Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Avoid walterdale bridge!!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yeah, hilarious.,

    Top_Dawg actually cut his day a bit short and ambled down to Boston Pizza on Jasper to poke down a few beer and see first hand the caliber of wing nut that would participate in this shitshow.

    He was walking down Jasper just as they surged.

    The amount of f*ck nuts was unreal.

    Stunning.

    At least the students and left wing nuts could be understandable given the f*cked up rhetoric they are constantly bombarded with.

    Then it got worse.

    Top_Dawg had to turn away from the crowd so they wouldn't see him laughing out loud.

    Within the crowd there was a group of wing nuts in wheelchairs. walkers, and medical scooters waving chanting and waving their f*cked up signs protesting pipelines.

    Really ?

    Really ?

    What would their f*cked up lives be without the energy industry in this province ?

    Where would they be ?

    The biggest users of public services protesting exactly against the industry that gives them at least some quality of life.

    Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

    The brain dead disconnect of some people is just head shaking unreal.

    Comment


    • I think both sides of the debate have some right ideas and concerns and if only we can set aside this mentality of us vs them, you are with us or against us, in fact moving towards solutions for climate change would be more achievable.

      Greta has some positive perspectives, regardless of if you think others behind the scenes are guiding her. She showcased the need for consumers to have to change their consumption choices, if they are serious about climate. Reducing emissions at the production phase only contributes about 20% of the emissions while the combustion and consumption of energy unleashes 80% (rough estimate, based on presentation by Jackie Forrest at Arc Energy).

      in today’s rally, she also correctly pointed out the need to avoid political partisanship on this issue. It reminded me of the Pew poll showing in US climate change is now as partisan an issue as gun ownership: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ong-democrats/

      The world is changing and we rightfully should be part of the solution not the problem. And raging against Greta won’t help our cause.

      We also need to better show the limits of the climate strike and other activists, a point counter-strikers might hope to raise. But the message is lost in the theatrics. Greta can freely travel from across the pond to the doorsteps of Alberta legislator to protest her perceived lack of action on climate. But at the global level, countries whose emissions matter, like China, don’t provide a similar opportunity to her and any other protest. And authoritarian energy producing countries like Russia and Saudis will only be happy to fill any gap Canada’s stranded oil production will leave behind.

      I thought this news captured the absurdity of the situation the best. While we were focused on Greta and her protest, Qatar started air conditioning “outdoors” as the heat became unbearable: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...ning-outdoors/

      Comment


      • I love how Greta said, poorer countries need clean drinking water, hello? FN anyone? many of them need clean drinking water..and they reside in Canada! Im not raging against her, she looked so small when she arrived at the Leg, and buses came to see her from Calgary.She just knows so little about what the industry does in AB, we are not Saudi, or Venezuela, and we will do better, we cant stop everything as fast as she seems to think we can, we took a long time to get here, and billions of cars on our roads aren't going anywhere, for a long long time
        Animals are my passion.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
          Did they apply and were they granted a permit?

          There is a process to protest.
          Was an answer to Edmonton PRT's question ever determined?

          From pg 27 of: Bylaw 5590 - Traffic Bylaw
          OBSTRUCTION 60
          1. [*=1]A person shall not stand or be in any other position on a highway so as to obstruct the entrance to a building or to obstruct pedestrians or vehicles using the highway.
            [*=1]This section does not apply to persons participating in or assembled to watch a parade for which a permit has been issued pursuant to this bylaw.


          Replacement, rupikhalon001 and others are pointing fingers at the EPS officers and chief for seeming to allow the protest to continue for a hour.

          If the protestors went through the City's "Special Events Application" process, requested a "Road Permit" from their Event Liaison and accepted estimates for "costs accrued by utilizing Traffic, ETS, and EPS services (if required for your event)", then once their application was approved, presumably EPS became obliged to fulfill the City's agreed-upon obligation to allow the protestors to close down traffic on the road.

          I doubt those cops or the chief wanted to side w/ the protesters.

          Let's look to the Civic Events Office, council members and Mayor iVision for answers as to how Monday's blockade came to pass.

          I imagine some C2E'r knows how to determine whether permits were issued allowing the closure of Walterdale Bridge.

          Comment


          • Protest is protected by our Canadian Charter you knobs

            No permit was pulled and unless the protest incites violence (from either the protesters or the people disrupted) then the police did their job.

            Canadian Charter > YEG Bylaws
            youtube.com/BrothersGrim
            facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

            Comment


            • The right to protest does not include the right to block peoples movements. That's a violation of the charter of rights. You have to right to peaceful assembly, not to block trains, traffic etc.
              A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

              Comment


              • Blocking a single bridge doesn't block movements though, as there's other options to get across the river.

                If they had blocked a substantial amount of the access routes in & out of the core then maybe they'd be restricting people's movements. I don't think the right to a stress-free, shortest-distance commute is enshrined in the Charter.
                Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                Comment


                • Blocking a bridge does block movements though. I don't believe the right to peaceful assembly includes blocking bridges and other transportation, though you are right, there is nothing enshrined in the charter that says you have the right to a stress-free, shortest-distance commute...

                  It's a slippery slope issue. If we continue to allow things like this, it will become the normal. Have an issue that you don't feel is getting enough attention? Block an important trasportation corridor. Don't worry, the police didn't do anything last time.

                  What's your over/under on amount of blocked access routes before it becomes restricting people's movements? 2 bridges? a half dozen? What if they have blocked the LRT bridge? What if they blocked the highlevel forcing ambulances to take a much longer route - potentially affecting lives? No worries there because it didn't happen this time...
                  A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                  Comment


                  • Putting limits on peaceful assembly, free speech & protesting is a far more dangerous slippery slope than any slope created by those that choose to express their rights.

                    Don't like people shining a light on an issue? Kick up enough fuss then complain to the authorities to restrict their rights to ensure that those people can't actually manifest change going forward.
                    Last edited by noodle; 30-10-2019, 07:03 AM.
                    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by noodle View Post
                      Blocking a single bridge doesn't block movements though, as there's other options to get across the river.

                      If they had blocked a substantial amount of the access routes in & out of the core then maybe they'd be restricting people's movements. I don't think the right to a stress-free, shortest-distance commute is enshrined in the Charter.
                      Up to a thousand commuters including some on city busses were stuck having already committed to the Walterdale one way bridge with no other way to go.

                      Certainly the protest blocked movements for all those people.
                      "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                        Certainly the protest blocked movements for all those people.
                        A couple thousand people being inconvenienced for a couple of hours is pretty flimsy justification to restricting/removing people's Charter rights.
                        Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                        Comment


                        • ^ At what point though does it pose a real risk. Traffic was backing up on major roads south. Does this mean they could protest every day for an hour at the bridge ?.
                          .
                          They could have do this at a less busy time, they could have left after 20 mins. All they really done was to make people mad, frustrated and more than likely polarized people against them. If you want people on your side, you try to make a point without alienating them. If they had left after 20min I suspect there would have been less angry people and maybe more positive support.
                          .
                          I do not have the charter in front of me, but it also guarantees people rights with respect to mobility, earn a living and such. The charter is not a free for all, and the courts have said such. Reasonable limits can be enforced, but a court would have to determine that.

                          Comment


                          • The mobility rights in the Charter, Section 6:

                            Mobility of citizens

                            6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada
                            1. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
                              • (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
                              • (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
                            Nothing there about people's right to get to work on time.

                            The protesters' actions are consistent with the Fundamental Freedoms in Section 2:

                            Fundamental freedoms
                            2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
                            • (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
                            • (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
                            • (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
                            • (d) freedom of association.
                            Emphasis mine.
                            Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by noodle View Post
                              Originally posted by Replacement View Post
                              Certainly the protest blocked movements for all those people.
                              A couple thousand people being inconvenienced for a couple of hours is pretty flimsy justification to restricting/removing people's Charter rights.
                              Not what I stated in the reply.

                              I was responding to this statement by you;

                              "Blocking a single bridge doesn't block movements though, as there's other options to get across the river."

                              Are you now moving goalposts on what blocked movement is?
                              "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                              Comment


                              • ^
                                (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

                                Interesting, if the police asked the protestors to move, and they refused to obey a lawful request. Is that still considered 'peaceful' Another way this could have been resolved is if the general public/ protestors got into a fight, or something then it would no longer be considered peaceful. At that point the police could have shut the whole thing down.
                                .
                                There is a very fine balance here, and blocking a main bridge into downtown for an hour on Monday morning caused problems. It did not only impact the bridge, it also impacted several bocks and roads south of the bridge.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X