What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Misinformation is not welcome here.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
Objection!
On what grounds?
Their testimony will be devastating to our case...
"Overruled"
"Good call"
Their legal advice is actually quite simple.
STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!
Those residents of Ottawa were the victims of the tantrumist attack. They should absolutely be allowed to testify.
If you don't want to be tried in Ottawa don't commit crimes in Ottawa. If you do commit crimes in Ottawa your victims should be allowed to testify against you.
Isn't blocking Ottawa residents what they are on trial for in the first place?
No. Shut up!
DON'T MAKE ME GET MY TRUCK!
Hoooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnkkkkkkkkkkkk
Isn't preventing people from performing civic duties the opposite of freedom.
Lawrence Greenspoon has a terrible toupe.
When I read this, I thought, "Is Lawrence Greenspoon the Canadian version of Alan Greenspan?"
interesting. so they already signed statements admitting to blocking traffic and affecting local businesses, therefore they're arguing that those testimonies are not necessary. basically this is the equivalent of, "we already admitted it, can't we just move on?"
IMO the court should still hear the victims' impact statements. i hope the judge thinks so too.
9 witnesses is too much but not 18 naked cowboys.
They have the best lawyers versed in bird law