3 ms·

> Where does it say that and what does that mean? Overthrow is a violent usurpation of power. Getting a government to capitulate is not an overthrow. It was on

> Where does it say that and what does that mean? Overthrow is a violent usurpation of power. Getting a government to capitulate is not an overthrow. It was on their website. Here's the link to the original https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined-MOU-Dec03.pdf https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined...? It called for the all elected representatives in disagreement to step down, and for the organizers of the protest to be installed as a ruling committee for the country until such time as they saw fit. Here is a good quote showing the battiness of this document: > The matter to be discussed and agreed upon is this; The Senate of Canada and the Governor General, combined referred to as the Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately”. > In the US we had plenty people who during the previous administration made exaggerated claims about what they wanted to achieve as well. I didn't see Gofundme shut down donations or freeze funds. What aboutism.... I think that money is not free speech in those cases either. But they also weren't actively asking for the government to agree to all of their demands or else step down. And that is what I mean by overthrow. Their explicit ask as quoted above was that all government reps do what they say or else resign, and that they be given a committee to rule the country.

mc32 5y ago
Fair comment, but I don't think that amounts to "overthrow". If that were the case, many mass protests could be categorized as wanting to "overthrow" some government (official, local, state, national). Pussyhat, YellowVest, BLM, someone wanting the sheriff to resign, etc., depending on how you interpret their demands. I think that is unfair and I disagree. Making demands of and petitioning the government is a basic right of the electorate in democratic governments.
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> And that is what I mean by overthrow. You're using "overthrow" in a manner that isn't consistent with the definition - deliberately, I suspect.
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  My use of overthrow is as follows: an unelected group removing a legitimately elected governing body from power via direct force or threats. They haven’t stormed parliament with guns. They have used force to inflict measurable economic damage and threatened tocontinue it until their demands were met, and are threatening to escalate and continue their economic damage. As a side note: I don’t disagree with everything this group stands for. I think that if we are to have mandates, their should be explicit achievable goals tied to them. If they said border requirements will be lifted when the ICU availability rises above 5%, that makes sense to me. What I don’t agree with is that anonymous money from abroad should be allowed to be used by political organizations, especially ones with explicit goals of regime change.
  - lp0_on_fire 5y ago
    What _threats_ are being made? The protesters are demanding (asking) that the government _resign_. > They have used force to inflict measurable economic damage and threatened to continue it until their demands were met. The "measurable economic damage" pales in comparison to the economic damage causes by draconian lockdown policies promogulated by western governments.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >My use of overthrow is as follows: an unelected group removing a legitimately elected governing body from power via direct force or threats. There is no force, so that leaves threats. This is classic non-violent civil disobedience. You can say it is illegal - it is!. You can disagree with it - not all civil disobedience is good. Just don't conflate the threat of civil disobedience with a threat of violent revolution or overthrow. Threats aren't inherently illegal or violent. You can threaten to not vote for a politician unless they approve your policy. You can threaten to not go to work unless they resign. Crossing over into non-violent civil disobedience, you can threaten to illegally sit in a bus seat or road until a policy changes. This is a world different than threatening to hurt someone unless you get what you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience
jl2718 5y ago
This reads like a legal opinion brief. It’s all based on interpretation of existing law. Yours may be different, but about that quote specifically isolated, what exactly is wrong with it? What exactly is your position in opposition to that statement? “… the Federal Government may violate and neglect all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws with no challenge or change to their appointed status.” Please do not introduce your medical or legal opinion on any topic except whether the terms of this specific document, as applied to any other real or perceived injustice that you believe in, implies an earnest attempt to overthrow a legitimate functional democracy.
mardifoufs 5y ago
So, anytime a protest asks for government officials to resign, it's now a "threat to democracy "? I'm sorry, but that is so ridiculous and such a transparent way to justify getting any protest you disagree with to be dealt with with violence ( I mean, it's an overthrow attempt, according to you, right? That would require the army to intervene? ). You have to realize that sometimes protests happen, and you won't agree with them, and everything you disagree with is not a threat to democracy. Labeling every protest a coup is the blatant threat to democracy here.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
>It called for the all elected representatives in disagreement to step down, and for the organizers of the protest to be installed as a ruling committee for the country until such time as they saw fit. This is fake news that is not supported by your link. >Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately”. What part of that is batty? They are demanding that the federal government change policy or resign. I can demand my governor support LGBTQ rights or resign. What is the difference. I can demand all I want and it doesn't cross to overthrow or revolution unless violence is involved. >and that they be given a committee to rule the country. This again is nonsense and unsupported. There is no ruling committee. The only committee mentioned has no powers whatsoever. The Only federal government requirement for the Committee is to appoint some people and share the schedule for lifting the bans with the Committee.

mc32 5y ago

Fair comment, but I don't think that amounts to "overthrow". If that were the case, many mass protests could be categorized as wanting to "overthrow" some government (official, local, state, national). Pussyhat, YellowVest, BLM, someone wanting the sheriff to resign, etc., depending on how you interpret their demands. I think that is unfair and I disagree. Making demands of and petitioning the government is a basic right of the electorate in democratic governments.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago

> And that is what I mean by overthrow. You're using "overthrow" in a manner that isn't consistent with the definition - deliberately, I suspect.

dghlsakjg 5y ago
My use of overthrow is as follows: an unelected group removing a legitimately elected governing body from power via direct force or threats. They haven’t stormed parliament with guns. They have used force to inflict measurable economic damage and threatened tocontinue it until their demands were met, and are threatening to escalate and continue their economic damage. As a side note: I don’t disagree with everything this group stands for. I think that if we are to have mandates, their should be explicit achievable goals tied to them. If they said border requirements will be lifted when the ICU availability rises above 5%, that makes sense to me. What I don’t agree with is that anonymous money from abroad should be allowed to be used by political organizations, especially ones with explicit goals of regime change.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  What _threats_ are being made? The protesters are demanding (asking) that the government _resign_. > They have used force to inflict measurable economic damage and threatened to continue it until their demands were met. The "measurable economic damage" pales in comparison to the economic damage causes by draconian lockdown policies promogulated by western governments.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >My use of overthrow is as follows: an unelected group removing a legitimately elected governing body from power via direct force or threats. There is no force, so that leaves threats. This is classic non-violent civil disobedience. You can say it is illegal - it is!. You can disagree with it - not all civil disobedience is good. Just don't conflate the threat of civil disobedience with a threat of violent revolution or overthrow. Threats aren't inherently illegal or violent. You can threaten to not vote for a politician unless they approve your policy. You can threaten to not go to work unless they resign. Crossing over into non-violent civil disobedience, you can threaten to illegally sit in a bus seat or road until a policy changes. This is a world different than threatening to hurt someone unless you get what you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

jl2718 5y ago

This reads like a legal opinion brief. It’s all based on interpretation of existing law. Yours may be different, but about that quote specifically isolated, what exactly is wrong with it? What exactly is your position in opposition to that statement? “… the Federal Government may violate and neglect all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws with no challenge or change to their appointed status.” Please do not introduce your medical or legal opinion on any topic except whether the terms of this specific document, as applied to any other real or perceived injustice that you believe in, implies an earnest attempt to overthrow a legitimate functional democracy.

mardifoufs 5y ago

So, anytime a protest asks for government officials to resign, it's now a "threat to democracy "? I'm sorry, but that is so ridiculous and such a transparent way to justify getting any protest you disagree with to be dealt with with violence ( I mean, it's an overthrow attempt, according to you, right? That would require the army to intervene? ). You have to realize that sometimes protests happen, and you won't agree with them, and everything you disagree with is not a threat to democracy. Labeling every protest a coup is the blatant threat to democracy here.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

>It called for the all elected representatives in disagreement to step down, and for the organizers of the protest to be installed as a ruling committee for the country until such time as they saw fit. This is fake news that is not supported by your link. >Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately”. What part of that is batty? They are demanding that the federal government change policy or resign. I can demand my governor support LGBTQ rights or resign. What is the difference. I can demand all I want and it doesn't cross to overthrow or revolution unless violence is involved. >and that they be given a committee to rule the country. This again is nonsense and unsupported. There is no ruling committee. The only committee mentioned has no powers whatsoever. The Only federal government requirement for the Committee is to appoint some people and share the schedule for lifting the bans with the Committee.