3 ms·

There is a human right to assemble and protest. This does not mean that people can break the law doing so, but there is a fine line and pretty much most protest

by Baloo 5y ago

There is a human right to assemble and protest. This does not mean that people can break the law doing so, but there is a fine line and pretty much most protests involve some level of disruption. As said a few times now, if people are actually breaking the law (blocking highways is normally illegal) then they should be arrested and charged with a crime using appropriate evidence to assure conviction. Nothing "negative" should happen until you're convicted (perhaps inconvenience), in that you should be considered innocent until proven guilty. If you are a burglar caught in someone elses property there is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, however force should not be the first response; if the burglar is cooperative when caught then why should the police use force? If you've been wrongfully arrested and held, compensation should be available. Courts are involved to prove that the accused committed a crime, until judgement is passed the suspect is innocent. More importantly, how does a financial institution measure the evidence? How do they assure that the individual is involved in the protest? What happens if your money is frozen and you're innocent, if you were wrongfully flagged? Who gets to decide what is considered a level of participation worthy of having your assets frozen? The crazy part is, even traditional criminals are not treated this harshly. If I was arrested for selling drugs, the only assets that are frozen are those linked to crime. If I have legitimate funds, they're not frozen if I can prove where the money came from. Proceeds of crime are frozen, but regular income is not. You traditionally cannot freeze money or other assets unconnected to a crime. Yet here we are, people are supporting freezing assets regardless of due process or if it is actually linked to or derived from crime. Unbelievable.

TameAntelope 5y ago
There is not a human right to assemble and protest if that assembly and protest infringes upon the human rights of others. And if you're using legitimate funds to infringe upon the human rights of others, the government has every right to stop you from doing that. We take the perfectly legal crowbar out of the robber's hands when they use it to pry open home doors, so we also take the money out of the protester's bank accounts when they use it to infringe on the rights of others.
- smegma2 5y ago
  > if you're using legitimate funds to infringe upon the human rights of others, the government has every right to stop you from doing that. They have a right in what sense? I've never heard of a government doing that. The fact that they had to use an emergency order to do so suggests that they do not have the right. In what sense are the truckers 'using money' to infringe on rights? The money doesn't seem critical to the movement to me. You can just as easily say they are 'using food' and mandate that they should be starved.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    The money may not seem critical to the movement to you, but it is literally the only way they've been able to continue the blockade for as long as they have. And yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to blocking access to food from these truckers until they moved their trucks, that makes sense to me. Their decision, at that point, would be to starve themselves by not going to where food is available to them, but otherwise it makes perfect sense to prevent access to necessities to people who are infringing on the rights of others, while they're actively infringing on those rights and can stop at any moment.

by Baloo 5y ago

TameAntelope 5y ago

There is not a human right to assemble and protest if that assembly and protest infringes upon the human rights of others. And if you're using legitimate funds to infringe upon the human rights of others, the government has every right to stop you from doing that. We take the perfectly legal crowbar out of the robber's hands when they use it to pry open home doors, so we also take the money out of the protester's bank accounts when they use it to infringe on the rights of others.

smegma2 5y ago
> if you're using legitimate funds to infringe upon the human rights of others, the government has every right to stop you from doing that. They have a right in what sense? I've never heard of a government doing that. The fact that they had to use an emergency order to do so suggests that they do not have the right. In what sense are the truckers 'using money' to infringe on rights? The money doesn't seem critical to the movement to me. You can just as easily say they are 'using food' and mandate that they should be starved.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  The money may not seem critical to the movement to you, but it is literally the only way they've been able to continue the blockade for as long as they have. And yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to blocking access to food from these truckers until they moved their trucks, that makes sense to me. Their decision, at that point, would be to starve themselves by not going to where food is available to them, but otherwise it makes perfect sense to prevent access to necessities to people who are infringing on the rights of others, while they're actively infringing on those rights and can stop at any moment.