According to a source who was at the meeting At 9:30 PM ET at The Riverside Pub on 3673 Riverside Dr. in Ottawa on June 1st, a waiter who overheard table conversation by a group of people meeting to discuss Canadian anti-free-speech motion, M-103, and opposition to it, asked the group: “What are you guys meeting about?” The Proud Boys, who were at the meeting, answered that the group was against the current Canadian government’s policies and the organization of a freedom of speech rally.
The waiter said “You are not answering my question. What specific policy?”
The table answered M-103.
The waiter responded with: “I know what you are all about. get up, get out, its all on the house” according to our source who was at the meeting.
Apparently reasonable accommodation only works one way in newly Marxist Trudopia.
As an afterthought it occurs to me that this story, the man stabbed for buying beer during Ramadan in France, and the man murdered for eating ice-cream during Ramadan in Germany all have one thing in common. The enforcement of a system other than rule of law and liberalism by the thuggish masses.
Muslims are obliged under sharia to forbid which is haram. In other words, they are to each and every one of them be police officers for sharia wherever they happen to be, should the be in a nation which doesn’t have that as state law, and if they are, then they can do so without fear of legal consequence.
This waiter was doing the same for post modernism or Marxist thought. People who you disagree with or go against the leftist narrative, you can feel free to use whatever minuscule authority you have to stop them or interfere with them, In this case it was the petty tyranny of a waiter who used his minuscule sphere of influence to force paying law abiding customers away, But tomorrow, it will be ANTIFA doing real damage to people under the same rubric.
The Marxists around the world think they have enough power to force people to either think like they do or keep their mouths shut. The left has always tried to find ways to shut up their political opponents and now they think they have the power to use the law to do this for them.
Im not sure what he did was legal. At least I do know that had they thrown out religious muslims, they would probably face charges, or at least lost a marge law suit.
Im thinking this group should see a lawyer and now.
The problem is our side doesn’t readily think of using the law against the left, partially because we have to pay for out lawyers.
Yes and for a variety of other reasons as well. For example, we tend not to stop people we disagree with from speaking because we believe in their right to speak, in case they have a better idea and we change things. But they do not agree that we should have the same right because we do have a better idea and they want to change things.
The problem now, is that over a decade or three, small, nearly unnoticeable tools have bee snuck into the law that are made for selective enforcement. So when a Muslim says, (in Canada at least) kill all the Jews, he is within his legal rights under freedom of religion. But if we say, “We have a problem here, imams are preaching genocide against Jews” then we are defacto guilty of hate speech against an identifiable group.
So rule of law at this point serves the interests only of those who would seek its destruction.
At this point some of us had better start writing Soviet style dissident literature so if Freedom ever comes back to the West, they will know that at least some of us got it.
A small room in a giant block of flats with a rail line running through it.
Chantelle: “Eeyore, we will borrow our way out of trouble.”
Eeyore: “But this is debt onto our children’s children”
Chantelle: “By then, they will have figured out a way around it”
Eeyore: “By robbing the masses again?”
Chantelle, “Quantitative Easing”
Eeyore: “Uncle Obamva,
[a title used because no one is allowed to know who their birth-father is, so as to not upset the single-mothered children] how long have you been listening?”
Obamva: “Address me as Comradishki! I am feeling myself today.”
What about that miserable Human Rights kangaroo court you all have up there? If I understand correctly, the person or group filing the complaint doesn’t pay anything.
I recall a few years ago a lesbian demanded to have her hair cut in a muslim mens barber shop and won! Surely, denying service to a group having a quiet discussion in a restaurant might win. Especially if you take it to The Rebel first and get some publicity.
pretty sure waiters are not meant to be listening in on their clients conversations, thats pretty creepy on it’s own. are they part of a larger chain? has anyone contacted the management to confirm the staff member was acting in accordance with their policy?
Merely overhearing a private conversation has become a “microaggression”.
What’s next?!?
Was the waiter a tard?
Why didn’t anyone ask for the waiter’s name? Tape a video of the episode?
Just curious. Was the waiter a Muslim? Or was the waiter a young student radicalized by the leftist universities in Ottawa. Or was he a Liberal party worker working part time? Or perhaps just an leftist ass****. Lots of them in Ottawa
This group should be taking the eatery to the Human Rights Commission, you know that kangaroo court used almost exclusively by the LGBTs or Muslims to gain advantages for their particular agenda. Plus Cash For Themselves.
The HRC decides cases by which ones they take. If they take it, they win it. If they don’t, then you lose before you get to the gate. They would NEVER take ANY case where freedom for a conservative or classical minded person was the plaintiff unless the other person was even more of an honest white male of conservative bent.