5 ms·

By that logic every member of Canadian (and even other nations governments) who support BLM, Antifa, etc should be fired as well.

MattGaiser 5y ago
If they were political staffers for a party that opposed such things, they would be.
kstenerud 5y ago
If they were contributing to a campaign by one of those groups to break Canadian law, then yes. Laws are written and imposed by the government, and a government employee actively supporting the breaking of the law is simply unacceptable. That's not how we do things in Canada.
- haswell 5y ago
  Can you imagine a scenario where such a donation both: 1) Contributes to a “law breaking” cause 2) Still aligns with your views? It’s easy to talk about the correctness of this when the infringement seems pretty harmful/disruptive. But social change is often messy, and protests often move into a grey area that is not so easy to judge. Whether you agree with this particular action, it raises much bigger questions than the current unfolding event.
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    I can absolutely imagine such a situation, but my position doesn't change. For government, there's only one impartial way to deal with this: Either it's legal, or it isn't. Any moral or ethical judgment will happen later after the movement succeeds or fails, but for the time being you either work with the law, or you leave the government. If you're found to be working against the laws of the land, that's more than ample reason to be kicked out of government.
    - nyokodo 5y ago
      > Either it's legal, or it isn't In justice there is enormous scope for discretion and mercy. That used to be a value common on the left, no longer.
      - kstenerud 5y ago
        That's never been the case for a member of government working against their own government (left or right or anything). You can't keep someone around who works against the very organization they purport to work for.
        haswell 5y ago
        > That's never been the case for a member of government working against their own government (left or right or anything) Will you elaborate on what you’re trying to say here? Are you implying that a different legal framework is applied to government officials than that applied to civilians? > You can't keep someone around who works against the very organization they purport to work for. I understand where you’re coming from on the one hand, but I can’t help but feel this is an extremely dangerous sentiment on the other. “Working against” can be defined very broadly, and at least in some circumstances, people in the public arena are there to do exactly that, but this is usually framed as working for something. Elections tend to shift who sits in those positions. To someone with opposing viewpoints, it may be seen as “working against”. If this staffer had rolled their own truck out to join the convoy, that’d be one thing. But automatically equating a donation to an act akin to the same seems like the start of a slippery slope at best. Would you feel differently if this individual had donated to the party affiliated with the goals of the convoy instead of the convoy itself? At what point does donating to a party become an act worthy of discipline? It’s worth noting that I’m not familiar with any rules/regs specific to a public official and the donations they make, so I’m genuinely curious here. Don’t get me wrong: I in no way align with the goals of this convoy and admit to feeling a tiny bit of satisfaction at what happened here. But if I take my personal feelings out of it, the whole situation makes me very uncomfortable.
        5y ago
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > break Canadian law Tiananmen Square protesters broke Chinese law but China violated their human rights. China was in the wrong regardless of how much popular support they manufactured.

MattGaiser 5y ago

If they were political staffers for a party that opposed such things, they would be.

kstenerud 5y ago

If they were contributing to a campaign by one of those groups to break Canadian law, then yes. Laws are written and imposed by the government, and a government employee actively supporting the breaking of the law is simply unacceptable. That's not how we do things in Canada.

haswell 5y ago
Can you imagine a scenario where such a donation both: 1) Contributes to a “law breaking” cause 2) Still aligns with your views? It’s easy to talk about the correctness of this when the infringement seems pretty harmful/disruptive. But social change is often messy, and protests often move into a grey area that is not so easy to judge. Whether you agree with this particular action, it raises much bigger questions than the current unfolding event.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  I can absolutely imagine such a situation, but my position doesn't change. For government, there's only one impartial way to deal with this: Either it's legal, or it isn't. Any moral or ethical judgment will happen later after the movement succeeds or fails, but for the time being you either work with the law, or you leave the government. If you're found to be working against the laws of the land, that's more than ample reason to be kicked out of government.
  - nyokodo 5y ago
    > Either it's legal, or it isn't In justice there is enormous scope for discretion and mercy. That used to be a value common on the left, no longer.
    - kstenerud 5y ago
      That's never been the case for a member of government working against their own government (left or right or anything). You can't keep someone around who works against the very organization they purport to work for.
      - haswell 5y ago
        > That's never been the case for a member of government working against their own government (left or right or anything) Will you elaborate on what you’re trying to say here? Are you implying that a different legal framework is applied to government officials than that applied to civilians? > You can't keep someone around who works against the very organization they purport to work for. I understand where you’re coming from on the one hand, but I can’t help but feel this is an extremely dangerous sentiment on the other. “Working against” can be defined very broadly, and at least in some circumstances, people in the public arena are there to do exactly that, but this is usually framed as working for something. Elections tend to shift who sits in those positions. To someone with opposing viewpoints, it may be seen as “working against”. If this staffer had rolled their own truck out to join the convoy, that’d be one thing. But automatically equating a donation to an act akin to the same seems like the start of a slippery slope at best. Would you feel differently if this individual had donated to the party affiliated with the goals of the convoy instead of the convoy itself? At what point does donating to a party become an act worthy of discipline? It’s worth noting that I’m not familiar with any rules/regs specific to a public official and the donations they make, so I’m genuinely curious here. Don’t get me wrong: I in no way align with the goals of this convoy and admit to feeling a tiny bit of satisfaction at what happened here. But if I take my personal feelings out of it, the whole situation makes me very uncomfortable.
        5y ago
nyokodo 5y ago
> break Canadian law Tiananmen Square protesters broke Chinese law but China violated their human rights. China was in the wrong regardless of how much popular support they manufactured.