Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
[COLOR=#000000]Actually, the video is a slam dunk for an Obstruction charge ....
Rick- i am not familiar with these things-:why the Priest's action is obstruction of justice?
Not challenging-just asking.
Thanx
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
[COLOR=#000000]Actually, the video is a slam dunk for an Obstruction charge ....
Rick- i am not familiar with these things-:why the Priest's action is obstruction of justice?
Not challenging-just asking.
Thanx
It wouldn’t be obstruct justice. It would be an offence to obstruct someone lawfully enforcing the Act, or obstructing the investigation of possible violations of an Act.. here is an example of an Obstruct offence in the Health Protection and Promotion Act... I’d imagine other Acts they are enforcing have a similar section...ObstructionQuote:
Originally Posted by gbk
[COLOR=#505050]42 (1) No person shall hinder or obstruct an inspector appointed by the Minister, a medical officer of health, a public health inspector or a person acting under a direction of a medical officer of health lawfully carrying out a power, duty or direction under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 42 (1).
Yes......s. 176 of the Criminal Code. These guys tried to bluff and lost terribly.Quote:
Originally Posted by impact
OBSTRUCTING OR VIOLENCE TO OR ARREST OF OFFICIATING CLERGYMAN
... / Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings / Idem.
176. (1) Every one who
(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or
(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
[R.S., c.C-34, s.172.]
Actually, they didn’t bluff anyone. They were sent to investigate an offence. No warrant needed. They left when ordered to do so. They did nothing outlined in that section, as an offence. A good move on their part to leave and deal with it another time...
Thanx Rick appreciate itQuote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Then there's this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RTDr0U6cE
I can see this happening a lot more frequently !! People are getting fed up .... is an understatement ! We can attribute this to our village idiot’s dismal vaccine procurement .Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
How. Show use how any of the previous lock downs have helped at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Lockdowns are fine if you have money and can afford to sit at home for weeks.
Most Canadian families can't go without a weekly paycheck.
Just another act of Valour.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Ask your elected officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchhunter