Jump to content

Emergency Measures


Recommended Posts

Never would I have believed that this could possibly be done in Canada. If you have donated to a trucker convoy fund your bank can unilaterally freeze your account. Just yesterday when my wife said that this could happen I said that there is no way they could do that and yet today here we are.

From CTV report with link.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says financial service providers have already frozen accounts of certain individuals associated with the trucker convoy blockades and protests.

Freeland said that while the government is choosing not to provide more detail about the number of the accounts suspended, “action is being taken [and] is going to increase” in the coming days.

Ottawa gave new powers to financial institutions, through invoking the Emergencies Act on Monday, to freeze or suspend an account of an individual or business affiliated with the blockades without a court order.

The government is also directing financial service providers to temporarily cease providing financial services in cases where the institution suspects that an account – either personal or corporate – is being used to further the “illegal blockades.”

“I do particularly want people who are participating in illegal blockades and illegal occupation to know these measures are real. They are being used. They will have an impact,” Freeland said.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/freeland-says-some-protesters-accounts-have-been-frozen-more-to-come-1.5785343

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GDR said:

Never would I have believed that this could possibly be done in Canada.

I understand what you mean and the context in which you mean it.

But I've noticed that "surprise" sentiment of late with acquaintances too, and it concerns me a bit that a feeling of genuine surprise could even exist under the circumstances. I could easily conjure a host of nouns but surprise certainly wouldn't be one of them. 

IMO, we are now seeing a huge level of disconnect between what the media and government is saying and what is clearly apparent to the the eye and ear. Invocation of the Emergencies Act simply elevates previous warning signs to a level of absurd overreach that most people are only now coming to grips with. This stuff is usually found in other parts of the world... and those places commonly have warm weather and an abundance of blue hats. I'm not suggesting that the circumstances are the same here, only that the symptoms and manifestations are striking and something that (I think) reasonable people wouldn't want to experiment with.

There's the potential for so much more too should the present trajectory and polarization continue. The real tragedy from a simple soldier's perspective is the self inflicted (almost gleeful passive aggressive) manner in which all of this came about. 

Patrolling Crazy Island is a good job, but nothing more. I never wanted to actually live there. It's why I'm shocked that such a large contingent of Canadians virtually insisted on it.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we can see from the report at the top of the page on this Global site that deaths from Covid in Canada have dropped  34% and hospitalisations have dropped 28% over the last 14 days. Instead of reacting to the fact that the actual science indicates that we are winning, does Trudeau at this point, as several provinces have dove and step back from the mandates, he more than doubles down with this move. It is all about political posturing and showing that he isn't weak. After weeks of doing nothing he goes to the other extreme. The NDP will support him as they do not want an election. They like their position of power. 

This has nothing to do with what is best for Canadians ans is all about holding on to power.

 

https://globalnews.ca/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the truckers were (are) pawns in a much bigger game.  You were not donating to truckers you were supporting an attempted takeover of the federal government.

The Truckers were a good cover for a more nefarious agenda. fortunately one that failed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, boestar said:

The Truckers were a good cover for a more nefarious agenda.

It most definitely didn't fail, but on this point I fear you are right.

I think you (we and us) are about to get a well deserved lesson in nefarious agendas. This will spawn a host of WTFDYTWGTH questions and we will still be discussing them decades from now.

I would love to live in a world where things were linear and simple, to date it has eluded me though. Simple stuff can be complicated...  are the shops in Ottawa that remained open during the "terrorist occupation" guilty of supporting it by virtue of selling food, propane etc? Are those transactions illegal retroactively and is that OK? Ideclaring legal commerce to be illegal after the fact less nefarious than the motive (or lack of it) behind the original sale? 

Hopefully those questions go unanswered as I object to the government even asking them in the absence of legal protection extended to those being asked. In addition, allowing banks the power to  freeze the accounts of minor donors is the very definition of nefarious intent even if they (the banks) choose not to act on it.

And are banks to be delegated the power of choice here or is it left to the government.... and which is worse if neither is good. If government, the media, banking and policing all become suspect to the 34 percenters (all at the same time), surely that constitutes a crisis well worthy of the name too.

 As always though... be assured that I'm rooting for ya. It's just that nothing in my experience leads me to the same level of trust and optimism the 66ers seem to have.  The institutions we previously trusted have repeatedly proven themselves unworthy of it and any comparison of verifiable fact with the CBC web site should serve as proof.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boestar said:

The Truckers were a good cover for a more nefarious agenda. fortunately one that failed

Respectfully, I cannot disagree more. They didn’t fail…by a long shot. They woke up Canadians from their induced Covid malaise. The truckers were the last hope of defeating pure evil bent on the destruction of the everyday working class.

403C5531-BEE1-4D0A-B4F1-3FDD73289D18.jpeg

39343EF2-E4F5-4D0A-9578-82F8197CB02D.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what your views are on this issue we can see that our democracy has failed us. 

EVERY MP VOTED ALONG PARTY LINES.

This is a very contentious issue and clearly there would be MP's who would disagree with their party's position but all MP's voted with the party.

Clearly the party, and their position in the party,  is more important to them than standing up for what they believe, or even, heaven forbid, what their constituents believe. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GDR said:

No matter what your views are on this issue we can see that our democracy has failed us. 

EVERY MP VOTED ALONG PARTY LINES.

This is a very contentious issue and clearly there would be MP's who would disagree with their party's position but all MP's voted with the party.

Clearly the party, and their position in the party,  is more important to them than standing up for what they believe, or even, heaven forbid, what their constituents believe. 

Monumental fail of Government by ALL parties

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-to-freedom-convoy-after-feb-15-enough-to-have-donors-bank-accounts-frozen-finance-committee-told

If the Senate passes this and if the Governor General doesn't step in after they do, it will be interesting to see what the 66 percenters think of it all 30 days hence. War Measures entails a wee bit more than tow trucks.

Remember now, all y'all 66 percenters wanted this.... no whining if you get it in full measure. Be assured that The Goddess of unintended consequences is watching this. Remember when you thought transgender rights was about toilets? She does...

Personally, I think y'all should have treated the lady in black with a bit more respect.... I'm rooting for ya though.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites


https://www.theprogress.com/news/chilliwack-hope-mp-strahls-tweet-about-single-mother-having-bank-account-frozen-under-scrutiny/

“Briane is a single mom from Chilliwack working a minimum wage job,” began Strahl’s Tweet on Feb. 20. “She gave $50 to the convoy when it was 100% legal. She hasn’t participated in any other way. Her bank account has now been frozen. This is who Justin Trudeau is actually targeting with his Emergencies Act orders.”

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You no longer need to leave home in order to see total absurdity in headline form... 

Trudeau says Emergencies Act won’t override fundamental rights — but experts aren’t so sure

In other news, water is no longer wet and fire doesn't burn, it simply consumes oxygen around the object that appears to be on fire.

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some changes made to de identify the poster, but the message remains clear. Go against Trudeau and if allowed he will attempt to crucify you any way he can. If you don’t think for ONE MOMENT that judge was instructed in no uncertain terms what to do, you are living in La La land.

“ **** & **** were discussing this yesterday after ***** finished testifying for an attempted murder trial. In twenty-one years ***** accounts for there being numerous times where even in light of all the evidence ***** has compiled, individuals charged with attempted murder are given bail. That is not a typo - attempted murder and sent home. Yet an individual with a mischief charge is not afforded bail? This does not line up.”

 

” The judge in this ruling ran for the liberal party at one point in time …. Footage of Trudeau praising her”

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

letter to Parliament signed by prominent academics about the government’s declaration of emergency

Maintaining this declaration of emergency will set a dangerous precedent.
 

Re: Declaration of Public Order Emergency

Dear Honourable Members and Senators,

We write to you as members of Advocates for the Rule of Law, a think tank composed of lawyers, scholars and engaged citizens dedicated to preserving the rule of law in Canada. The purpose of this letter is to set out the significant concerns we have with the Government of Canada’s declaration of a public order emergency on February 14, 2022, and to urge Parliament to revoke the declaration. 

Even, and especially, in times of crisis, it is essential that members of the public be prepared to scrutinize executive and legislative action to ensure it conforms with the law. As Justice David Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal has said, the best guarantee of a democracy is not judges or even Parliament, but ultimately a “well-informed, active populace that’s prepared to defend fundamental values.” It is in that spirit that we write to provide these hallowed chambers with our assessment of the lawfulness of the Government’s declaration.

The high hurdle of declaring a public order emergency

Pursuant to s.58(1) of the Emergencies Act (the “EA”), the Government has provided an explanation of its declaration of public order emergency (the “Explanation”). We do not contest any of the facts set out in the Explanation. We acknowledge that the blockades in Ottawa and at various ports of entry are unlawful, being both contrary to statutory law and court-ordered injunctions. We further acknowledge that these blockades do not constitute “peaceful assembly” under s.2(c) of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms. Finally, we acknowledge that the blockades and other actions taken by some of the protesters threaten Canada’s economic well-being and security. In short, we support the federal and provincial governments taking decisive action to end the blockades and restore order.

Any action taken by either order of government, however, must be in accordance with the law. The government, as the executive branch of the state, is duty bound to execute the laws the legislature has enacted in a manner that is faithful to the text, context, and purpose of those laws. Thus, a declaration of a public order emergency may only be made under the EA where the criteria of such an emergency are met. 

A public order emergency is defined in s.16 of the EA as “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency.”  To this end, the burden rests with the Government to demonstrate, firstly, that there is an emergency arising from “threats to the security of Canada,” and secondly that the situation “is so serious as to be a national emergency.”

The term “threats to the security of Canada” is defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. That section enumerates four potential types of “threats to the security of Canada.” The Government has anchored its declaration to the third, which reads: “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state.” In essence, this is a threat akin to terrorism, and there must accordingly be evidence of a threat of “serious violence.”

Once the Government has demonstrated that there exist “threats to the security of Canada” it must then show that these threats rise to the level of a “national emergency”. For something to constitute a national emergency, two additional criteria must be met. First, pursuant to s.3 of the EA, there must be a situation that either “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it,” or “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.” The use of the disjunctive “or” means that the government can justify the invocation of the EA on either basis.

Secondly, to constitute a national emergency, the situation must be such that it “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” The use of the conjunctive “and” in s.3 means that this is a separate condition that must be satisfied in order to classify the situation as a national emergency and thereby justify a declaration of emergency.

In sum, the Government of Canada must demonstrate three things to justify its declaration of a public order emergency: 1) that Canada faces terrorist-like threats of “serious violence” intended to achieve an ideological aim, 2) that the situation either exceeds the capacity or authority or a province, or seriously threatens the ability of the government to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and 3) that the situation cannot be effectively dealt with under existing laws. These are high hurdles to overcome, and purposefully so. Once an emergency is declared, the government has wide-ranging powers, all of which potentially threaten the rights and freedoms of Canadians. 

Canadians. And while actions taken under the EA are of course subject to the Charter, that is cold comfort since by the time the Government’s conduct is judicially reviewed, much of the damage will have been done. The Government must therefore only invoke the Emergencies Act in the most extreme circumstances, with Parliament serving as the first and best check against potential overreach. 

There is insufficient evidence of a public order emergency

Accepting the allegations and evidence set out in the Explanation, there remains, in our respectful view, an insufficient basis to support the Government’s declaration of a public order emergency.

 With respect to “threats to the security of Canada,” the Explanation does not provide any evidence that there is a real risk of “serious violence” occurring. Indeed, the Explanation does not even allege that the situation is different from what has been widely reported in the public domain. The Explanation discusses what “may” happen, the “risk” of serious violence and the “potential” for terrorist attacks; but there is no evidence presented of a larger coordinated threat, and no allusion to sensitive intelligence informing the Government’s decision. It is also not clear why this threat of serious violence, if it does exist, has not yet manifested despite the passage of over two weeks since the protests began. On the contrary, the strength and intensity of the protests appear, by all accounts, to be diminishing

Even if the Government can demonstrate that there exist “threats to security of Canada,” it must then overcome the second hurdle described above. The Explanation certainly makes a persuasive case that the blockades have undermined the security of Canada – to the extent we interpret that term broadly to encompass “economic” security. On the other hand, there is no serious allegation that Canada’s sovereignty as a state is under serious threat, let alone its “territorial integrity.” While the Explanation does not state this expressly, the Government appears to be justifying its actions on the basis of s.3(a) of the EA, namely that this threat “is of such proportions of nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with.” But in our respectful view, there is insufficient evidence to support this contention.

The Government’s Explanation asserts that there is “evidence of coordination between the various convoys and blockades.” However, there is no evidence offered that this is a nationally or centrally coordinated movement, and in fact the Explanation suggests the opposite – that the protests represent disparate interests with “varying ideological grievances”. The Explanation also notes that, under Ontario law, the province cannot compel tow truck drivers to provide assistance, and is also unable to cancel or suspend the insurance of out-of-province vehicles. While true, this speaks only to particular methods the Ontario government is unable to employ, not whether the province lacks the capacity to address the threat. Why is it necessary to compel tow truck drivers to provide assistance, and why is the provincial government not able to resolve the issue using other provisions in Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act? Why is cancelling the insurance of out-of-province vehicles necessary to resolve the crisis, and if it is, what is preventing the Ontario government from working with other provinces to accomplish this? 

Even if the situation is so dire that federal assistance is necessary, the Government of Canada still needs to show that the crisis cannot be resolved using existing laws. The federal and provincial governments already have significant resources at their disposal to deal with the situation, only some of which have been marshaled thus far. By way of example, Ontario could call in the military to assist with maintaining order and the federal government could direct the RCMP to assist at ports of entry and in some parts of Ottawa (see s.5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which empowers the Government to direct the RCMP Commissioner). The Explanation argues that under existing laws, the Government cannot effectively stop the movement of funds to the protestors, but once again, it is not clear why taking this extreme action is necessary to end the blockades. Similarly, while Ottawa’s Chief of Police has said that recent police actions were made possible by the EA, this same outcome could have arguably been achieved through a robust application and enforcement of existing laws. 

The failure of the government and police to enforce existing laws and court orders is not a sound basis to expand state power with a declaration of a public order emergency, when no such emergency has been proven to exist. One rule of law failure should not beget another.

Finally, even if there was a need to declare a public order emergency on February 14, that need has now clearly passed. The last two weeks have demonstrated that the provinces, working together with the RCMP, are generally capable of ending the blockades when existing laws are enforced. Ports of entry have been reopened and order has largely been restored in downtown Ottawa.

Avoiding a dangerous precedent

Maintaining this declaration of emergency will endow the Government of Canada with far-reaching powers and it will set a dangerous precedent. If the Government can declare an emergency based on these facts, then it will also be able to do so the next time there is a railway blockade, a threat to pipelines or any other endangerment of national infrastructure. To be sure, each of these is a serious situation that calls for decisive action. But normalizing the declaration of emergencies, especially before other less intrusive (but still significant) measures have been attempted, threatens to render hollow the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians; it risks a gradual erosion of Parliament’s role in favour of executive power; and it amounts to a damning admission of a failure of state capacity. If Canada is to remain a functional and free democracy, then it must be able to solve problems using existing laws and established institutions, and without resorting to the most extreme measures except where absolutely necessary. 

We want to emphasize that our assessment is based on the evidence and allegations contained in the Government’s own Explanation. To the extent the Government is in possession of sensitive intelligence signifying a larger coordinated threat likely to manifest, we would urge the Government to share this intelligence with key Members of the Opposition in confidence and we would urge those Members to consider that evidence and the Government’s assessment of it in good faith. A national emergency should not be a partisan issue, and we would hope that all Members of Parliament would be prepared to work together, lest invocations of the EA become commonplace, and even weaponized. 

But to the extent the Government of Canada has no further evidence of a public order emergency beyond what it has already presented in the Explanation, we would respectfully urge all Members and Senators to vote to revoke the declaration of emergency. The rule of law demands no less.

Sincerely,

Asher Honickman, Partner, Jordan Honickman Barristers

Dwight Newman, QC, Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan

Mark Mancini, PhD Student in Law, University of British Columbia

Ben Woodfinden, doctoral candidate, McGill University

Geoffrey Sigalet, Assistant Professor of Law and Politics, University of British Columbia

Justin Anisman, Lawyer

https://thehub.ca/2022-02-22/read-this-letter-to-parliament-signed-by-prominent-academics-about-the-governments-declaration-of-emergency/

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ottawa was easily the most boring layover in the AC system. 
 

“ In one enterprise after another, Ottawa falls short. It is easily satisfied with mediocrity. As New York was said to be a town without foreplay, Ottawa is a city without climax.”

 

The occupation showed Ottawa is a city still satisfied with mediocrity


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-occupation-showed-ottawa-is-a-city-still-satisfied-with-mediocrity/?utm_campaign=sophi-pop&utm_medium=post&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2wl3PqN0JyGhfMUIDQukMQGosTIiuTwYYISqLstmVM8HyiKuHNilQy1y8

 

Andrew Cohen is a journalist, professor at Carleton University and author of The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are.

In deepest Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa’s toniest enclave, lies a hidden natural phenomenon: a shaded pocket of water filling a former sand and gravel pit. “The Pond,” a local secret, is much beloved in summer by swimmers, sunbathers and naturalists.

In winter, though, the Pond is as accessible as Chernobyl. A black chain-link fence surrounds it. Yellow “caution” tape strung across a flight of stairs to the shore suggests a crime scene; the offenders are apparently hardy swimmers guilty of breaking the ice and entering the forbidden water. Everywhere, the signs scream: “Do not climb!” “Do not enter!” “No dogs!” “Thin ice!” “No smoking!”

The other day, I savoured the quiet as I stood in mounds of sugary snow. Every moment or so, depending on the wind, brought cacophony from the big trucks downtown.

The absurdity was striking. Here, at the Pond, the mirthless city that forced kids to dismantle a lemonade stand was doing its stern, finger-wagging best to protect us from pleasure. There, at Parliament Hill, it was doing its feckless, forelock-tugging worst to wish away peril.

As we know, the City of Ottawa did almost nothing to stop what Mayor Jim Watson called a state of emergency. Nothing. In the first week, the now-former police chief, Peter Sloly, offered daily self-congratulation for avoiding violence. Later, Mr. Watson tried to negotiate with the truckers – a fruitless exercise in appeasement.

It took Zexi Li, a heroic young public servant, to get a court injunction to stop the ear-piercing honking. And the federal government, finally, to organize a police intervention to stop the carnival of intimidation. Effectively, this made Ottawa its ward.

The occupation of Ottawa was the apotheosis of an inept city. How could this happen in the capital of a G8 country? Easily, actually, if you have an autocratic mayor, a weak city council and a contented constituency.

Ottawa no longer sees itself as a national capital. It is innocent of the vision, ambition and confidence which created Canada. Its functionaries do little more than clear snow, collect garage, raise taxes and patch its gouged streets, which a foreign diplomat calls worse than Jakarta’s.

Yes, yes, Ottawa has many blessings: tidy neighbourhoods; two growing universities; a pleasant municipal art gallery; the Rideau Canal and its grassy banks; the coppered and chimneyed Parliament; the art deco Supreme Court; and the shimmering National Gallery. Ottawa overlooks the Ottawa River to the glorious Gatineau Park.

Spiritually and aesthetically, though, Ottawa is insipid and ugly. It has soulless federal office buildings and a Brutalist concrete bunker for a crumbling central library. Bank Street, its commercial downtown thoroughfare, is a varicose vein. The Byward Market is tired. The Sparks Street Mall is dead.

It’s not just how it looks or feels. In one enterprise after another, Ottawa falls short. It is easily satisfied with mediocrity. As New York was said to be a town without foreplay, Ottawa is a city without climax.

Ottawa opened its hockey arena in the suburbs in 1996, just when Washington, D.C. and other sensible cities were bringing theirs downtown. It blew a once-in-a-century opportunity to create something bold on some 40 acres at Lansdowne Park, settling for chain stores and a flawed football stadium.

It approved a proposed expansion (now modified) of the gothic Chateau Laurier that looked like a carbuncle. Its planned central library is outside downtown on empty LeBreton Flats; it will be smaller and less daring than other new libraries like Calgary’s. Ottawa’s marquee failure, its greatest institutional collapse, is its light rail system, a comic opera so unfunny that the province is holding a public inquiry.

All this happens in Ottawa because it’s cheap and pinched, terrified of an ambush of imagination. This has much to do with Mr. Watson, a former councillor and mayor who returned in 2010 to lead the newly amalgamated city. The nadir of his brittle, petty stewardship came in a surreal session of city council last week that descended into a teary shouting match over the hiring of a replacement for Mr. Sloly.

Mr. Watson is not running for re-election. The city’s political culture is so depleted it produces a thin field led by Bob Chiarelli, the former mayor who is 80, and Diane Deans, the dismissed chair of the Police Services Board who blithely refused to say why, in a crisis, the police chief was no longer police chief.

Ottawa desperately needs a civic reform movement, fired by progressive grassroots organizations like Horizon Ottawa. After decades of decline, it needs to reimagine itself, to abandon its suffocating parochialism and numbing complacency. Only then can it embrace a future as a green, clean, smart, kicking, aspiring Nordic metropolis, finally with a real idea of itself.

 

 

 

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What should really worry a lot of Canadians is the cavalier secretive attitude the Trudeau government and the the way they treat anybody who dares question their actions…whether it be freedom for information requests (which come back totally redacted), Orders in Council (information can’t be released because it’s threatens security), defying judicial requests for information, and now this:
 

Quote

Evidence Of Sedition Is Secret

Cabinet has confidential information justifying extraordinary police powers against Freedom Convoy truckers, the Senate was told yesterday. Skeptical senators questioned why records could not be shown to legislators: “The short answer is no.”

And we put up with it!!

WE GET THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BREAKING: Justin Trudeau revokes Emergencies Act

Trudeau credited the end of the downtown Ottawa protests with cabinet’s decision to revoke the measures, a move he said was needed to end the illegal occupation and clear streets from dozens of parked vehicles and big rigs.

Since the underlined quote is simply nonsense, I'm left thinking he was served notice by the Senate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Looks like he finally saw his polling numbers is more like it

LOL, just wait til Jagmeet sees his. I dare say this is unprecedented on all fronts and from every viewing angle. I'm grateful that I got to watch it play out... I might not have believed it otherwise.

I'd bet money that either the Senate or Governor General told JT that they would be shutting this down if he continued on course.... pretty sure there was no sudden epiphany on his part. One way or another and what ever the reason is found to be, I think this was forced on him.

The absurdity of it all will be discussed in Canadian History classes for decades to come and I can't even imagine how the NDP will spin their participation in it.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...