right to impose their beliefs, desires and preferences on/into the body of another. to that end, no body has the right to create conditions that mean to coerce, mandate or force a body to take/ingest or to not take/ingest that which a free body chooses, so long as one’s choices do not infringe on the rights of another.
as for rights, it has long been determined that the rights of each end at the body of another. as such, we return to the previous two sentences. and, that makes sense, unless one desires a totalitarian/autocratic system, whereby govt gets to have ownership over one’s body: and should that come to be acceptable, govt then has the right to snuff out one’s conscience. thus,as noted, we have the grounds for totalitarian/autocratic despotism.
the remarkable thing through all of this covid is how so many people that have chosen to vax feel it is their right to force everyone to vax… or else. why have you vaxed – to feel/be protected, no? (i am sure we can add what most everyone has noted: “so i can travel.” yup, those wonderful self sacrificing folk that felt it was a fair thing to trip about internationally during a “pandemic”, the same type that “believe” they vaxed for others; that, quite pathetically, believe they have “sacrificed.” LOL). do the vaxes work? well, if you are such staunch proponents of them – such that you would favour the trampling of the right of each to own their body, the right of each to their conscience, the right to say NO to serial animal torture – what exactly have you each taken?


here is another remarkable thing. the long love of my life double-dosed. she did so given her underlying set of health concerns as per the advice of our doctor. as you know, i did not vax. she uses pharma regularly; i do not use them at all, for about 5 years now. we both are repulsed by animal torture, for any reason. however, she sees no alternative, other than to wish that laws would stop pharma from torturing animals and force them to take a decent path.
my point is this: we did not fight over our choices; she did not tell me to vax, or else; i did not tell her to not vax, or else. she has survived through 2 years of this crap just fine; i have survived through 2 years of this just fine ( i got a little bit sick, one bad night of breathing, but i would take what i experienced over almost every flu and cold i have ever had). somehow, perhaps thanks only to “god” – and divine intervention it must be given how freaked out the masses have been spun into believing that their vax only works if everyone is vaxed – we each are alive today to tell about our miracle.
what miracle? that she somehow, miraculously survived vaxed in a home where she lived, breathed, ate, slept, and even had sex with…an impure, unvaxed! omg – i know! and this all happened without masks, even (save for some mask use during our most private moments)! and, somehow, another miracle, we got along throughout this sick mess: sick only in how govt bs fomented societal us and them anger and insecurities and divides.
unlike the “two” sides approach stoked by our pathetic govts, neither of us took hissy fits feeling that one had the right to impose upon and usurp the other’s choice to their body. we continued to get along, comfortable with, and content, knowing that we each have a universal right to free will (that ends at the rights and body of another).
so, you see, however impossible it seems, this much is true: the vax either works for each, or it does not; and/or, the virus is quite limited in its ability to kill, as over the two years of this 5.8 million have died out of a pop of pretty much 8 billion. not to dismiss the losses, but the deaths are an nth in comparison to the world pop. moreover, throughout the “pandemic,” the world pop numbers continued to net climb: that is more a concern for the well being of all than the covid count. while the govt must never have the right to exert ownership over bodies, covid was not even close to being an exception to that right.

Last edited 2 years ago by biff
Elohssa Gib

biff, I am now convinced that you have lost it. Do you really think that the “environmentalists” opposed to measures introduced by the NDP in the Westcastle are not cut from the same bolt of cloth as those occupying downtown Ottawa and who took part in blockade at Coutts?


two things: your question does not make sense; perhaps you have entirely misread my entry. really not sure why
those opposing the ndp – everything ndp – and those opposing phillips, everything phillips, seemed to support the illegal actions by certain members of the lps that supported their belief that they have a right to trample to bits what little is left of westcastle and such. they supported illegal actions that are akin to a police state. and yet, those same people, i believe, do not necessarily support a police state or totalitarian system at all times: but they supported as much so long as it supported their hope of having their way on that issue. i expect if you read the last paragraph in question, my concern is clear enough. the nutshell is: it seems more and more people, on either side of the so-called political spectrum, are willing to accept whatever and however heavy handed the means wielded may be (even when it actions are illegal and trample rights and freedoms) so long as it supports the ends they wish to see.


i am wondering how it is there is no debate around the ridiculous powers now granted to financial institutions: they are able to suspend and seize accounts WITHOUT any due process…even police must acquire a court order in order to conduct property searches. last time i looked, banks were not govt, police, or the law; however, they are now the equivalent of all 3 combined, and without public accountability.


The freezing of bank accounts and other assets are enabled by the Emergencies Act. That Act was the product of due parliamentary process, therefore all provisions contained therein are the product of due process. The legislation was introduced in June 1987 and received Royal Assent in July 1988. Along the way it was subject to a number of amendments.

Complain about the Act all you want, but don’t misrepresent fact.


Sadly the Trudeau government are using the emergencies measures act as a power grab and government over reach. This measure was never required in this particular situation. What was needed was for government dialogue with the protest group organizers. The protesters were quickly labelled and smeared by Trudeau and the mainstream “media” with derogatory terms, vilified in almost every corporate media article and condemned at every possible turn. The handling of this protest by government has been a monumental failure.

Last edited 2 years ago by dakota

That’s a straight-up conservative narrative, as only THEY have the nerve to trot out without a twitch, which means it’s not accurate. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, the conservatives are the ones who introduced us all to “post-truth” and “alternative facts” and boldly undermined the media (by deliberately “flooding that zone with BS” as Steve Bannon put it), as well as labelling them “fake news” and then there are the algorithms on facebook which magnify “mistruth” and “misinformation” exponentially, invented by the megalomaniac multi-millionaire Mark Zuckerberg, who doesn’t strike me as being exactly progressive. You’ve been had. Never trust any group who has spawned so many different words and phrases for a LIE. AND whose party name is now shortened from “conservative” to simply “con.” Not even con artists, just cons.


you quite right. however, ditto that re the libs, dems, ndp and every other self serving, oligarchy owned entity including mass media.

Ben Matlock

“biff”, you really must check your understanding of the law. Under Canadian law the police can search your car if they have reasonable grounds to do so. Police may also enter and search your home under prescribed circumstances. Indeed, this happened to me about a year ago when several police showed up in my back yard searching for man suspected of assaulting his partner.


i’ll reply to you and parachute here: the concern is whether a law is just or not. at least with search of a home, there must be a court ordered warrant, and without that, one must at least consent (save for when there is a reasonable belief a person is in danger). a search of one’s vehicle will also require consent, a warrant, or reasonable grounds or imminent danger.
my question, my concern, is that banks are being given the powers equivalent to a police state, whereby they can unilaterally, arbitrarily, without any due process such as a court order, seize and suspend a person’s access to their money. the issue is not that it is allowed under the “law” that is the emergency measures act, it is that it is allowed at all. heck, if there were a law that permits police to summarily execute anyone smoking a joint, or anyone speeding, or anyone that speaks out against official narrative…is it really good enough to just say “that is the law,” and carry on as if that is acceptable?
it seems to me another concern i have noted in this thread is indeed being proven here: people are willing to accept infringements/abridgements on rights and freedoms SO LONG AS IT SUPPORTS THEIR POSITION/PREFERENCE ON AN ISSUE.

Last edited 2 years ago by biff
Ben Matlock

biff, you write here: “a search of one’s vehicle will also require consent, a warrant, or reasonable grounds or imminent danger.” That statement is correct, and the powers granted the police, by due legislative process, turn on the conjunction “or”. However, in your previous post you wrote: “even police must acquire a court order in order to conduct property searches.” That is as a definition statement with no qualification. I was simply pointing out that you were mistaken.


Just because our constitution is being trampled on and our rights are being illegally stolen DOES give Canadians with cojones the duty to stand. Urah!


You mean shriveled up berries.


Yet another stupidly moronic comment from Waterhead!


j57 gets negged, whilst the biggest idiot with the teeniest degree of decency gets the thumbs up.
h2ZERO is a bully and a pustular dick, a limp one at that. ditto the ignorant bullies that support his insulting, infantile and ignorant entries.

Last edited 2 years ago by biff

Panties bunching-up again?




lol the same idiots just trolling away at biff entries with negs. glad you have found an outlet to what must otherwise be a sad existence.


I enjoy thrashing-away at waterhead! Hoping I live long enough for him or her (can’t be a her! Women can actually use their heads for intelligent debate) to put together just one rational argument! I won’t hold my breath.


Ah yes, Johnny57.
Glad you got to read what I had here before. Hope a family member tucks you in tonight.

Last edited 2 years ago by h2ofield

Ahh yes Waterhead I can get you signed-up in a jiffy to our Colony. Problem is we are not sure you could qualify for any thing else other than “Pig Feeding” duty! And even at that I will personaly make sure the BOSS keeps a close eye on you.


You make a derogatory remark about Hutterites to pass off your own deviance. Disgusting. Get help.

Last edited 2 years ago by h2ofield

One day I will meet you on the street and you are going to have a really bad day LOSER!


minus 7 worth of net negs to this? hahaha! rather sick lot you are haha! it is encouraging to have affirmation that those opposing one’s right to own their body are this silly and petty. take a good look at yourselves, folks. see what you are. puny bullies, ignorant, and, to boot, you are onside with a stalker troll, h2ZERO, and an obvious fascist, pursuit driver. good luck with those.


That’s right Grace! You don’t have the right to disrupt other peoples lives. But if you are the BLM movement! Then you have leaders Like Trudeau actually contributing tax-payer money to their Left-Wing causes!


indeed, a curious “free” land where a govt can send public monies to whomever, whatever, wherever it chooses, and, where a govt – using a third party that is not at all accountable to the people – can have the wealth of a person or group seized when it so decides.