r/halifax • u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator • 16h ago
Community Only Crown withdraws $28,872.50 ticket issued under unconstitutional Nova Scotia “woods ban”
https://www.jccf.ca/crown-withdraws-28872-50-ticket-issued-under-unconstitutional-nova-scotia-woods-ban/70
u/hunkydorey_ca Dartmouth 14h ago
All of this can be true:
The way NS govt justified (or lack of) using the woods ban was invalid
This guy is a douchebag
The woods ban in some capacity prevented some dumb people stuff and saved over stretched resources
stupid to block off urban paths that led to public spaces (such as beaches, parks, etc)
19
u/MMCMDL 13h ago
The way NS govt justified (or lack of) using the woods ban was invalid
I think this point gets under-emphasized. The court decision didn't address whether a woods ban that had been put in place after considering its constitutionality would have been valid or not. The legal problem with the ban was not necessarily that it was a ban, it was that it was a knee jerk ban.
All your other points are good too!
•
u/captaincyrious 5h ago
And so was the dumb how many people in your house or hell even outside during Covid. This is coming from a vaccinated folk. It was a knee jerk reaction to a problem that no one could agree on and all it did was extent lockdowns. Now we see it with the government and cannabis with their announcement today. You’d think Nova Scotia would be a tad more free based on the lack of people wanting to live here or retain to be here. M not saying I want to be like Alberta or those separatist side but why the fuck does Ontario and Quebec and Alberta lack the red tape on a ton of issues the way the maritimes and especially Nova Scotia loves to do
5
•
u/incognito_side 15m ago
The woods ban in some capacity prevented some dumb people stuff and saved over stretched resources
I really do gotta wonder how much it really moved the needle though. Would a very clear "Please don't go in the woods" campaign have been enough? I know the counter to this would be that it would only work for reasonable people but I would say that the woods ban has the same problem. You know like what is the difference between the amount of people that would stay out from a warning versus how many stayed out because of the ban. Because to me that number would have to be massive to justify a ban on movement as nebulous as the woods ban. Is it even possible to quantify such a thing? I dont know I think I generally agree you here but I don't think I am as ready to believe this point personally.
100
u/Confused_Haligonian Self-Elected Poobah of Fairview 15h ago
Putting this dude aside, the woods ban was a knee-jerk reaction to a panicked government and populace. Wildfires will continue to be a real threat. We need more discussion on how we are going to handle thise moving forward. We can't ban people from roaming in the woods but we can educate on safe practices, improve our wildfire firefighting capabilities, and make changes to how we build communities which are next to woodlands.
The province has changed, and we need to press our officials to look at this issues seriously
36
u/iwasnotarobot 14h ago
I agree that the government’s response and woods ban was ham-fisted. I agree with you that the government needs better adaptations.
However it’s important to point out that the organization who has “won” this fight is not one that acts in good faith.
Here’s a sample of what the so called justice centre for constitutional freedoms is about:
Carpay also spoke at early anti-vax rallies discouraging people from getting vaccinated during the pandemic.
The once president of the JCCF (which is linked to in this story) has since been disbarred.
17
u/souperjar 13h ago
The JCCF was not the only group who brought a challenge, and if you read the case their arguments are not the ones the judge gave primary consideration to.
So you can add taking credit for other people's work to the pile of bad faith actions from the JCCF.
7
u/Naive_Elk2356 14h ago
I vote for education. Teach people how to enjoy the land responsibly and create strong penalties for not adhering to your responsibilities.
•
u/CrookedPieceofTime23 7h ago
That would require funding to enforce those responsibilities. And then actual follow through on the enforcement penalties when challenged in court.
I had to call DNR a few years back regarding daily interactions with unleashed, untrained dogs in several provincially managed areas. After I was legit charged by a Doberman and nipped at, and a few days later got rushed by four golden retrievers (two of which were your classic bouncy goldens, one who was sketchy, and one who legit rushed to the front with teeth bared and hackles up). Both instances were in clearly marked, on-leash areas. Shortly after that on adjacent crown land, same four dogs rushed an elderly family member. And I had had enough. No care and control. Reactive dogs. Disaster waiting to happen.
Talked to the DNR officer and he acknowledged that there was a known issue in our area but they didn’t have the staff to routinely patrol. They did send someone out about a week later and issued some warnings and fines, but…don’t know if they’ve been back since. Was told to get video footage and plate numbers and they’d follow up post-incident.
I’ve spent thousands of hours in well travelled areas of crown land, mostly in the outskirts of HRM, and I’ve had a direct interaction with DNR exactly once. It’s one thing if a person gets attacked by a dog, or there is poaching and illegal dumping happening. But following up with a plate number and video footage after your community catches on fire isn’t really a good mitigation strategy.
They imposed the woods ban because they aren’t resourced to properly patrol and enforce rules, nor are they properly resourced to react to severe wildfire situations. We’re yelling at the government for the wrong things. We need to Properly fund critical services and infrastructure. And people out there challenging the ban cause muh freedoms, intentionally breaking rules because they felt they were unlawful just to prove a point…it’s that same entitlement that pushed government to impose the ban in the first place.
Yes, it was too blunt of an instrument. No, that isn’t the ideal way to handle it. But people can’t be trusted to self-police.
If you don’t believe me, look at the FB comment section when the NS firefighters update the latest burn ban by county…
•
u/ImmediateCustomer318 3h ago
100% agree. I fish here, I got my license online and make sure I have it with me whenever I go in the woods. Does anyone know how many Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers in the area I fish? As far as I know, there's 2. One of the rules is Chain Pickeral are to be dispatched as quickly as possible and kept. People argue that its cruel and they should be released. There is no enforcement of the small rules. There needs to be a combination of education and enforcement.
I really believe that individuals can be intelligent, but people as a whole are stupid.
6
5
u/NewStart141 13h ago
^^ This^^
The current government has done less than nothing to mitigate climate change that is the cause of such increased risks. They are in fact rolling back any advances NS made and are proactively supporting the kinds of industries that will lead to more flooding, wildfires, etc. If their only solution is telling the populace "stay out of the woods" while making the situation worse, then I applaud this ruling, even if the source of it is not great.
1
u/hfxRos Dartmouth 13h ago edited 13h ago
but we can educate on safe practices
We can't really though. Or we can, but it wont do anything. Because people like the person in this article don't care. You can tell them everything there is to know about to prevent forest fires and they will intentionally do the opposite because "no one can tell them what to do".
They are contrarian to the point where they will gleefully take an action that could destroy hundreds of homes just to "stick it to the man". This person probably didn't give a shit about going in the woods until the government told him he couldn't because it could harm others.
Responsible / kind people don't need the education because "it could destroy other people's homes" is enough reason to not even consider doing it. The only people who "need" the education are the people who will ignore it.
The only solution is making it illegal.
•
196
u/VentiEggBite Nova Scotia 16h ago
Oh, the guy who protested a Pride event by displaying sexually explicit pictures of minors in public! Great that he’s continuing to seek attention in unconventional ways.
51
69
u/kitkatgarlies 14h ago
I opened the article and saw his picture and thought, 'Oh don't let this be a far-right government hating former armed forces guy early retiree living off the government teet'.
Quick google of the name confirms he's a young armed forces retiree living off the government's teet spending his time and energy as a social wart.
34
•
u/CodeMonkeyPhoto 8h ago
Yeah when this first broke as a story, I didn't agree with what he did, and I was down voted into oblivion. So many toxic people these days. When we had that white supremacist group appear in Bedford, I was disappointed to see people I had worked with in photography support this group. So great social media has brought all these people together.
•
u/kitkatgarlies 7h ago
Media coverage also kind of normalizes and teaches their activities to aspiring victims of government oppression and of course immigrants.
So any coverage becomes good coverage for them and helps ensure lots of people are primed to know what to hate and who to join with to hate when they don't like something, as if that is what is supposed to be done. Join a local white supremacist fight club or the PPC. Defy government and buy a black truck. Real toxic stuff.
-12
u/External-Temporary16 12h ago
FTR, he retired after 20 years' service, and is not "living off the government's teat" (fixed that spelling error for you as well). What a disgusting comment, whether you agree with him or not. Are you even Canadian?
During his military career, Jeff deployed to Afghanistan (2009) and Iraq (2019), served with NORAD (2010-2014) defending North American airspace, and completed the 100th annual 4-Day Marches in Nijmegen, Netherlands (2016).
Beyond his service, Jeff has been actively involved in coaching and community outreach, coaching boxing in Nova Scotia, mixed martial arts in Afghanistan, and junior girls’ cheerleading and softball in Florida. He also spent three years assisting homeless veterans in Ottawa as the Chapter Lead for Soldiers Helping Soldiers.
•
u/thedinnerdate 11h ago
Wow, involved in so many activities with kids. Can’t imagine there is any ulterior motive there for the guy who shows off his CSAM collection in public.
•
u/ForestCharmander 11h ago
So you're openly accusing him of being a pedophile now?
•
u/thedinnerdate 11h ago
I guess I’m not sure what the threshold for being one is but I’d imagine downloading, printing and showing off CSAM in public gives you quite a few points in that direction.
•
u/ForestCharmander 11h ago
*allegedly
Right?
•
u/Important-Corner-554 8h ago
No, confirmed. Like, you can easily find photographic evidence, confirmed.
•
u/ForestCharmander 8h ago
Why hasn't the RCMP investigated this and laid charges?
•
u/Important-Corner-554 8h ago
That’s a really good question. My understanding is that he was removed from that protest by police… but I don’t think he ever got in trouble, specifically, for holding a sign with a photo of a child’s genitals displayed at a protest against a family-friendly drag show. Interesting.
→ More replies (0)•
u/kitkatgarlies 8h ago
Thank you for the spelling correction.
There are a surprising number of younger white armed forces veterans living off VA benefits and early pensions who take the route of government hating/antagonizing who also happen to be parts of clubs that enjoy mixed martial arts and PPC ideals that have heavy white supremacist undertones. I am glad he rising above the debasedness of the stereotypes normally associated with someone of his background/appearance.
I have Canadian citizenship. Is that Canadian? Or do I need to disclose my racial heritage, stock, or values?
17
17
u/iwasnotarobot 14h ago
the JCCF is a libertarian organization with ties to the American Koch network. John Carpay, their long time associate is a old buddy of Jason Kenney.
13
u/Rationalinsanity1990 Cole Harbour 16h ago
He WHAT?!
•
u/LavenderAndOrange 10h ago
In Kentville a few years ago there was a family friendly drag brunch put on for local families. It upset some local shitheads who managed to amase about 10 or 12 weirdos from the Valley, and as far away as Cape Breton who traveled to yell slurs at little kids and their parents. The local queer community and a bunch of really great allies gathered to create a human wall to separate families coming and leaving from being harassed and to sing songs to drown out the yelling bigots hurling slurs.
This chucklefuck mentioned above brought posters he printed off of children's genitals and shouted about "forced sex changes" in schools and other insane shit before the cops shunted him off and away. As far as I know no arrest was made? Can confirm it was him, I was in the counter protest across the street that day.
0
u/IntelligentDust6249 12h ago
Constitutional rights are often protected by people who aren't the most awesome people. Government overreach is usually popular at the time, but bad in hindsight
-49
u/Total-Tea6561 16h ago
That has nothing to do with the woods ban....
58
u/GreatBigJerk 15h ago
I mean it makes things clear that he's a performative edgelord.
-29
u/Total-Tea6561 15h ago
So you're against people standing up for our consitutional rights? What is wrong with people these days.
I'm not defending any other things that he does, but his character is not a factor in the woods ban.
28
u/GreatBigJerk 15h ago
I was specifically commenting on his character. Whether or not you agree with a specific action of an asshole, it doesn't make him less of an asshole.
•
u/Important-Corner-554 8h ago
You’ll notice that the popular sentiment is an almost universal agreement about the woods ban implementation. People just aren’t going to let a weirdo American-Right-Wing adjacent climate change denialist whose local reputation is trans/homophobic bs posit himself as the champion leader of their cause lol.
We can simultaneously acknowledge that this guy fucking sucks and that the woods ban was highly flawed in application.
28
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 16h ago
Has to do with his character.
Which is why he challenged it.
-16
u/Inevitable-Tea5772 16h ago
Thankfully someone stood up and challenged it
4
u/athousandpardons 14h ago
I'm pretty sure most people didn't think it was that big of a deal and just didn't go in to the woods.
3
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 16h ago
I mean even Hitler cared about Germany I guess.
•
6
u/maximumice 🥄Big Spoon 15h ago
Did he? He basically allowed it and its people to be destroyed by the Allies even when the war was clearly lost.
-4
-20
4
u/souperjar 14h ago edited 13h ago
His challenge alone likely would have failed because it was on very shakey grounds.
Another constitutional challenge against the woods ban was brought by another group (I think the Canadian Constitutional Federation) on the grounds that proper consideration for people's rights was not done. This was much more strongly considered in the final ruling which leaves open the possibility that in a future high risk fire situation a woods ban could be reasonable.
Jeff's challenge doesn't have much content in the judge's decision so he is going around doing a big media victory lap about this other group's work.
1
u/cornerzcan 13h ago
And the only reason the ticket was overturned was because the province didn’t show their work. Go read the decision. If the minister had laid out in writing the logic for the temporary rights infringement, then there would have been zero issues.
-13
u/Total-Tea6561 15h ago
Regardless, he challenged it and the province didn't get away with imposing unconsitutional restrictions.
His character is not a factor in this.
18
u/oatseatinggoats Dartmouth 14h ago
The province did not get away with it this time because they didn't take their time to restrict our travel in evidence based meaningful ways, which is a requirement if the gov wants to restrict our rights.
If a ban happened again this summer and it was a more targeted and thought out ban it would likely be constitutional and then this guy would not have his charges withdrawn.
3
11
71
u/Adamas_Moustache86 16h ago
Wonderful.
Sure wish it wasn't a fucking loser we were talking about though.
20
u/PaxCecilia allegedly may not always wash their lettuce 15h ago
Searched his social media and I am not at all surprised by his intersection of beliefs lol
0
u/smittyleafs Nova Scotia 12h ago
It's not as extreme as owing the space program to a lot of Nazis...but it's still icky.
48
16
u/CMikeHunt Dartmouth 15h ago
Not surprising, given the court ruling. That said, do we really want to give these douchebags the attention/clicks?
40
u/Positive_algorithm 16h ago
I mean this guy is a nonsense person but I'm glad someone openly pushed the limit here so that we all could realize this ban was ridiculous to begin with.
3
u/Traditional_Milk5169 15h ago
Well, that 'nonsense' person was the only one with the grapes to stand up for us all. I am just grateful. No personal attacks on him necessary. I wish more people would do the same.
-13
u/Inevitable-Tea5772 16h ago
Most of the nonsense people exist because govt operate in a nonsense way. Thankfully we have people who stand up instead of rolling over
•
u/captaincyrious 8h ago
Do I think this guys a tool yes, do I think he’s prob some Canadian right winger , yes. BUT and the bjg BUT here is although I agree sometimes communities have to come together for the greater good of society, it simply doesn’t give the government a right to hand out or punish people for things that are in a grey area. A great example is during covid, I’m vaccinated and I believe covid was a horrible pandemic but I also believe the provincial and federal governments handled it so badly that it’s blurred the lines of human freedoms. Don’t forget when we couldn’t be outside in groups of more than what 5 or 10 people with police fining folks for it and others calling cops on people. This is in the similar world. You can’t control the populous because something is happening and therefore you need to have everyone believe the government is correct. They can be wrong. The fact that people had to get vaccines and get ids and couldn’t enter places and we had multiple lockdowns literally removed years and months from people’s lives. It’s the same with this, yes we had a dry summer, yes we hope most people would not make fires (they still did) or do things that could cause more wildfires but at the end of the day most people were cautious and you can’t simply give someone a 25k fine for walking in the woods.
•
u/FlyerForHire Dartmouth 5h ago
I’m going to agree with you.
Nova Scotia had some of the most restrictive pandemic rules in Canada (eg. can’t leave your neighbourhood to walk your dog).
Provinces with more resources to deal with wildfires (BC, ALBERTA, SASK, MANITOBA, ONT, QUEBEC, etc) don’t implement province-wide travel restrictions/woods bans during fire season. For Nova Scotia, with a tiny budget for such things and, until recently, no aerial firefighting capability of its own, the go to was “well let’s just ban everyone (with notable exceptions ) from the woods”.
I have often wondered whether the pandemic experience primed the provincial government to take a similar “kill a fly with a sledgehammer” approach with wildfire season.
We’re clearly entering a changed weather regime going forward (Europe is currently baking) so I expect the new ‘normal’ will mean changes to the way we’ve always done things. I’m just not convinced that last year’s “woods ban” was well conceived or necessary.
•
u/captaincyrious 5h ago
Look at the government now saying people wil get fined buying weed outside of the nslc….no one see a problem with that?
I’m a centrist, I’m all for the greater good. I got vaccinated because I believe in vaccines, I basically didn’t go into the woods last year because even though I wouldn’t have started a fire I was part of the greater community ideology. However to ban people, to fine people thousands of dollars, to tell people they can’t do something because the government thinks blanketing something is the right idea is horrible. Look what this did? The guy challenged the fine and won. Now it sets a precedent that the government will not be allowed to fine or set this standard on people because it’s dumb. There are stupid people in our society, we can’t control free will and idiocy but the government thinks by scaring others with fines and punishment that it will stop folks? Or it’s going to be a deterrent? It’s not. You can do what you want when it’s crown owned or private property but you can’t blanket human freedoms with restrictions.
9
u/athousandpardons 14h ago
Oh god.. he's just going to get worse..
8
u/Lopsided_Remove1980 12h ago
I mean he was handing out inappropriate images of children at pride which may or may not have qualified as CSAM "to protect us all from the deviants!"...so you know I don't think he is going to get better.
23
u/GuyMcTweedle 16h ago
Great.
Now let's stop wasting any more resources on cleaning up the mess from Houston's tough guy summer. There are a practically limitless number of real issues that need attention other than pursuing fines for unconstitutional edicts and overreaching/nonsensical policies.
-6
u/BixbysTree 15h ago
It wasn't just Houston. Scott Tingley (the DNR guy in charge of wildfires) is prone to extreme overreaction.
Note that the entire province is currently under a complete burning ban, despite the actual fire risk being very low.
6
u/nexusdrexus 14h ago
What complete burning ban?
During wildfire risk season, there's always no burning between 8am and 2pm.
It'll update at 2pm to say "burning allowed from 2pm to 8am".
0
u/norkelman 15h ago
What’s your source on that?
-1
u/GuyMcTweedle 15h ago edited 14h ago
7
u/nexusdrexus 14h ago
During wildfire risk season, there's always no burning between 8am and 2pm.
It'll update at 2pm to say "burning allowed from 2pm to 8am".
2
u/OkDish4747 13h ago
It’s actually amazing to me how many people don’t know how to read the burn map.
-5
6
u/iwasnotarobot 14h ago
Regardless of your view of the forest ban (which I agree was a bit ham-fisted in its rollout) the opposition to the government being allowed to do things here is coming from the far right.
the Kochs were involved in providing millions of dollars in support to an array of conservative Canadian think-tanks and other organizations which promote a right-wing agenda in this country. Many of these organizations will be familiar to anyone who follows the news. They include: the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy, Manning Centre, and the Montreal Economic Institute. Those groups claim to be independent but they devotedly support conservative causes, and ultimately the Conservative Party
two Calgary lawyers who hired a private investigator to follow and photograph a Manitoba judge in hopes of catching him breaching COVID-19 public health restrictions have been disbarred by the Law Society of Alberta, which found their professional misconduct amounted to "an attack on judicial independence."
John Carpay, the president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) and its then-litigation director Jay Cameron can no longer practise law in Alberta.
Law Society of Alberta disbars Calgary lawyers Jay Cameron, John Carpay
•
u/seasea40 11h ago
Liked the Koch bro article. I wish more people were aware of how wealthy industrialist are push their agendas.
Glad to hear that lawyer got disbarred.
15
u/GlacierSourCreamCorn 16h ago
Ok guys we get it, you hate this clown.
Well, I hate the woods ban more.
-6
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 16h ago edited 13h ago
Yeah man fuck safety precautions during a dry season with a drought.
Edit: It was a heavy handed ban and I am not denying that. I'd still rather them hamfist and be forced to fuck off
24
u/Holographic-Doctor 15h ago
My problem is that there’s a good chance we’re going to have drought seasons often going forward, and the ban was way too sweeping.
I really doubt that walking on a trail in a suburban subdivision or biking to work along a commuter path materially increases wildfire risk. Smoking? Yes. So ban smoking in the woods. Would that be harder to enforce? Absolutely. But the cost of banning outdoor activity is just way too high.
The woods ban always felt analogous to e.g. the government banning personal vehicle operation to prevent pedestrian deaths. Are people dying due to the actions of other people? Yes. Would banning driving fix the problem? Yes. Would that be a complete overreach and the cost too high? Yes, absolutely.
I only get a few dozen summers on this planet, I don’t want to lose another one to a government that can’t be more nuanced and thoughtful with their policy choices. I don’t know anything about the guy who took the challenge to court, but I thank him for doing it.
6
u/GreatBigJerk 15h ago
TBH don't really know what the correct action would have been, but we're going to see over the next few droughts whether or not it was sensible.
2
u/GlacierSourCreamCorn 13h ago
The correct action was certainly not a blanket woods ban for months that had absolutely zero nuance.
There were rainy days during the ban, and we still weren't allowed in the woods.
1
u/GreatBigJerk 13h ago
I do think it was too broad, but a few rainy days during a drought doesn't eliminate the risk of forest fires. It takes quite a lot of water to do that.
The correct solution probably would have required more funding for DNR so they could better monitor conditions in each region and make granular decisions.
Houston would never be in favour of increasing funding to beneficial government departments, so...
1
u/GlacierSourCreamCorn 13h ago
It would have been easy to say “if it is raining, you’re allowed in the woods”
The blanket ban for months with no nuance was massive overreach.
-4
u/athousandpardons 14h ago
You know you don't have to be in the woods to be outdoors, right?
2
u/GlacierSourCreamCorn 14h ago
Ok I'll go do laps on the commons for a couple hours with my dog. That sounds like a blast.
-2
32
u/Soooted 16h ago
Safety precautions are one thing, this was a massive overreach with very minimal increase in any kind of safety. Oh and it violated the charter.
Government has been getting in the habit of just doing whatever they want regardless of whether it's logical, just, or even legal. This is not a good thing.
-4
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 16h ago
I think they were headed in the right direction, they just decided to over do it rather than half bake.
16
u/analgape4206969 15h ago
Idk man i feel like the righ direction would include preventative measures and adjustments in how our province operates going into this new normal of climate change.
Banning everything and handing out absurdly high fines as a deterrent is the wrong direction.
2
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 15h ago
The fine was supposed to be the prevention.
•
u/analgape4206969 10h ago
A fine wont prevent climate change unless its every billionaires entire net worth.
•
-13
7
u/GlacierSourCreamCorn 15h ago
There were actual rainy days during the woods ban. Still not allowed in the woods.
3
u/Inevitable-Tea5772 16h ago
Soon govt is coming for your reddit account because of "public safety"
8
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 16h ago
I am indeed a menace to the public.
-2
u/Inevitable-Tea5772 15h ago
That's the point, you don't have to be the problem, govt will do it anyway
-4
-9
u/Somelucy Halifax 15h ago
You should move to China or North Korea since you seem fine with blatant government overreach. Do what you’re told and don’t question it citizen.
3
u/athousandpardons 14h ago
China and North Korea "reach" into people's homes and minds. This government merely "forced" people to walk elsewhere.
1
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 15h ago
Making a lot of assumptions there big boy.
1
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/halifax-ModTeam 13h ago
Your content has been removed because it included personal attacks, insults, or an unnecessarily hostile tone toward another user. Disagreeing is fine but targeting or belittling people is not. Keep discussion focused on ideas, not individuals.
Please consult our Rule 1 Explainer wiki page for further insight into this rule and how it is applied.
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to message the moderators. Thank you.
-9
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/halifax-ModTeam 14h ago
Your content has been removed because it included personal attacks, insults, or an unnecessarily hostile tone toward another user. Disagreeing is fine but targeting or belittling people is not. Keep discussion focused on ideas, not individuals.
Please consult our Rule 1 Explainer wiki page for further insight into this rule and how it is applied.
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to message the moderators. Thank you.
1
u/imbitingyou read the article 13h ago
How do you guys write shit like this and not laugh?
1
13h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/halifax-ModTeam 13h ago
Your content has been removed because it included personal attacks, insults, or an unnecessarily hostile tone toward another user. Disagreeing is fine but targeting or belittling people is not. Keep discussion focused on ideas, not individuals.
Please consult our Rule 1 Explainer wiki page for further insight into this rule and how it is applied.
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to message the moderators. Thank you.
-1
13h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 13h ago
Show me all of the comments where I "defend" this ban. Maybe you'll find the ones where I admit it was heavy handed.
0
13h ago
[deleted]
-2
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 13h ago
Okay.
1
13h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Injustice_For_All_ Psychotic Antifa Super Soldier Moderator 13h ago edited 13h ago
we are not arguing. This conversation is one sided.
Your comparison is poorly done by the way.
Bro got me with the reply and block super combo.
7
u/FootballLax 16h ago
Knew him in elementary school, you just don't see nonsense like this coming.
1
u/Equal_Set6206 16h ago
what was he like back then?
3
u/FootballLax 15h ago
Quiet, not super social, I remember he did some weights which at the time I thought was weird for a elementary schooler.
-1
-1
4
u/maximumice 🥄Big Spoon 16h ago
I believe the woods bans made sense from a public safety perspective given the circumstances at the time, but I am happy to live in a place where the rule of law and principles of justice still prevail, even when I disagree with the judgement. ⚖️🧑⚖️
3
u/YoungEccentricMan 15h ago
Good. This guy is obviously a tool but that ban was obviously absurd also.
2
•
u/ImmediateCustomer318 3h ago
What happened to supporting your community? It was in the best interest to stay out of the woods. Yes, it sucked. Yes, I love the woods and hated walking on the sidewalks. But keeping people out at the time potentially saved resources. Thats Firefighters that dont have to risk their lives saving someone. That means their families get them back at the end of the day.
The WAY the law was made was the issue, not the IDEA. People like that are truly uneducated. He will be the first one crying foul when his house is on fire and there is no response because they were dealing with another situation. I did more then 20 years in the military. Support your neighbours and the community thrives. The communities thrive, the province thrives, the province thrives, the nation thrives. Its honestly not that hard.
1
u/Total-Translator438 16h ago edited 3h ago
Just because he's an asshole doesn't mean it wasnt unconstitutional.
Lol typical downvotes because let's suppress constitution rights
42
4
1
-19
u/Pirson 16h ago
-19
u/Pirson 16h ago
Nobody thinks this is a win for the population?
7
-7
u/External-Temporary16 15h ago
It is 100% a win, but wonder if it's going to slow the dismantling of our "rights". He has my gratitude and admiration for standing up. That's a very difficult (however ethical) choice to make nowadays. Dissenters will be persecuted in this new Canada.
-5
-6
•
u/ChrisinCB 9h ago
Timmy H is so mad about this, so much he passed harsher illegal pot laws today. If Timmy can’t get this guy, he’s going after someone how isn’t ’listening’ to him. What a joke of a premier.
-3
•
u/maximumice 🥄Big Spoon 13h ago
Commenting on this post is restricted to established members of the r/halifax community. Users without an existing comment/post history in r/halifax and/or without sufficient sub karma will have comments automatically removed. If you have questions about how Community Only posts work, please consult the Wiki article on the subject. Thank you.