> Your suggestion is like banning alcohol manufacturers because kids get access through back-channels and drive drunk.

Or better yet, it's like banning cars because some people drive drunk. Like cars, Twilio is a critical utility for a lot of legitimate businesses and individuals.

Lol good for you, I'm out. You can believe the RCMP enforces "serious crime" if you want. You'd be an idiot that believes the wrong thing and doesn't even understand the basics of our constitution, but hey. You do you.

You're too much of a narcissist to admit you're wrong, and this feels like talking to a brick wall. Even in the face of evidence that you found yourself proving you wrong, you still refuse to get your head out of your ass. So adios, have a good day.

Edit: And all this because I left a friendly comment explaining our constitution divides policing powers differently than the US constitution, and that the RCMP thus fulfils a different role than the FBI.

Bruh.

You: "The RCMP is the police agency that investigates serious crime."

Me: "Provincial police forces investigate all crime, serious or not, except for where the RCMP is the only police agency to start with. They also investigate two very specific crimes: organized and financial.

Idk how else to explain it to you. Practically all crimes in Canada, serious or not, are defined by the Criminal Code. Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the Criminal Code. That's all there is to it.

If parliament makes something a crime outside the criminal code, then enforcement is federal jurisdiction. But that's only happened with organized crime and money laundering. All other crimes, serious or not, are provincial responsibility.

Again, to reiterate, since you have trouble reading: the RCMP is not tasked with enforcing "serious" crime.

And you have a reading comprehension issue. They do not investigate serious crimes with the exception of organized crime and financial crimes (or where contracted out by the province). That's a fact.

> investigates serious…crime.

You're misreading your quote. It's not saying "serious crime and organized crime." It's saying "crime that is both serious and organized." "Serious and organized crime" is what Canadian law calls organized crime in general. You can read more about the definition of "serious and organized crime" here: https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/soc-cgco/index-eng.htm

And as I said before, organized crime and financial crime are two of the more notable exceptions where the RCMP is involved. But they are not involved in criminal investigations in general, serious or otherwise, unless contracted out by the relevant province.

> National security is included in this.

Right, that's what I said. But national security is not the same as criminal policing, which is a provincial power.

So no, aside from the three exceptions that I already stated, the RCMP does not have a mandate to investigate criminal matters where not contracted out.

> I have no misconceptions having worked on various contracts with various agencies.

Ah yes, same here. Totally. Believe me bro.

And even if you are telling the truth, it apparently doesn't mean much.

That's not what the RCMP actually does. It's just a common misconception since lots of Canadians think of them as the "Canadian FBI." In Canada, policing of the criminal code is solely a responsibility of the provinces. Provinces can either establish their own police force, like Ontario and Quebec did, or they can contract out policing to the RCMP like every other province opted to. That's why you don't see any RCMP officers in either Ontario nor Quebec, or at least extremely rarely.

Some provinces move this responsibility further down to municipal governments, where relevant. In Ontario and Quebec, municipal governments can either contract out the provincial police force or they can establish their own, like Toronto and Montreal have. Municipalities in some other provinces have a similar deal, but the alternative to establishing their own force is contracting out the RCMP instead of the non-existent provincial police force.

In addition to contract policing for some provinces, the RCMP is also tasked with national security, which is why the RCMP is involved in this story at all.

There are some exceptions to this, however. Like they do police some federal laws that are not the criminal code. And they police organized crime and financial crimes. And some provinces have opted to have the RCMP contracted out for a subset of the criminal code rather than the whole thing.

> Which exact opposite? Be specific.

I already was. Here's what I wrote again: "they said the protest was in response to an earlier pro-Russia protest by some extreme left and extreme right organizations." So no, they did not say the protest consists of "pro-Russian collaborators" nor the "extreme left" nor the "extreme right."

> They didn't mention that. I just provided more context.

Yes, I know. Like I said, you're just putting words in their mouth.

> Have you read what kind of people were there? Do you know anything about it? Would you disagree that there were populists on the anti-government protest?

I don't particularly care. I'm just pointing out that you're being a dick and arguing in bad faith. You're making stuff up and acting like the person you're replying to said stuff that they didn't. It's not cool.

If you think you have a valid argument, you should be able to argue it without making up lies about what the other person said.

> They reacted to a post that specifically claimed that... and they didn't disagree either.

No, they didn't. The post "they reacted to" doesn't claim this protest is "pro-government" either. It also doesn't claim it supports their "current steps/politics."

> I am not. I am trying to establish baseline by describing the reality.

Yes, you are. They didn't say almost everything you claimed they did. Heck, you even admitted to putting words in their mouth in the first paragraph of your reply to me. Just to jog your memory: "They didn't mention that. I just provided more context."

> Or do you disagree with any of the points, such as that...

I don't have an opinion on the protests nor did I ever even remotely claim to. Like I said above, I'm taking issue with you making up strawman to argue against.

> I can support all these statements with links to Czech articles, twitter, videos etc.

Good. So instead of making up lies about what the other person said, you could have just laid out facts yourself with supporting documentation. Why didn't you just do that from the start?

> You agree that the anti-government protest had everything from extreme left to the extreme right, populists, anti-everything, pro-russian collaborators etc.

They didn't say any of that. In fact, they said the exact opposite of some of these things; they said the protest was in response to an earlier pro-Russia protest by some extreme left and extreme right organizations. At no point did they mention "populists" or them being "anti-everything."

> You also agree that the current rally is essentially pro-government, support for the government and their current steps/politics

They didn't say this either.

> Yet, despite all this

Despite all what? Despite all the words you're putting in their mouth?