5 ms·

I’d like to expand on some thoughts I had in another thread that provoked some interesting discussion: If the protests are peaceful, the government should not

• Applejinx 5y ago
  It's not really the public. It's meant to LOOK like 'the public', but it's absolutely not. It's political action, and not just intra-country political action. Maybe Canada watched what happened to the US (something they are wont to do)
• throwawayay02 5y ago
  There is a very simple solution, the government lifts the restrictions and resigns. New elections are held and then the people decide if they want a new government that will punish protesters or not.
  • notpachet 5y ago
    Or, or! The protesters all return home, and promise to make this a hot-button item in the next fairly held democratic election.
    • throwawayay02 5y ago
      That is quite some time away.
      • salamandersauce 5y ago
        We have a minority government right now. It could be 2 months away.
  • tyleo 5y ago
    That is just one side of the slippery slope though. Assuming we took this recommendation as a rule, it seems that a convoy of truckers could organize, shut down an economy, and force an election any time they disagreed with something. This does not seem like a recipe for effective government.
    • throwawayay02 5y ago
      No? It seems a recipe for a perfect government. Whenever X% of the population wants that much to throw down the government, that's probably a good time for a remodel. Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under.
      • rini17 5y ago
        X is how much? 0.1%?
      • Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
        This would be ridiculous quickly. Imagine the protestors getting Trump to go to re-election within a week of the 2016 election. Say Hillary won. How long would it take the anti-Hillary side to shut things down long enough to get another election? In a polarised partisan climate, you'd have weekly elections.
      • ben_w 5y ago
        For what value of X?
      • AlexandrB 5y ago
        It's not even a majority % of Canadian truckers in Ottawa. Let alone the population of Canada. This seems like a great way to establish a tyranny. > Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under. Oh, I see. That's what you're advocating for.
      • salamandersauce 5y ago
        How much of the population do you think is actively involved in the protests right now? We should bow down and throw away our government for 1% of angry people? 0.01%? This just sounds like a recipe for chaos. A middle school could topple the government by standing on Ambassador bridge just because they don't like today's lunch menu.
  • NiloCK 5y ago
    Context for non-Canadians: there was a federal election five months ago.
  • NikolaNovak 5y ago
    I feel that's either an external or minority opinion. Not everybody outside of Canada may realize we just HAD an election. I personally don't think it was necessary or useful; in fact I think it was a colossal waste of money; but we did. And Canada tends to have relatively stable governments, our period between elections tends to be reasonably lengthy. Some people may not LIKE the result of elections, but there's nothing that indicates government does not have support of majority of Canadians. Polls tend to indicate most people are Canadians about covid. And elections tend (not always) to be about majority. Second, many outsiders and even many inside Canada don't seem to realize vast vast majority of public health policy and restrictions is done on provincial level. That includes virtually all restrictions that impact majority of citizens. Further, many if not most are done by conservative governments - Alberta and Ontario as obvious examples, as well as conservative municipal governments like Toronto. So I never understand on any level why anybody feels "federal government to resign" is an "obvious solution", let alone what, exactly, is it meant to accomplish when it comes to covid response.
    • pinephoneguy 5y ago
      They're protesting the quarentine when re-entering the country. That's why so many Americans are involved as well. My girlfriend lives there but I can't visit her because of this.
      • pfisch 5y ago
        Of course you can. Just get vaccinated. It is literally safer than taking Tylenol.
  • syki 5y ago
    That’s a seductively simple idea. Using the Emergencies Act to bring to an end of the protests was unprecedented. Without having thought too deeply about it the suggestion to then call for elections seems like a brilliant one. I almost think it should be written into the act. At the surface it makes sense that if the redress of grievances is so disruptive that the Act must be invoked then the cost of invoking it is to call for elections and let the people decide.
  • rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    This would encourages minorities to try and block governments all the time, to force new elections. Why not have the second chamber of parliament made of randomly picked citizen [0] with the responsibility to approve the work of the first chamber (of elected representatives), with the power to cast motions of no confidence? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Selection_by_lot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Selection_b... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence
  • ben_w 5y ago
    Lifting the restrictions? The ones which are (at least in name, I am not qualified to discuss further than that) about protecting the health of the population? That seems contrary to the best interests of a nation. And I’m expressly not saying the Canadian government picked the right response here — I don’t know if they did or didn’t — but what you’re suggesting is way too far in the other direction. Making it the norm to resign in response to protests makes it very easy for any political opponent on any issue to do a soapbox equivalent of filibustering.
  • phtrivier 5y ago
    You're absolutely right that the "peacemaker" in situations like this should be a secret, anonymous, properly held elections. However, resigning every time there is a protest, even a spectacular one, is obviously not an option for any democraticaly elected governement. Pick a cause you defend, and a right you'd want to preserve ; browse recent history to find out when was the last time a massive protest was held by people with the opposite side of view. Western democracies are warry of calling elections for anything but picking representatives. More direct forms of democracy would clearly help in this case. The current scenario is that the elected governement takes harsh measure, and the people will have to wait and vote them out of office. (Which, I believe, is a fundamental difference between most western democracy and more autocratic regimes - I'm ready to reevaluate that when there is suspense again in a russian / NK / china election.) This is _very_ unfortunate for governements that have been recently elected and have strong parlementary majorities. I wonder if a better "better scenario" in such crisis would be to have different level of population oversight, depending on the time scale of measures. As in: first, the elected governement takes extraordinary measures, with relatively free reign for short period of times (days / weeks.) "Extraordinary time calling for extraordinary measures", etc... Than, parlimentary oversight kicks in, to prolong measures in the "months" scale (I'm one of those annoying people who believe representatives have a role in democracy. Sorry.) Than, referendum / votations need to occur for anything longer than a few months. It would not "solve" the issue - because, a vaccine mandate might very well have been agreed by referendum in Canada, and truckers would _still_ have blocked roads. But in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have this process.
• verisimi 5y ago
  But why is it ok for governments around the world destroy our economies for the past 2 years? Or rather, to destroy the SMEs, but allow corporations to carry on and even take up the slack?
  • tyleo 5y ago
    I don’t think it is okay. I think protests and elections are great ways to register discontent with a state of affairs. But should the powers of protests go so far that small groups can shut down large parts of an economy? It is my understanding that the convoy is hundreds of trucks. This is already disproportionate power for few people but what if dozens could shut down an economy peacefully? It seems to me that a line has to be drawn somewhere for a society to function.
    • verisimi 5y ago
      So, you are fine with the government shutting down the economy for years, mandating of experimental health treatments to gain access to work, etc, but you are not ok with people protesting against those decisions even when their livelihoods are at stake? Do you realise too that Trudeau got ~30% of the vote, and that his party didn't even receive the most votes but win on account of the electoral system? IE voting every 4 years can only get you so far..
      • tyleo 5y ago
        Please reread what I said. I don’t think it’s okay. It’s the very first sentence in my reply to you. I’m open to discussion but only if you are replying to what I'm saying.
        • verisimi 5y ago
          What I understood is that you were saying a line needed to be drawn, and presumably that the truck protests had crossed that line. They shouldn't be able to stop the economy. That would be a fine argument to me, except that all the concern about the economy does not ring true, coming from a government that has shut down the economy (allowing for large corporations to continue, of course) for 2 years! This is pretty much the first protest against those actions against the economy, but now the concern is that these protesters are acting harmfully. Honestly, it sounds so upside-down to me! The government structure has caused huge economic harm to everyone, and then when people finally complain the government accuses them of causing economic harm! It really is perverse.
• stuob 5y ago
  > This really seems like a situation with no good options. Removing the mandates is a pretty simple option. Actually, just that fact makes this invocation of the emergency act illegal. This president has gone crazy.
• thereddaikon 5y ago
  To further complicate the matter, protests are completely ineffectual if they do not impact others in some way. Its easy to say that protesters should be considerate and not get in the way. But if they do that then their message is easy to ignore. Protest by nature must be civil disobedience to have any real effect. What troubles me in this regard is that the Canadian government in general, and Trudeau in particular, seem bent on meeting the protesters with a disproportionate response. This can only lead to an escalation, not de-escalation. And has the potential to galvanize support for them. The opposite of what the Canadian government wants. Not to mention how makes them look like tyrants who trample on civil rights. Regardless of whether or not they care about that, they should care about the optics.
  • Overtonwindow 5y ago
    I disagree, the riots in America perpetrated by antifa had a significant policy shift and public opinion impact. The burning of Kenosha and other cities, was probably the only time a protest in modern history has had an effect on public policy.
    • thereddaikon 5y ago
      I'm sorry I don't see what you are disagreeing with.
    • Chris2048 5y ago
      But, didn't it (the actions of BLM/antifa) have a negative effect on public opinion?
  • dennis_jeeves 5y ago
• mimikatz 5y ago
  Protestors should protest legally. They shouldn't block roads. They shouldn't break windows. They shouldn't burn buildings. When they don't they should be broken up/arrested/charged with the crimes they break. This goes for all sides.
  • ben_w 5y ago
    As a general statement I agree, but there can be exceptions. I absolutely don’t believe any of the exception I would list actually apply in this case — and even if I did I would still apply the “arrest people who break the law” part because of how fundamentally important I regard rule of law — but there are some occasions (most civil rights battles, wars for independence) where facing a conviction is worth it because the system won’t even take you seriously otherwise.
• smoyer 5y ago
  I don't believe that peaceful protests EVER automatically cease to be peaceful due to economic impacts - if a peaceful protest becomes more effective due to be expensive, that's one good way to get and keep attention. Using the terrorist act's provisions for peaceful protests is a sign that the oligarchs are worried about maintaining their positions. Normal citizens in other industries should be worried. "When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." - Niemöller
• michaelt 5y ago
  > If the protests are peaceful, the government should not shut them down. But at what point do the economic impacts of a protest cross a line such that they aren’t peaceful? If it's not violent, it's peaceful. Perhaps you're trying to redefine "peaceful" because you've come to the realisation that it's sometimes legitimate to shut down peaceful protests? If someone parks their vehicle blocking the street as a protest or makes noise day and night, that's clearly nonviolent. If the state wants the protesters moved on, why can't they apply parking law or nuisance noise law? Every protest has economic impacts, that doesn't mean it's not peaceful. I boycott Nestle in the privacy of my own home, which I hope will have a negative economic impact on them. Giving government the power to stop protests because they have economic impact would give the government the power to stop all protests.
  • Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
    Because protest of any sort breaks laws of some sort. You can't even explain your argument on the street corner without breaking the laws against public nuisance, in the eyes of some.
• dennis_jeeves1 5y ago
  >This really seems like a situation with no good options. I think several fundamentals are wrong to start with, for example a simple definition of democracy appears to be that 51% gets to dictate the other 49%. With so many fundamental flaws even the concept of a typical protest is surreal where the person protesting is supposed to stand in harsh weather in front of a building to do so. This is not my idea of a civilized society.