3 ms·

I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous r

I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. > Should police refuse to use force against someone actively breaking into a home, just because the burglar is just a "suspect"? No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. > Courts will be involved if a crime is being committed No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. > This is no different. Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak.

TameAntelope 5y ago
> I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. I have no problem whatsoever stopping any protestors who are doing what this group is now doing. Their message does not matter. > No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. Exactly, and there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place here, so we're in agreement. > No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. Semantics. The role of the court is to sort out what happened later, not to immediately intervene in a given crisis situation. > Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak. Yes, and part of that first step is to deprive them of resources they would use to resist, which is exactly what is happening.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  > part of that first step is to deprive them of resources they would use to resist Right, this is the Chinese "social credit" concept of justice. In the US, this concept finds its most widespread application in civil forfeiture (which I'm guessing you also support), where is is said to justify the theft of peoples money and assets in the absence of any charges or due process. In this particular case, the Canadian federal govenrment is looking to prohibit companies from providing any financial services-- including bank accounts, tansfers, loans, mortgages, insurance, etc.-- indefinitely, to any designated person, who the regulations define as those who are "directly or indirectly" participating in a "public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace". This explicilty includes "indirect" supporters, so anyone who donated a few bucks is now in the crosshairs of a martial law action which has never been used in Canadian history up to this point. And nothing in the regulations states or implies that these measures are temporary. Defending this action puts you solidly in the authoritarian camp. Wind back a few decades, and it was people like you who defended the government's relentless extrajudicial pursuit of civil rights movement leaders, who arguably did far more damage to the "commerce" which you hold so dear.

TameAntelope 5y ago

> I'm sure you'll likewise approve when the next conservative administration uses these emergency powers to deprive Black Lives Matter protesters (or indigenous rights protesters or whatever they have up there) and anyone who supports them of their access to banking and insurance, right? Because the BLM protests were a hundred times more disruptive to commerce, which appears to be of paramount importance to people like you. I have no problem whatsoever stopping any protestors who are doing what this group is now doing. Their message does not matter. > No, the government is empowered to arrest the trespasser based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. And that's what they do. Exactly, and there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place here, so we're in agreement. > No, the role of the court is determine whether a crime has been committed. Semantics. The role of the court is to sort out what happened later, not to immediately intervene in a given crisis situation. > Which is exactly why the twitter thread points out that the only correct course of action in a country with a functional rule of law is to arrest the protesters/trespassers, remove their vehicles from the streets, charge them, and follow the established due process under the law to determine their guilt and punishment. It appears the first step of this process is underway as we speak. Yes, and part of that first step is to deprive them of resources they would use to resist, which is exactly what is happening.

nate_meurer 5y ago
> part of that first step is to deprive them of resources they would use to resist Right, this is the Chinese "social credit" concept of justice. In the US, this concept finds its most widespread application in civil forfeiture (which I'm guessing you also support), where is is said to justify the theft of peoples money and assets in the absence of any charges or due process. In this particular case, the Canadian federal govenrment is looking to prohibit companies from providing any financial services-- including bank accounts, tansfers, loans, mortgages, insurance, etc.-- indefinitely, to any designated person, who the regulations define as those who are "directly or indirectly" participating in a "public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace". This explicilty includes "indirect" supporters, so anyone who donated a few bucks is now in the crosshairs of a martial law action which has never been used in Canadian history up to this point. And nothing in the regulations states or implies that these measures are temporary. Defending this action puts you solidly in the authoritarian camp. Wind back a few decades, and it was people like you who defended the government's relentless extrajudicial pursuit of civil rights movement leaders, who arguably did far more damage to the "commerce" which you hold so dear.