7 ms·

When protests were happening in India this is what Trudeau had to say: "Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protest

When protests were happening in India this is what Trudeau had to say: "Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue. We’ve reached out through multiple means to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns. This is a moment for all of us to pull together,"Justin Trudeau said. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/situation-is-concerning-canadas-justin-trudeau-backs-farmers-protests-7075085/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/situation-is-concern...

abledon 5y ago
was it only the 10% fringe farmers protesting? or the 90% majority of farmers?
- tw600040 5y ago
  Depends on who you ask. There are people who would strongly vouch for either sides... That said, it was predominantly farmers from 1 state. may be 3-4 states max. India has like 28 states.
- gruez 5y ago
  > was it only the 10% fringe farmers protesting? or the 90% majority of farmers? Short of the hong-kong protests, I don't think there were any recent protests that has double-digit percent attendance numbers. For instance, wikipedia says that for the BLM protests, "between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history". That means, the largest protest in the US only has between 4.6%-7.9% attendance. edit: whoops forgot link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
- screye 5y ago
  It was certainly less than 10% of Indian farmers. It was rooted in Punjab, and had weak support in Eastern UP and Haryana. That's it. Also, unlike Trudeau's mandates which had questionable backing from the constitution, the Farm Bill was passed by a Democratic Govt. with the necessary popular mandate.
  - JamisonM 5y ago
    The current government of Canada was very recently elected in an election that was mostly about the pandemic response and mandates in particular, the notion that this represents some undermining of the democratic process is a bit of a stretch.
    - b112 5y ago
      Yes but... The Federal Governme t has almost no control over, well, anything related to health, or covid related mandates. The provinces rule here. The truckers had issues with border crossings, and that's federal, one rare area the feds handle here. So in reality, the last federal election had very little to do with mandates, or validation of mandate response. More about fiscal response. That said, I find this protest a bit loopy. Only provinces can revoke mandates, which they created, about closed businesses, masks, vaccines, etc. They're literally protesting the wrong government.
    - swader999 5y ago
      Only two out of ten registered voters voted for his party. Vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination weren't in the campaign.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - dotnet00 5y ago
      We're literally in a post about Trudeau invoking powers that allow him to suspend even civil rights (EDIT: I misread, that was the previous version of the act, he cannot suspend civil rights) (even if he probably won't do that) over a protest that has gone on for a month without any attempts made at reconciliation, it's hard to argue that this isn't an undermining of democracy in Canada. The protests in India lasted over a year with several rounds of talks despite being in the midst of a worse wave of covid than now, yet they didn't resort to using their equivalent of these powers. It really does make India's democracy look stronger than Canada's.
- Karishma1234fff 5y ago
  It was not even the farmers. It was mostly the government pimps of agricultural products and the rice smugglers of Punjab who got rich selling inedible rice to the government are a high minimum support price by smuggling it from other states. This raises a lot of questions but sadly there is no other way that figuring it out. One simple question western audience should ask is why only two states in the entire country give a damn about the new 'reforms' (the new law was about removing an old law meant to mimic soviet styled collectivist farming with Indian twist). The protests were seen by Pakistan's ISI and other Indian separatists group as an opportunity to show Indian government was some kind of tyrant, when in reality the government showed exceptional patience with absolutely vile protestors who raped women and chopped off arms of people with no consequence. As an Indian I am glad with whatever is happening to Trudeau. If you are going to shelter and support people trying to hurt other countries, those societies will hurt you back.
- Banana699 5y ago
  Protests are only legitimate if they have more than 10% percent of the population? So, for instance, no gay pride demonstration was ever a legitimate protest? Some revolutions were carried out by less than that percentage.
  - bregma 5y ago
    Just remember, a self-selected 10% of the population imposing unwanted hardship on the remaining 90% is less of a revolution and more of a tyranny.
    - dotnet00 5y ago
      The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny, unless you're arguing that the interests of minorities don't matter? I should clarify that I don't mean to say that this makes the protest valid, just that the argument that protest is only acceptable if an arbitrary number of people are involved is not all that good.
      - lwansbrough 5y ago
        Ultimately you must ask if you would prefer tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority.
      - parineum 5y ago
        >The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny 10% of people oppose nearly everything and it isn't tyranny so, unless you're an anarchist, your point is ridiculous.
        dotnet00 5y ago
        The tyranny of the majority is not an anarchistic idea and yet is exactly what is being invoked when the argument is made that it's acceptable to ignore the concerns of a minority population because doing otherwise would be unfair to the majority. I think this quote from Tocqueville explains it well: "So what is a majority taken as a whole, if not an individual who has opinions and, most often, interests contrary to another individual called the minority. Now, if you admit that an individual vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why would you not admit the same thing for the majority? Have men, by gathering together, changed character? By becoming stronger, have they become more patient in the face of obstacles?" What matters is not how many supporters each side has but what the merits and demerits of each side are.
- lariati 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thunkshift1 5y ago
  It was farmers from mostly two states only.. nowhere close to 90%, thats ridiculous
- JarvisSong 5y ago
  Majority of farmers. India’s govt has backed and supported small farmers for decades. Also agriculture is like 80% of jobs for ppl in India, unlike the US. Farmers protested for ~1 year and prime minister Modi heard their concerns and repealed the new laws. This vox report is a summary https://youtu.be/iHpZV7ro7lU https://youtu.be/iHpZV7ro7lU
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    >Majority of farmers Statistically people from 1-3 states can't represent the majority of farmers. >supported small farmers for decades I guess they therefore can't ever stop subsidizing them, homerun for the economy. >agriculture is like 80% of jobs for ppl in India What? (Also, it produces almost no value in exchange for the subsidies, it's barely 15% of the GDP IIRC)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Phew. For a moment there I was unsure of how to qualify a legitimate protest. I feel calmer now that abledon has defined a threshold.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
chernevik 5y ago
They weren't protesting _him_, that's entirely different.
cardy31 5y ago
But they aren’t being peaceful in Ottawa. They tried to burn down a condo building last night and have terrorized residents there for weeks now.
- perfopt 5y ago
  Nor were they peaceful in India. In addition to the violence against police a woman in the group was raped. A man was killed brutally. The right to protest ends when it infringes on other's rights to go about their daily life. Occupying highways and roads for months on end is not a peaceful protest. Canadian politicians, including some in the cabinet, supported violent protests in India. Canadian citizens fueled money to the protests in India.
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    > Occupying highways and roads for months on end is not a peaceful protest. What is inherently violent in those actions?
    - lwansbrough 5y ago
      Non-peaceful does not imply violence. Most everyone is willing to tolerate a couple days of protests. Where it gets beyond peaceful is when you’re making a huge amount of noise at all hours of the day for weeks on end. That isn’t peaceful, it’s obviously disruptive to the point of intolerability. It’s abusing our willingness to tolerate protest.
      - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
        > Non-peaceful does not imply violence. What, specifically, about this protest is not peaceful - in the context of protests? > Most everyone is willing to tolerate a couple days of protests. If you only protest so long as people are willing to tolerate it, I don't see the point of protesting at all. Could you imagine how society would look today if emancipation protestors packed it up and went home after a few days? > That isn’t peaceful, it’s obviously disruptive to the point of intolerability. If being disruptive isn't the point of a protest, what is?
sdave 5y ago
yalogin 5y ago
Not every protest is the same just because they call it that. The one going on in ottowa is a nonsensical, made up, cult based brainwashing that got spilled into the open. Don’t equate it to other genuine forms of protest.
- wyager 5y ago
  Very wise and true - only demonstrations for correct things are protests. Demonstrations for incorrect things are terrorism, brainwashing, etc.
known 5y ago

abledon 5y ago

was it only the 10% fringe farmers protesting? or the 90% majority of farmers?

tw600040 5y ago
Depends on who you ask. There are people who would strongly vouch for either sides... That said, it was predominantly farmers from 1 state. may be 3-4 states max. India has like 28 states.
gruez 5y ago
> was it only the 10% fringe farmers protesting? or the 90% majority of farmers? Short of the hong-kong protests, I don't think there were any recent protests that has double-digit percent attendance numbers. For instance, wikipedia says that for the BLM protests, "between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history". That means, the largest protest in the US only has between 4.6%-7.9% attendance. edit: whoops forgot link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
screye 5y ago
It was certainly less than 10% of Indian farmers. It was rooted in Punjab, and had weak support in Eastern UP and Haryana. That's it. Also, unlike Trudeau's mandates which had questionable backing from the constitution, the Farm Bill was passed by a Democratic Govt. with the necessary popular mandate.
- JamisonM 5y ago
  The current government of Canada was very recently elected in an election that was mostly about the pandemic response and mandates in particular, the notion that this represents some undermining of the democratic process is a bit of a stretch.
  - b112 5y ago
    Yes but... The Federal Governme t has almost no control over, well, anything related to health, or covid related mandates. The provinces rule here. The truckers had issues with border crossings, and that's federal, one rare area the feds handle here. So in reality, the last federal election had very little to do with mandates, or validation of mandate response. More about fiscal response. That said, I find this protest a bit loopy. Only provinces can revoke mandates, which they created, about closed businesses, masks, vaccines, etc. They're literally protesting the wrong government.
  - swader999 5y ago
    Only two out of ten registered voters voted for his party. Vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination weren't in the campaign.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - dotnet00 5y ago
    We're literally in a post about Trudeau invoking powers that allow him to suspend even civil rights (EDIT: I misread, that was the previous version of the act, he cannot suspend civil rights) (even if he probably won't do that) over a protest that has gone on for a month without any attempts made at reconciliation, it's hard to argue that this isn't an undermining of democracy in Canada. The protests in India lasted over a year with several rounds of talks despite being in the midst of a worse wave of covid than now, yet they didn't resort to using their equivalent of these powers. It really does make India's democracy look stronger than Canada's.
Karishma1234fff 5y ago
It was not even the farmers. It was mostly the government pimps of agricultural products and the rice smugglers of Punjab who got rich selling inedible rice to the government are a high minimum support price by smuggling it from other states. This raises a lot of questions but sadly there is no other way that figuring it out. One simple question western audience should ask is why only two states in the entire country give a damn about the new 'reforms' (the new law was about removing an old law meant to mimic soviet styled collectivist farming with Indian twist). The protests were seen by Pakistan's ISI and other Indian separatists group as an opportunity to show Indian government was some kind of tyrant, when in reality the government showed exceptional patience with absolutely vile protestors who raped women and chopped off arms of people with no consequence. As an Indian I am glad with whatever is happening to Trudeau. If you are going to shelter and support people trying to hurt other countries, those societies will hurt you back.
Banana699 5y ago
Protests are only legitimate if they have more than 10% percent of the population? So, for instance, no gay pride demonstration was ever a legitimate protest? Some revolutions were carried out by less than that percentage.
- bregma 5y ago
  Just remember, a self-selected 10% of the population imposing unwanted hardship on the remaining 90% is less of a revolution and more of a tyranny.
  - dotnet00 5y ago
    The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny, unless you're arguing that the interests of minorities don't matter? I should clarify that I don't mean to say that this makes the protest valid, just that the argument that protest is only acceptable if an arbitrary number of people are involved is not all that good.
    - lwansbrough 5y ago
      Ultimately you must ask if you would prefer tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority.
    - parineum 5y ago
      >The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny 10% of people oppose nearly everything and it isn't tyranny so, unless you're an anarchist, your point is ridiculous.
      - dotnet00 5y ago
        The tyranny of the majority is not an anarchistic idea and yet is exactly what is being invoked when the argument is made that it's acceptable to ignore the concerns of a minority population because doing otherwise would be unfair to the majority. I think this quote from Tocqueville explains it well: "So what is a majority taken as a whole, if not an individual who has opinions and, most often, interests contrary to another individual called the minority. Now, if you admit that an individual vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why would you not admit the same thing for the majority? Have men, by gathering together, changed character? By becoming stronger, have they become more patient in the face of obstacles?" What matters is not how many supporters each side has but what the merits and demerits of each side are.
lariati 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thunkshift1 5y ago
It was farmers from mostly two states only.. nowhere close to 90%, thats ridiculous
JarvisSong 5y ago
Majority of farmers. India’s govt has backed and supported small farmers for decades. Also agriculture is like 80% of jobs for ppl in India, unlike the US. Farmers protested for ~1 year and prime minister Modi heard their concerns and repealed the new laws. This vox report is a summary https://youtu.be/iHpZV7ro7lU https://youtu.be/iHpZV7ro7lU
- maccolgan 5y ago
  >Majority of farmers Statistically people from 1-3 states can't represent the majority of farmers. >supported small farmers for decades I guess they therefore can't ever stop subsidizing them, homerun for the economy. >agriculture is like 80% of jobs for ppl in India What? (Also, it produces almost no value in exchange for the subsidies, it's barely 15% of the GDP IIRC)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nathanaldensr 5y ago
Phew. For a moment there I was unsure of how to qualify a legitimate protest. I feel calmer now that abledon has defined a threshold.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

chernevik 5y ago

They weren't protesting _him_, that's entirely different.

cardy31 5y ago

But they aren’t being peaceful in Ottawa. They tried to burn down a condo building last night and have terrorized residents there for weeks now.

perfopt 5y ago
Nor were they peaceful in India. In addition to the violence against police a woman in the group was raped. A man was killed brutally. The right to protest ends when it infringes on other's rights to go about their daily life. Occupying highways and roads for months on end is not a peaceful protest. Canadian politicians, including some in the cabinet, supported violent protests in India. Canadian citizens fueled money to the protests in India.
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  > Occupying highways and roads for months on end is not a peaceful protest. What is inherently violent in those actions?
  - lwansbrough 5y ago
    Non-peaceful does not imply violence. Most everyone is willing to tolerate a couple days of protests. Where it gets beyond peaceful is when you’re making a huge amount of noise at all hours of the day for weeks on end. That isn’t peaceful, it’s obviously disruptive to the point of intolerability. It’s abusing our willingness to tolerate protest.
    - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
      > Non-peaceful does not imply violence. What, specifically, about this protest is not peaceful - in the context of protests? > Most everyone is willing to tolerate a couple days of protests. If you only protest so long as people are willing to tolerate it, I don't see the point of protesting at all. Could you imagine how society would look today if emancipation protestors packed it up and went home after a few days? > That isn’t peaceful, it’s obviously disruptive to the point of intolerability. If being disruptive isn't the point of a protest, what is?

sdave 5y ago

yalogin 5y ago

Not every protest is the same just because they call it that. The one going on in ottowa is a nonsensical, made up, cult based brainwashing that got spilled into the open. Don’t equate it to other genuine forms of protest.

wyager 5y ago
Very wise and true - only demonstrations for correct things are protests. Demonstrations for incorrect things are terrorism, brainwashing, etc.

known 5y ago