8 ms·

“With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests.” The politics of this particular situation aside, this f

by grej 5y ago

“With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests.” The politics of this particular situation aside, this feels like a terrifying development for future protests, and public discourse in general.

verisimi 5y ago
Apparently it also includes people who donated to their cause. A peaceful, non-violent cause. Wow. North Korea, look out!
- verelo 5y ago
  Except it’s really not that anymore. Constant noise disruptions, gridlocking the city…it’s causing harm and the protests have damaged property, businesses and even gone as far to dance on the war memorials. These are not our best people.
  - edot 5y ago
    You could describe MLK’s protests as disruptive, causing gridlock, damaging to businesses, etc. BLM protestors danced on and destroyed statues as well. The whole point of protest is to be disruptive. Being anti-vax is super stupid but protesting government mandates (or systemic racism, or anything) should be allowed.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      The whole point of an escalated protest is being willing to accept the consequences. If you park illegally, you expect to get a parking ticket, protest or no. You expect your vehicle to get towed. If you defy a court injunction, you expect to spend the night in jail. The people chaining themselves to trees expect to get arrested and spend time in jail. They also expect that their time in jail will help their cause. Being part of a protest is not a "get out of jail free" card. Rather the opposite, spending some time in jail is part of the point.
      - Chris2048 5y ago
        What if they make up new laws?
        ben_w 5y ago
        A government? Making up laws? I think that’s literally called “a day ending in ‘y’”. You may or may not have a higher power to defend you against bad laws, depending on your constitution and/or your government being e.g. treaty bound to an institution equivalent to the European Court of Human Rights.
        Chris2048 5y ago
        Create new, targeted laws quickly. per guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
        ben_w 5y ago
        Even though your new caveat reduces the frequency by which governments do it, this is still absolutely how they operate. I’ve had to delay a meeting with my local MP back before I left the UK because they had an “emergency” debate (IIRC due to a court ruling that one of their laws was bad). I genuinely, sincerely, can’t see how your new version is supposed to strengthen your comment — there just isn’t enough in it for my mind to see a different hill to climb: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/arguments-hill-climbing-the-wisdom-of-the-crowds/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/arguments-h...
        Chris2048 5y ago
        Emergency powers allow the overruling of safe-guards, grace/response-periods and due process. It is not "how they operate", it is explicitly outside the norm, and the emergency powers invoked by Trudeau had never been used before, let alone against non-violent civilians. > because they had an “emergency” debate Was it about (seldom used) emergency powers, and what was it in response to? A terror attack? An "emergency" debate about bad laws isn't the same as "emergency" powers. > a different hill to climb The missing context is the context of the thread - that we are talking about the actions of Trudeau actions against the protestors.
    - verelo 5y ago
      You could for sure. I would argue that in all cases there reaches a point where you either accept you’re breaking the law to invoke change or you’re simply going to have to keep trying to invoke change while accepting others don’t yet agree with you. These folks seem to be dealing in the bucket of issues where they have mixed support, they’ve said their piece, it’s time to change tactic if they believe in their causes, or they risk losing any sympathizers. Frankly I’m not one of them, but I’m sure there are people in Ottawa that might have supported them that now won’t. There’s also the issue that they were protesting provincial issues to the federal government. For weeks. After being told this constantly, some packed up and moved to the provincial legislator in toronto. They’re just not very well organized and it’s suggesting they might not be the issue anyone wants to hitch onto.
  - verisimi 5y ago
    We weren't allowed out for a year, remember?! If you lose the ability to protest, what barrier remains for crooked politicians to draw up whatever legislation they like? What the Nazi's did was legal you know - they wrote the laws!
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    Except it is[1] when you want to appease your Sikh community. Tactics used during the protests that Trudeau supported and described as peaceful[2]: Gherao (encirclement), dharna (sit-in), raasta roko (traffic obstruction), demonstration, suicide, counter legislation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0h48p7JspA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0h48p7JspA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Indian_farmers%27_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Indian_farme...
  - dennis_jeeves 5y ago
  - 0xbadc0de5 5y ago
    Watch a lot of CBC, do you? I would recommend visiting the protest to see for yourself rather than relying on media narratives to form your opinion. Keep an open mind and judge for yourself. If you're not able to physically visit, there are large numbers of streamers who do nothing but walk around the area. The more neutral ones provide little to no commentary and try not to interact with anyone so you can better form your own opinion (almost sounds like actual journalism). At least give it a try.
  - hobomatic 5y ago
    Dancing!? Traffic? Loudness? Those savages. Meanwhile literally firebombing a church gets the thumbs up from trudeau.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Or, be careful when you take sides in a global geopolitical conflict dating back to before the Cold War and recently flaring up into open informational warfare so intense it swung elections and dragged in whole Silicon Valley unicorns as collaborators. When people figure out what happened you don't get treated as an innocent bystander. Do your due diligence.
- failedengineer 5y ago
  The majority of the money was foreign. edit: and is not being funneled to the actual protestors. The people recently arrested tried to get some to use for legal fees. No bueno. yeah, yeah, no citation. Pretty hard to cite facebook posts that were removed because of subject matter.
  - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
    This is false.
    - failedengineer 5y ago
      Check the article sent by the guy refuting me, that shows that 39% of donators were Canadian. 61% were foreign.
      - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
        Check the article in another comment which said 51% came from Canada. There isn't any remotely reputable data, just assertions. Which was my point with a tongue-in-cheek counter-assertion.
  - EngCanMan 5y ago
    https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2022/2/14/1_5780989.html https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2022/2/14/1_5780989.... Says here that 51% came from Canadians. I think 51% constitutes a majority.
    - failedengineer 5y ago
      Some 36,000 Canadian donors — about 39 per cent — are listed in the partial leak, apparently taken from U.S.-based platform GiveSendGo and posted online by a website devoted to disseminating leaked data. But that number is dwarfed by the number of American donors — some 51,000 or about 55 per cent. -- The 39% of the donors were local, and donated 51% of the money. 61% of donors were foreign, including the largest donor.
- panarky 5y ago
  Why would ostensibly "nonviolent protesters" need an arsenal of illegal weapons? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-protest-blockade-arrests-rcmp-monday-1.6351112 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-protest-blocka...
  - Ancapistani 5y ago
    FYI, the word “illegal” doesn’t appear in the article. I’m not super familiar with all the intricacies of firearms law in Canada, but nothing there looks like it would be illegal to own there. A few are “restricted”.
    - panarky 5y ago
      The fact that the firearms seized by the RCMP is a pretty good indicator that they were not possessed legally.
      - Ancapistani 5y ago
        I know nothing about this specific instance beyond that article, but there are tons of situations where law enforcement seizes property without a crime being committed.
  - hovercv 5y ago
    A former RCMP sniper, who was also present in other freedom convoy press conferences, says the weapons are being planted by an unknown group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXi8ZkJ9qM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXi8ZkJ9qM CBC will not report this.
    - moistly 5y ago
      Four people associated with the “Diaganon” movement are being prosecuted for conspiracy to murder RCMP. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-rcmp-charge-four-men-with-plotting-to-murder-officers-in-connection/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-rcmp-... Your homeboy is referring to the Ottawa protest, and makes his claim based on an “anonymous” tipster, e.g. he’s making shit up. Little wonder the media isn’t reporting his claim: it has no basis.
smaryjerry 5y ago
It’s interesting that the protesters have a very clear goal and want to be heard, but rather than diplomatically solving the situation Trudeau has exercised a new level of force not used on citizens before. It took a couple weeks of protest for some of the harshest punishments to be used on citizens. It’s been misstep after misstep by Trudeau. First name calling, then offering some very threatening tweets, then executing on the threats.. when instead he could have taken a hour of his time to say he will sit down and hear out their point of view in full. It’s actually incredible that he could have misunderstood the people involved and the point of the protest so much and then acted as a military against them as if they are enemies and not citizens. Canada has state run media and I guess this was just the next step in government control.

by grej 5y ago

verisimi 5y ago

Apparently it also includes people who donated to their cause. A peaceful, non-violent cause. Wow. North Korea, look out!

verelo 5y ago
Except it’s really not that anymore. Constant noise disruptions, gridlocking the city…it’s causing harm and the protests have damaged property, businesses and even gone as far to dance on the war memorials. These are not our best people.
- edot 5y ago
  You could describe MLK’s protests as disruptive, causing gridlock, damaging to businesses, etc. BLM protestors danced on and destroyed statues as well. The whole point of protest is to be disruptive. Being anti-vax is super stupid but protesting government mandates (or systemic racism, or anything) should be allowed.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The whole point of an escalated protest is being willing to accept the consequences. If you park illegally, you expect to get a parking ticket, protest or no. You expect your vehicle to get towed. If you defy a court injunction, you expect to spend the night in jail. The people chaining themselves to trees expect to get arrested and spend time in jail. They also expect that their time in jail will help their cause. Being part of a protest is not a "get out of jail free" card. Rather the opposite, spending some time in jail is part of the point.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      What if they make up new laws?
      - ben_w 5y ago
        A government? Making up laws? I think that’s literally called “a day ending in ‘y’”. You may or may not have a higher power to defend you against bad laws, depending on your constitution and/or your government being e.g. treaty bound to an institution equivalent to the European Court of Human Rights.
        Chris2048 5y ago
        Create new, targeted laws quickly. per guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
        ben_w 5y ago
        Even though your new caveat reduces the frequency by which governments do it, this is still absolutely how they operate. I’ve had to delay a meeting with my local MP back before I left the UK because they had an “emergency” debate (IIRC due to a court ruling that one of their laws was bad). I genuinely, sincerely, can’t see how your new version is supposed to strengthen your comment — there just isn’t enough in it for my mind to see a different hill to climb: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/arguments-hill-climbing-the-wisdom-of-the-crowds/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/arguments-h...
        Chris2048 5y ago
        Emergency powers allow the overruling of safe-guards, grace/response-periods and due process. It is not "how they operate", it is explicitly outside the norm, and the emergency powers invoked by Trudeau had never been used before, let alone against non-violent civilians. > because they had an “emergency” debate Was it about (seldom used) emergency powers, and what was it in response to? A terror attack? An "emergency" debate about bad laws isn't the same as "emergency" powers. > a different hill to climb The missing context is the context of the thread - that we are talking about the actions of Trudeau actions against the protestors.
  - verelo 5y ago
    You could for sure. I would argue that in all cases there reaches a point where you either accept you’re breaking the law to invoke change or you’re simply going to have to keep trying to invoke change while accepting others don’t yet agree with you. These folks seem to be dealing in the bucket of issues where they have mixed support, they’ve said their piece, it’s time to change tactic if they believe in their causes, or they risk losing any sympathizers. Frankly I’m not one of them, but I’m sure there are people in Ottawa that might have supported them that now won’t. There’s also the issue that they were protesting provincial issues to the federal government. For weeks. After being told this constantly, some packed up and moved to the provincial legislator in toronto. They’re just not very well organized and it’s suggesting they might not be the issue anyone wants to hitch onto.
- verisimi 5y ago
  We weren't allowed out for a year, remember?! If you lose the ability to protest, what barrier remains for crooked politicians to draw up whatever legislation they like? What the Nazi's did was legal you know - they wrote the laws!
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  Except it is[1] when you want to appease your Sikh community. Tactics used during the protests that Trudeau supported and described as peaceful[2]: Gherao (encirclement), dharna (sit-in), raasta roko (traffic obstruction), demonstration, suicide, counter legislation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0h48p7JspA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0h48p7JspA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Indian_farmers%27_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Indian_farme...
- dennis_jeeves 5y ago
- 0xbadc0de5 5y ago
  Watch a lot of CBC, do you? I would recommend visiting the protest to see for yourself rather than relying on media narratives to form your opinion. Keep an open mind and judge for yourself. If you're not able to physically visit, there are large numbers of streamers who do nothing but walk around the area. The more neutral ones provide little to no commentary and try not to interact with anyone so you can better form your own opinion (almost sounds like actual journalism). At least give it a try.
- hobomatic 5y ago
  Dancing!? Traffic? Loudness? Those savages. Meanwhile literally firebombing a church gets the thumbs up from trudeau.
Applejinx 5y ago
Or, be careful when you take sides in a global geopolitical conflict dating back to before the Cold War and recently flaring up into open informational warfare so intense it swung elections and dragged in whole Silicon Valley unicorns as collaborators. When people figure out what happened you don't get treated as an innocent bystander. Do your due diligence.
failedengineer 5y ago
The majority of the money was foreign. edit: and is not being funneled to the actual protestors. The people recently arrested tried to get some to use for legal fees. No bueno. yeah, yeah, no citation. Pretty hard to cite facebook posts that were removed because of subject matter.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  This is false.
  - failedengineer 5y ago
    Check the article sent by the guy refuting me, that shows that 39% of donators were Canadian. 61% were foreign.
    - Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
      Check the article in another comment which said 51% came from Canada. There isn't any remotely reputable data, just assertions. Which was my point with a tongue-in-cheek counter-assertion.
- EngCanMan 5y ago
  https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2022/2/14/1_5780989.html https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2022/2/14/1_5780989.... Says here that 51% came from Canadians. I think 51% constitutes a majority.
  - failedengineer 5y ago
    Some 36,000 Canadian donors — about 39 per cent — are listed in the partial leak, apparently taken from U.S.-based platform GiveSendGo and posted online by a website devoted to disseminating leaked data. But that number is dwarfed by the number of American donors — some 51,000 or about 55 per cent. -- The 39% of the donors were local, and donated 51% of the money. 61% of donors were foreign, including the largest donor.
panarky 5y ago
Why would ostensibly "nonviolent protesters" need an arsenal of illegal weapons? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-protest-blockade-arrests-rcmp-monday-1.6351112 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-protest-blocka...
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  FYI, the word “illegal” doesn’t appear in the article. I’m not super familiar with all the intricacies of firearms law in Canada, but nothing there looks like it would be illegal to own there. A few are “restricted”.
  - panarky 5y ago
    The fact that the firearms seized by the RCMP is a pretty good indicator that they were not possessed legally.
    - Ancapistani 5y ago
      I know nothing about this specific instance beyond that article, but there are tons of situations where law enforcement seizes property without a crime being committed.
- hovercv 5y ago
  A former RCMP sniper, who was also present in other freedom convoy press conferences, says the weapons are being planted by an unknown group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXi8ZkJ9qM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXi8ZkJ9qM CBC will not report this.
  - moistly 5y ago
    Four people associated with the “Diaganon” movement are being prosecuted for conspiracy to murder RCMP. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-rcmp-charge-four-men-with-plotting-to-murder-officers-in-connection/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-rcmp-... Your homeboy is referring to the Ottawa protest, and makes his claim based on an “anonymous” tipster, e.g. he’s making shit up. Little wonder the media isn’t reporting his claim: it has no basis.

smaryjerry 5y ago

It’s interesting that the protesters have a very clear goal and want to be heard, but rather than diplomatically solving the situation Trudeau has exercised a new level of force not used on citizens before. It took a couple weeks of protest for some of the harshest punishments to be used on citizens. It’s been misstep after misstep by Trudeau. First name calling, then offering some very threatening tweets, then executing on the threats.. when instead he could have taken a hour of his time to say he will sit down and hear out their point of view in full. It’s actually incredible that he could have misunderstood the people involved and the point of the protest so much and then acted as a military against them as if they are enemies and not citizens. Canada has state run media and I guess this was just the next step in government control.