Got to love how Remembrance day is commodified into the mass subconscious when the reality of it is brain washing how the avg citizen is suppose to fall over for what the human condition actually is accordingly. Since when does a war that is the catalyst of the industrial revolution suppose to make me thankful. Fuck the hell off with that shit.
That is what we are celebrating - a branding of how we celebrate war as if it equates to freedom.
Got to love how the avg. person fails to decide that for themselves, but latches onto the mythology of soldiers fighting for freedom in the name of god - when nothing about it is sacred whatsoever.
Think about it. The US Army is the epitome of rational divide and you care to enable that?? Is how we react to differences in the global mosaic supposed to signify hope and symbolize peaceful practice or participation.
Pass this on.
(Or feel free to be blind to all of what you just read.)
===========
I have a very different idea of myself in the global mosaic, but I can appreciate what I read when it comes to reminding me of what is important. I do not believe in death as a mortal coil that we must personify if I am to live a life of freedom. True freedom in my eyes is if I have afforded my own prejudice at no cost to anyone else or protecting myself from discrimination before it reaches its height shows tolerance - that is what I take pride in.
================
Facebook
Why are you calling them assailants? Assailant is defined as one who attacks or is hostile. They weren't protesting. The guy
is a 5 year veteran there to be part of the ceremony. We should respect the sovereignty of their nations and respect their flag. Natives fought along side our canadian troops wars going way back as allies.
There is no procedure here either. Police are not allowed to just remove and arrest people in silence in this country. What is this, Egypt?? There was no offence in the video, and even if there was, an officer is obligated to inform a person of the charge if they ask. These officers just say silent and remove someone from the public for what seem like political reasons. That is not a free democracy and a violation of our rights.
===============
Did I call them assailants. No, what I did was defend them as potential assailants. Huge difference. (Because that is exactly how the officer treated them!!) My point is assailants can be victimized which in this case the victim IS being treated as an assailant. If that logic seems twisted to you - then I am a monkey's uncle. That is my reasoning (which you are allowed to disagree with.)
In terms of procedure, Jeff, I agree with you. I took a position as the Crown would have to administer. (Therefore I use the term assailant.) In the eyes of the court, that is how they would be treated, as though a mock cause.
I am on your side, Jeff. Read it again.
I have to make it clear - I do not use the term assailant without just cause - it is the very reason I used the term- to defend them. TO DISPROVE it. If the court were to characterize them as assailants, then they have to prove their guilt. Once the precedent is set that they are not assailants, it takes my clever tactic to ensure the crown is acting in good faith.
MY dissertation is a theoretical device. If I were a lawyer it is exactly how I would draft my proposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment