eyeroller🙄

it's always beautiful, sometimes terrible and usually ironic.

[Shaun Newman Podcast @SNewmanPodcast]

This week, Freedom Convoy organizers Chris Barber and Tamara Lich face sentencing.

The Crown wants 7 and 8 years behind bars.

Not for violence. Not for weapons.

The real reason they’re being punished might scare you more than the sentence:

[Satire Squad HQ @SatireSquadHQ]

🇨🇦Just a reminder Alberta as you go vote in Canadian Elections.🗳️

How is this allowed?

And here we are.

@ABDanielleSmith

[Tanya @tanyaelisabethh]

Sex is not a biological necessity like food or water. No one dies from abstaining from sex.

Because sex is a voluntary act, consent to sex necessarily includes consent to its natural consequences.

And we all know what sex produces: children.

Choosing to engage in the act that creates new life is, by its nature, accepting the risk of new life.

You cannot consent to the pleasure while denying the responsibility.
You cannot separate choice from consequence.

Abortion is not a correction of an accident.
It is the deliberate ending of a life created by an action you chose to take.

Freedom is not the right to erase the consequences of your actions.
True freedom is the acceptance of them.

[CTV News @CTVNews]

U.K.’s top court says definition of a woman is based on biological sex and excludes transgender people https://t.co/s9rl9vrKTT

[Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog]

ADHD is one of the greatest scams in modern history. Millions of kids have been given mind-altering drugs on the basis of a lie. Now after decades — and after shouting down and defaming those of us who knew better — they’re finally starting to admit it. It’s infuriating.

[🇨🇦Unacceptable Canadian Girl🇨🇦 @AreOhEssEyeEe]

I was today years old when I learned that the Canadian Government subsidizes up to 60% of wages for businesses that hire "newcomers" AND gives them a tax credit of 25%...

But Canadians can barely make ends meet or find jobs...

[Riley Check @holisticgrenade]

70% of white people reported that they used sunscreen at the beach in 2022.

10% of white people reported that they used sunscreen at the beach in 1975.

In 1975, there were approximately 30 skin cancer cases per 100,000 people.

In 2022, there were approximately 1,691 skin cancer cases per 100,000 people.

Thats more than a 400% increase in skin cancer cases.

Does anyone else find this odd?

[George Christensen @NationFirstAust]

Christians are being massacred in Syria. Churches burned. Priests executed. Families wiped out. And the West is silent. This is the greatest Christian persecution of our time—and the media won’t tell you. Let’s expose the truth. 🧵👇 1/13

[ɖʀʊӄքǟ ӄʊռʟɛʏ 🇧🇹🇹🇩 @kunley_drukpa]

HOW SOCIAL TRUST IS ERODED - A VISIT TO INDIA 🇮🇳

🧵 A few years ago now I spent some time in India. One of the more lasting impressions I have from that period was the degree to which the low trust environment there (of a kind) wore me down mentally and transformed my attitude towards public spaces from a by disposition fairly ‘high trust’ person to being much more cynical and constantly on guard - ie being ‘low trust’. Over the space of the first month or so, because of the environment, experiencing real psychogenic anguish at the mental transition from being basically well meaning and otherwise liberal to irritable, combative and developing (experience-informed) prejudices.

My assumptions about how easily you can sustain ‘high levels of social trust’ were shredded. Many people take for granted that high levels of social trust can be upheld without excessive coercion on a sort of naive libertarian basis of most people naturally being ‘fairly decent’ and so behaving ‘fairly decently’. Though I’d encountered this ‘low trust’ behaviour in a many other countries it was in india, because of how common and obtrusive it was, that it became impossible to avoid internalising that a lot of people are not in fact ‘fairly decent’ and that if enough not ‘fairly decent’ people get together they can easily despoil social environments.

Let me give you some examples of the kinds of behaviours you would encounter in India and then explain how prolonged exposure to those behaviours changes you. Granted you are a ‘Mleccha’, a ‘Gora’, (Foreigner, White Man) so qualifier you are treated differently but you still encounter these attitudes appreciably more than you would in many other countries. They do not of course represent the attitude of every Indian (I am an amateur Indologist I love India don’t @ me) but it evidences a certain ‘dog eat dog’ ‘tragedy of the commons’ mindset on the part of a part of the population that results in very appreciable low society wide social trust, at least over certain behaviours. (Others may be more policed eg social roles.) (Incidentally I think this mentality is one of the principal causes for many of India’s systemic problems but that is a separate topic.)

• Take a tuk-tuk or taxi. Driver pretends his meter is broken, quotes price ten times more than actual price. Doesn’t have any change, doesn’t have a card machine. Starts arguing with you when you say you are not giving them more money they should have the change. Sometimes will plead for large tip even if you pay them more than the actual price too. To combat this you have to be prepared to argue with the driver every time you take a taxi (start ‘fights’) and bring small change with you everywhere

• Taking the Mumbai Metro with a woman (naively), metro is incredibly crowded. Man uses crowd as an excuse to press himself up against the woman, starts masturbating. Woman screams, starts to have panic attack - but crowd doesn’t really react. She runs out crying at next metro stop

• Walking around on streets - lots of beggars approach you, often old women, young children, people with some kind of disfigurement, hijra etc. Sometimes they aggressively grab your wrist, your clothes, tug at your shirt and refuse to let go. Often will follow you for a while even if you tell them to go away

[1/2]

[Kirk Lubimov @KirkLubimov]

Canada,

Does this 'democracy' works for you?

Senate seats top, and Members of Parliament bottom.

[Dan Knight @DanKnightMMA]

OTTAWA – Yesterday was Day 2 of the Federal Court hearing, where Justin Trudeau’s government is trying to convince a judge that shutting down Parliament to avoid Well, folks, here we are. Day two of the Federal Court showdown, where the Trudeau government is desperately trying to convince Canadians that shutting down Parliament to protect their own hide was a completely reasonable thing to do. They want you to believe that this is all perfectly normal, that it’s routine, that it’s just a quirk of the system. Nothing to see here, folks!

But the problem with lying is that eventually, you get caught. And on Day 2 of this hearing, Justin Trudeau’s legal team got caught. Over and over again.

If you watched what unfolded in court, you saw the Trudeau government’s lawyers flailing like fish on dry land, fumbling through weak excuses as Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton shredded their arguments one by one. At one point, they actually misrepresented a legal precedent in court, only for the Chief Justice to read the case aloud and reveal that it actually contradicted their argument. Humiliating.

And that was just the start.

This case isn’t just about whether Trudeau technically had the ability to prorogue Parliament. It’s about why he did it—and more importantly, whether Canada is now a country where the Prime Minister can shut down democracy whenever it gets inconvenient for him. Because if the courts let this stand, what’s stopping the next Prime Minister from proroguing indefinitely? What’s stopping the government from suspending Parliament every time there’s a corruption scandal, every time they fear a non-confidence vote, every time they need to cover up a mess of their own making?

And that’s exactly what Trudeau did. His government was facing multiple crises all at once—a massive financial scandal, a looming non-confidence vote, and an economic firestorm caused by Trump’s tariff threats. So rather than actually dealing with it, he shut Parliament down. The question is: Did he have the right to do that?

Trudeau’s Legal Team Has One Argument: “The Court Can’t Stop Us”

The Trudeau government’s lawyers had one job today—convince the court that prorogation is beyond judicial review. That was it. That was their entire strategy. Not that it was necessary. Not that it was ethical. Just that there’s nothing the court can do about it.

They started by arguing that Justin Trudeau isn’t responsible for prorogation at all. No, they said, it was actually the Governor General who did it. That’s right—the Trudeau government is now claiming that the Prime Minister of Canada, the man who publicly announced on January 6 that he had decided to prorogue Parliament, wasn’t actually responsible for proroguing Parliament.

Naturally, Chief Justice Crampton wasn’t buying it. He pointed out that no Governor General in Canadian history has ever refused a Prime Minister’s request for prorogation. That’s right—never. The Governor General is not some independent actor who just wakes up one morning and decides, You know what? Let’s shut Parliament down for a couple of months. That’s not how this works. The Prime Minister advises it, and the Governor General rubber-stamps it.

So why is Trudeau’s government suddenly pretending like he had nothing to do with it? Simple. Because if they can convince the court that this was the Governor General’s decision, then the case gets thrown out.

But that’s just the beginning of the absurdity. Trudeau’s legal team then went on to argue that there are no legal limits on prorogation whatsoever. That’s right—none. According to them, the Prime Minister could prorogue Parliament indefinitely, and there’s not a thing the courts or anyone else could do about it.

The Chief Justice was visibly skeptical, and for good reason. If prorogation has no limits, then Canada is no longer a parliamentary democracy—it’s an elected dictatorship.

At one point, Crampton asked them how Parliament is supposed to hold the government accountable if it’s shut down. The response from Trudeau’s lawyers?

Well, Parliament can hold the government accountable when it returns.

Yes, you read that right. The government’s actual defense is that Parliament can hold them accountable later. Which, of course, is exactly the point. Because what happens if they just prorogue again? And again? And again? The court kept pressing, but the government had no answer.

JCCF @JCCFCanada Lays Out the Real Reason for Prorogation: Trudeau Was Cornered

Now, let’s talk about what Trudeau’s government was really trying to avoid. Because while his lawyers were playing legal word games, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms was laying out the cold, hard truth.

Trudeau shut down Parliament because his government was about to be exposed on multiple fronts.

First, there was the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) scandal. Millions of dollars had mysteriously gone missing from a government-controlled green technology fund, and the Auditor General had uncovered serious financial mismanagement. Parliamentary committees were demanding answers, and Trudeau’s government was stalling. So what did they do? They shut Parliament down.

Then, there was the looming non-confidence vote. Opposition parties had been publicly discussing bringing down Trudeau’s minority government. Conservative MP John Williamson, Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, had even put it in writing. If the vote happened, Trudeau could have lost power. So what did he do? He shut Parliament down.

And let’s not forget the economic mess with the United States. Donald Trump had announced plans for 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods. Trudeau’s government was scrambling to come up with a response, but there was one major problem: any new spending to deal with the crisis would require parliamentary approval. But Parliament wasn’t sitting anymore. Because Trudeau shut it down.

The JCCF laid all of this out in court, showing that Trudeau didn’t prorogue Parliament for the good of Canadians—he did it to protect himself. And the Chief Justice seemed to take their arguments seriously.

What Happens Next?

The Chief Justice has promised to issue a ruling before Parliament resumes on March 24. That means this case will be decided before Trudeau can walk away and pretend none of this ever happened.

If the court rules against the government, it will mean that future Prime Ministers cannot abuse prorogation to avoid scrutiny. It will send a clear message that shutting down Parliament to protect yourself is unconstitutional and illegal.

But if the government wins, it will mean that the Prime Minister can shut down democracy anytime he wants. It will mean that Canada is no longer a functioning parliamentary system but a country where the executive can do whatever it pleases.

And if that happens, ask yourself this: What’s stopping the next Prime Minister from just shutting down Parliament indefinitely?

Trudeau might be stepping down soon, but his legacy of corruption, incompetence, and political cowardice will haunt this country for years. The question now is whether the courts will allow him to rewrite the rules of democracy on his way out the door.

We’ll find out soon.

[Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱 @ryangerritsen]

It’s amazing how many Canadians still don’t know about this decision. And that the Feds refused to accept it.

[Tamara Lich 🇨🇦 @LichTamara]

Happy Emergencies Act Day Canada.

[Natasha Montreal @NatashaMontreal]

Karla Homolka drugged, sexually tortured, and murdered three girls-one victim was her little sister. While she was in prison she got a PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE FROM QUEEN'S.

Whereas Tony Olienick went to the Freedom Convoy. He isn't permitted books.

Canada is a dystopian hellscape.

[eyeroller🙄 @lavogue88]

@Martyupnorth_2 Don’t believe every poll you see.

[eyeroller🙄 @lavogue88]

@KirkLubimov I don’t believe this poll. Pallas Data is manufacturing division.

[Nicky P @cravecreative]

You might want to sit down for this one.

According to the Canadian International Development Platform(CIDP), the total sum of Canada's Foreign Aid through Global Affairs Canada in 2021 was $6,971,000,000.00 of tax payer dollars.

Now read that again.
https://t.co/fehBbUhnjW

[Miriam Cates @miriam_cates]

“Women are highly evolved to feel fear and discomfort in the presence of men they don’t trust in vulnerable situations. Forcing a woman to suppress that essential survival instinct to protect a man from hurty feelings is frankly barbaric.” 🧵 1/ https://t.co/Oxsn99jBH8 @GBNEWS