Canada's Star Chambers

[rah]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's fair. That's all I expect. Just because I hold a minority opinion says exactly nothing about whether that opinion is right or wrong.

Yes that is correct but when I find my opinion/belief to be in the minority and especially when it's a minority of 1, it forces me to rethink my position. Those are the times of enlightenment or reaffirmation.

And I have learned that If I'm always a minority of 1, it's hard to make a lot of new friends (especially those of the opposite sex, since they prefer to be right all the time and take it as an insult if "heaven forbid" you dissagree)

Some might call that whipped while I consider it more of survival instinct.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by rah
so I guess we're never going to see a link.

one could wander over to Eventis and look...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by rah
so I guess we're never going to see a link.

one could wander over to Eventis and look...

Don't be daft.

Why don't you impale my penis with a rusty fishhook, too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes that is correct but when I find my opinion/belief to be in the minority and especially when it's a minority of 1, it forces me to rethink my position. Those are the times of enlightenment or reaffirmation.

What makes you believe I am in a minority of one? There have been 3 people on this thread already who have agreed with me based on the evidence, plus a few others who have thanked me for bringing up the issue.

Are you referring to this thread or another one?

I understand your position, but honestly that's not the case here.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What makes you believe I am in a minority of one? There have been 3 people on this thread already who have agreed with me based on the evidence, plus a few others who have thanked me for bringing up the issue.

There were a handful of people who "agreed" with your perverted twisting of the case, which is simply not based in reality.

Once the situation was actually explained to them, they all buggered off and stopped "supporting" you.

No, Ben, you lied and manipulated with your description of what happened and you linked to op-ed pieces of people who did the same. Once the situation was actually identified from a factual standpoint, you were left all alone in the loony bin. You try pathetically and desperately to obfuscate the situation by claiming to have linked to "many sources", but once you actually examine your sources they're all right-wing op-ed pieces that sensationalize the story to the detriment of fact.

[Ben Kenobi]

There were a handful of people who "agreed" with your perverted twisting of the case, which is simply not based in reality.

Perverted? You've been unable to contest any of my points.

Once the situation was actually explained to them, they all buggered off and stopped "supporting" you.

ok.

No, Ben, you lied and manipulated with your description of what happened and you linked to op-ed pieces of people who did the same.

I have around 50 sources that all same pretty much the same thing. This is why I challenged you to pick a name that you actually like, because chances are they've spoken on this issue.

Once the situation was actually identified from a factual standpoint, you were left all alone in the loony bin. You try pathetically and desperately to obfuscate the situation by claiming to have linked to "many sources", but once you actually examine your sources they're all right-wing op-ed pieces that sensationalize the story to the detriment of fact.

You really feel the iceberg has been delved? I dare say that many of these are not in fact right wing authors, and you have refused to name a source you find credible, just because you know I have done my research here.

I'll ask again. Name a source you find credible, or stop impunging on mine.

I do note, you have pretty much found yourself alone in arguing against me here. If we remove Asher posts from the thread, it's a much different picture.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Perverted? You've been unable to contest any of my points.

Which points?

The point that Canada has "Star Chambers" that cannot be overturned? You mean, the basis of this thread that I've both contested and factually refuted?

The point that Canada is a totalitarian society because it's censoring this free speech, when in fact there's been no ruling on this case and no one is being censored here?

The point that Ontario's human rights legislation applies federally and to BC?

Every single one of your points was contested and refuted.

I have around 50 sources that all same pretty much the same thing. This is why I challenged you to pick a name that you actually like, because chances are they've spoken on this issue.

Ben, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, op-ed pieces are not sources.

I do note, you have pretty much found yourself alone in arguing against me here. If we remove Asher posts from the thread, it's a much different picture.

You are hilariously delusional. No one else is arguing with you explicitly like I am because they're not as vicious as I am. They see arguing with you like assaulting a retarded toddler. I have no qualms with it. I'm a mean person. Everyone else here doesn't see a point to jump in, but if you have the capacity to read even the one-off posts of people here, everyone thinks you're bat**** crazy.

[rah]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by rah
so I guess we're never going to see a link.

one could wander over to Eventis and look...

If someone wanders overthere and finds the thread, they could post the link here. That would be satisfactory.

[Straybow]

I'm not registered there anymore.

[Asher]

We all know it's bull**** anyway. Ben's a pathological liar.

[rah]

Yes, but we should always give people a chance to prove otherwise.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Star Chambers are an essential feature of a totalitarian state.

The power of the court of Star Chamber grew considerably under the Stuarts, and by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for misuse and abuse of power by the king and his circle.

James I and his son Charles used the court to examine cases of sedition, which, in practice, meant that the court could be used to suppress opposition to royal policies.

It became used to try nobles too powerful to be brought to trial in the lower courts. Court sessions were held in secret, with no right of appeal, and punishment was swift and severe to any enemy of the crown.

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/the_court_of_star_chamber.htm

'Court sessions were held in secret'.

As opposed to Stalinist Russia which had public show trials, and Mao's China which had public humiliation for state enemies.

It's really quite laughable that you compare Canada with Tudor or Stuart England or Stalinist Russia or Mao's regime.

Can you show us which Canadian courts currently act for the state and in secret, and against the state's opponents ?

[LotC]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/06/28/macleans-steyn.html

So what was that you were saying about a foregone conclusion?

[Asher]

Yup.

I'm pretty sure Ben and his colleagues like DinoDoc have no capacity for critical thought, I thought it was pretty obvious the way this was heading.

His argument about the "100% conviction rate" was particularly compelling.

I wonder if Ben has the balls to admit he was way off?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Can you show us which Canadian courts currently act for the state and in secret, and against the state's opponents ?

If he could do that, it wouldn't be secret would it?

ACK!