7 ms·
By far the easiest way to remove the trucks would be to end the COVID mandates.
by nsxwolf 5y ago
By far the easiest way to remove the trucks would be to end the COVID mandates.
- mrandish 5y agoYes, this is the simplest, easiest and safest approach. This isn't just an isolated protest. Large portions of the populace (including law enforcement and the military) are either supportive or sympathetic with the goals of the protestors. Trudeau isn't escalating because he can't. He no longer has popular support for his mandates from the electorate or within his own government. The reality is it's past time to remove the mandates anyway. Even die-hard laggard California is dropping most of the mandates this Monday. It seems like Trudeau is more worried about the appearance of his 'Authoritah" slipping.
- furgooswft13 5y ago
- dang 5y agoPlease not take HN threads into nationalistic or racial flamewar. Last thing we need here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nominated1 5y agoIt’s also the right thing to do. It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.
- throwaway6734 5y agoI don't know what it's like in Canada, but in the US vaccine mandates are generally on strong legal ground
- cdot2 5y agocivil rights can't be violated on strong legal grounds?
- throwaway6734 5y agoHow do you define a violation of rights?
- effingwewt 5y agoI will assume good faith, here[1] is the definition. [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-violation/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
- throwaway6734 5y agoWhich is decided by courts
- effingwewt 5y agoOh you mean the mandates the Supreme Court just struck down?[1] I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
- throwaway6734 5y agoThe supreme court struck down part of the mandate and were open to the idea of it being employment/situationally specific (e.g., nurses). There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
- effingwewt 5y ago
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoI don't see towing all the trucks to impound and arresting the drivers as "violent and destructive" (unless the drivers force it to be so). I especially don't see it as more violent and destructive than parking a bunch of trucks in places that massively disrupt traffic for weeks.
- mrandish 5y agoSadly, armchair authoritarians often clamor for escalating punitive force on non-violent, non-criminal, peaceful protestors even when it's completely unnecessary and increases danger of physical harm for all involved.
- Tiktaalik 5y agogood grief. unvaccinated people are limited from going to restaurants and public gyms for public health and worker safety/health/rights reasons. These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.
- mizzack 5y ago> Drink at home. Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
- Tiktaalik 5y agoVery true and imo a questionable policy, though the bulk of protesters here in Ottawa are not from Quebec.
- Txoko 5y ago”How do I supply documentation to vindicate my posting relating to the Duncan Hines 1940 Travel Guide that highlighted travel accommodations that banned ”Restricted Clientele” which refers to Jews and Blacks?” When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
- mikem170 5y ago> These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined? Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
- Tiktaalik 5y ago
- voisin 5y agoI suspect giving in to them will embolden them to just switch to some other issue to protest. They are there for deeper reasons than the mandates IMO. I think it has to do with inequality and feeling voiceless in the political process.
- disambiguation 5y agoI doubt it. They are protesting in reaction to a policy that suddenly disrupted their lives. This is not a group that's united around decades of systemic oppression like other civil rights movements. They're united against a common enemy. If the mandate goes away, so do the truckers.
- pupppet 5y agoDisrupted their lives by needing a vaccine proven safe, I don't think so. It's purely political. Hey remember the truckers pushing back on having to wear a seatbelt? Yeah, me neither.
- disambiguation 5y agoYou're right, I don't remember people losing their jobs for not wearing seat-belts.
- pupppet 5y agoRight, let's see them keep their jobs refusing to wear a seatbelt.
- captainredbeard 5y ago> vaccine proven safe There's enough medical dissent surrounding the topic to warrant pause, especially for something that gives no value to the receiver (young, healthy folks).
- pupppet 5y ago
- archagon 5y agoIf the majority is in favor of mandates (dunno if true), it would be a blatantly undemocratic move.
- mikem170 5y agoThe 51% percent shouldn't get to do anything they want to the other 49%. Democracy can/should be more nuanced than simple majority/mob rule. Super majorities, local rule, and consensus are all ways of achieving that. Ideally groups of people would not be allowed to impose on other groups of people. I'm just throwing out a general statement about the idea of democracy, food for thought. Many places haven't voted on lockdowns. I think Switzerland did at some point, which makes sense (as they are more of a real democracy than Canada). There's an initial emergency that may need a quick response, but later on there is time for the people to vote.
- archagon 5y agoSure, but if, let’s say, 85% are in favor of lockdowns (or mandatory schooling, or seatbelts, or…), then letting the loud 15% dictate your policy by attrition is also mob rule.
- mikem170 5y ago85% sounds a lot better to me than a 51% majority, which was partially my point. Your point about the minority dictating policy by attrition is interesting to think about. Conservatives might tend to like that feature, not adding new laws unless enough people agree. I assume Progressives would tend to feel the opposite. I'd add that the amount of people voting would seem to make a big difference. It's hard for tens or hundreds of millions of people to agree, easier for smaller groups. Compromise is also a wonderful thing, too, when the 85% respect the 15% enough to do so.
- nathanaldensr 5y agoGood luck collecting any statistics nowadays that are trusted by the entire population. Propaganda and lies have never been thicker than they are now, and it's coordinated worldwide.