4 ms·

I'm seeing a lot of terrible takes by Americans, and a lot of Canadians shaking their heads. It seems theres a lot of disinformation crossing the border. * Quo

I'm seeing a lot of terrible takes by Americans, and a lot of Canadians shaking their heads. It seems theres a lot of disinformation crossing the border. * Quoting Ezra Levant is just... hilarious. His news rag has been banned from so many press events. * We JUST had a federal election where these protesters could have made their point. Instead they chose to strangle the capitol and borders across the country. * Over a thousand donors to the Convoy have been linked to the Jan 6th capitol demonstration and attack. * 3 weeks of disruption to the nation's capital with horns blaring overnight, arson attempts, and weapons seizures is not "non-violent". There is not much difference between storming a capital and strangling one. Police and Military members were involved in creating supply lines and creating an occupation. And there were plans to block airport cargo terminals. The economic impacts across the nation are in the billions of dollars. * The freezing of finances IS NOT retroactive, thanks to our charter, meaning if you donated to the convoy before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, you won't be targeted. The only accounts were “individuals and companies suspected of involvement in illegal acts,” such as “influencers in the illegal protest in Ottawa” and vehicle owners and drivers “who did not want to leave the area impacted by the protest.” * It's hard to see the act as a tyrannical overreach if it can be challenged in court and has a public inquiry * Police didn't enforce the law which is why the feds needed to intervene. The public inquiry (required by the act) should reveal why police forces were unable to shut down these protests earlier, and where the money was flowing. If donor lists are to be believed, there was a significant amount of foreign funding into this operation, as well as members of the public service.

modzu 5y ago
1. with a sample size in the hundreds of thousands, even if its true, it's irrelevant. 2. the state of emergency could not be in response to the border closures, because they were cleared prior. one single cachet of weapons was found. per 100,000 criminals, gee, thats better than my hood. as for honking, it should be punishable by death or bankruptcy in any civilized country. 3. yes it is. override of the charter is precisely the power the emergency act seeks 4. have you ever donated to the world wildlife fund? sponsored a child in africa? the data has already made it clear that the majority of funding came from within canada in small amounts. occams razor: this is the result of frustrated citizens, not vladimir putin
- fudged71 5y ago
  1. Canada's terrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws are very clear and very strict. The fact that they chose platforms that are not reporting to FINTRAC is suspect, and the leaked donor lists show roughly half of all donations were foreign. 2. The weapons themselves were not the problem. Gas canisters stockpiled unsafely near parliament is a huge concern. And weapons found in Coutts were directly linked to a credible threat of an attack on RCMP members (high-capacity magazines are extremely illegal). 3. The Emergencies Act is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is written into the Act itself. The Charter, which continues to be supreme to the Emergency Act, forbids retroactive punishment. 4. See above. This is not a charity or nonprofit. It is a criminal organization that is under investigation.
  - modzu 5y ago
    3. of course the constitution (of which the charter is part) is the supreme law of canada. but, the rights and freedoms within the charter are not absolute; they can and have been been limited, as could be no more obvious than the clearing of the protest itself (the right to freedom of assembly)
    - Zachery 5y ago
      The Charter specifically protects peaceful assemblies. Which this was not by most measures. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2b https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
trainsarebetter 5y ago
* Over a thousand donors to the Convoy have been linked to the Jan 6th capitol demonstration and attack. are you able to provide sources? I’ve heard the exact opposite.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-finds-1100-people-donated-to-both-canada-freedom-convoy-and-jan-6-demonstration https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-finds-1100-people-donated-to-bo...
  - dzqhz 5y ago
    Not that I trust the ADL, but it seems completely reasonable that there is an overlap.
    - MrMan 5y ago
      all very reasonable and curiously discussed, yes
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kelnos 5y ago
I still don't get how this is all ok. The way to break up illegal behavior is to arrest those responsible, and then charge them and try them for crimes. Which in this case, should have been trivially easy, since the participants of main importance were there, in public, sitting in their trucks. Governments should not have tools so readily available that allow them to destroy a person's (or family's) finances without due process. > Police didn't enforce the law which is why the feds needed to intervene. That seems to be a pretty big problem. If the police aren't doing their job, fire their leadership and find people who will get it done. Does Canada have something analogous to the US National Guard that could have been brought in to deal with this if the local authorities were refusing to take action? The outrage here -- at least to me -- isn't about how many people were affected by this or about how the truckers could have better made their point. It's that governments just should not have the power to "solve" problems like this in this way. (And before anyone decides to jump into whataboutism territory, yes, I acknowledge that the US has similar problems, and we suck as well for letting authorities get away with it.)
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  > I still don't get how this is all ok. The way to break up illegal behavior is to arrest those responsible, and then charge them and try them for crimes. Which in this case, should have been trivially easy, since the participants of main importance were there, in public, sitting in their trucks. They did this, once they had the additional support they needed. > That seems to be a pretty big problem. If the police aren't doing their job, fire their leadership and find people who will get it done. Does Canada have something analogous to the US National Guard that could have been brought in to deal with this if the local authorities were refusing to take action? Not really anything specifically the same as the National Guard in terms of policing actions. The closest you could argue is the RCMP. The city did eventually fire the police chief, get extra resources, and make arrests, as I'm sure if you've followed this story at all you'll have seen by now. > The outrage here -- at least to me -- isn't about how many people were affected by this or about how the truckers could have better made their point. It's that governments just should not have the power to "solve" problems like this in this way. (And before anyone decides to jump into whataboutism territory, yes, I acknowledge that the US has similar problems, and we suck as well for letting authorities get away with it.) I agree with you here. It should not have gotten to this point. Where do you draw the line though? At what point is a person's right to protest crossing a line? Is it blocking off roadways for several weeks? Is it shutting down businesses in a downtown core? Is it harassing people? Is it threatening people? Is it assaulting people? Is it attempted arson? I'm trying to envision where the line should be drawn in a way that respects right to protest and allows the locals to not have to endure the above. At what point do you cut off their funding source(s)? The failure on the convoy organizer's part was placing the trucks where they did and deciding to harass the people who just live in downtown Ottawa. If they were up on Parliament hill for these three weeks and there weren't collections of stories of the above, nobody would really care.[1] As I've mentioned elsewhere, Ottawa is familiar with large protests and marches. The people calling it an occupation aren't wrong, from the video I've seen and the stories I've heard from friends and family living down there. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/sgcx4a/del_duca_it_takes_a_lot_to_get_me_angry_stealing/huvdihq/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/sgcx4a/del_duca_it...

modzu 5y ago

1. with a sample size in the hundreds of thousands, even if its true, it's irrelevant. 2. the state of emergency could not be in response to the border closures, because they were cleared prior. one single cachet of weapons was found. per 100,000 criminals, gee, thats better than my hood. as for honking, it should be punishable by death or bankruptcy in any civilized country. 3. yes it is. override of the charter is precisely the power the emergency act seeks 4. have you ever donated to the world wildlife fund? sponsored a child in africa? the data has already made it clear that the majority of funding came from within canada in small amounts. occams razor: this is the result of frustrated citizens, not vladimir putin

fudged71 5y ago
1. Canada's terrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws are very clear and very strict. The fact that they chose platforms that are not reporting to FINTRAC is suspect, and the leaked donor lists show roughly half of all donations were foreign. 2. The weapons themselves were not the problem. Gas canisters stockpiled unsafely near parliament is a huge concern. And weapons found in Coutts were directly linked to a credible threat of an attack on RCMP members (high-capacity magazines are extremely illegal). 3. The Emergencies Act is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is written into the Act itself. The Charter, which continues to be supreme to the Emergency Act, forbids retroactive punishment. 4. See above. This is not a charity or nonprofit. It is a criminal organization that is under investigation.
- modzu 5y ago
  3. of course the constitution (of which the charter is part) is the supreme law of canada. but, the rights and freedoms within the charter are not absolute; they can and have been been limited, as could be no more obvious than the clearing of the protest itself (the right to freedom of assembly)
  - Zachery 5y ago
    The Charter specifically protects peaceful assemblies. Which this was not by most measures. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html#a2b https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

trainsarebetter 5y ago

* Over a thousand donors to the Convoy have been linked to the Jan 6th capitol demonstration and attack. are you able to provide sources? I’ve heard the exact opposite.

monkeybutton 5y ago
https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-finds-1100-people-donated-to-both-canada-freedom-convoy-and-jan-6-demonstration https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-finds-1100-people-donated-to-bo...
- dzqhz 5y ago
  Not that I trust the ADL, but it seems completely reasonable that there is an overlap.
  - MrMan 5y ago
    all very reasonable and curiously discussed, yes
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kelnos 5y ago

I still don't get how this is all ok. The way to break up illegal behavior is to arrest those responsible, and then charge them and try them for crimes. Which in this case, should have been trivially easy, since the participants of main importance were there, in public, sitting in their trucks. Governments should not have tools so readily available that allow them to destroy a person's (or family's) finances without due process. > Police didn't enforce the law which is why the feds needed to intervene. That seems to be a pretty big problem. If the police aren't doing their job, fire their leadership and find people who will get it done. Does Canada have something analogous to the US National Guard that could have been brought in to deal with this if the local authorities were refusing to take action? The outrage here -- at least to me -- isn't about how many people were affected by this or about how the truckers could have better made their point. It's that governments just should not have the power to "solve" problems like this in this way. (And before anyone decides to jump into whataboutism territory, yes, I acknowledge that the US has similar problems, and we suck as well for letting authorities get away with it.)

BeefWellington 5y ago
> I still don't get how this is all ok. The way to break up illegal behavior is to arrest those responsible, and then charge them and try them for crimes. Which in this case, should have been trivially easy, since the participants of main importance were there, in public, sitting in their trucks. They did this, once they had the additional support they needed. > That seems to be a pretty big problem. If the police aren't doing their job, fire their leadership and find people who will get it done. Does Canada have something analogous to the US National Guard that could have been brought in to deal with this if the local authorities were refusing to take action? Not really anything specifically the same as the National Guard in terms of policing actions. The closest you could argue is the RCMP. The city did eventually fire the police chief, get extra resources, and make arrests, as I'm sure if you've followed this story at all you'll have seen by now. > The outrage here -- at least to me -- isn't about how many people were affected by this or about how the truckers could have better made their point. It's that governments just should not have the power to "solve" problems like this in this way. (And before anyone decides to jump into whataboutism territory, yes, I acknowledge that the US has similar problems, and we suck as well for letting authorities get away with it.) I agree with you here. It should not have gotten to this point. Where do you draw the line though? At what point is a person's right to protest crossing a line? Is it blocking off roadways for several weeks? Is it shutting down businesses in a downtown core? Is it harassing people? Is it threatening people? Is it assaulting people? Is it attempted arson? I'm trying to envision where the line should be drawn in a way that respects right to protest and allows the locals to not have to endure the above. At what point do you cut off their funding source(s)? The failure on the convoy organizer's part was placing the trucks where they did and deciding to harass the people who just live in downtown Ottawa. If they were up on Parliament hill for these three weeks and there weren't collections of stories of the above, nobody would really care.[1] As I've mentioned elsewhere, Ottawa is familiar with large protests and marches. The people calling it an occupation aren't wrong, from the video I've seen and the stories I've heard from friends and family living down there. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/sgcx4a/del_duca_it_takes_a_lot_to_get_me_angry_stealing/huvdihq/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/sgcx4a/del_duca_it...