5 ms·

I am curious if you generally feel comfortable with the government being able to retroactively define something as "terrorism" when it does not conform with you

• incomingpain 5y ago
  >I am curious if you generally feel comfortable with the government being able to retroactively define something as "terrorism" when it does not conform with your general political views. Personally I think this is a terrible idea whether or not I agree with the people being targeted. There's a hilarious video from our parliament. Andrew Scheer(former conservative leader, former opposition leader) was talking. Elizabeth May(former green party leader) got up and started accusing him of 'dogwhistles to nazis' blah blah. Andrew Scheer stands up with the biggest smile. He points out Elizabeth May has been arrested and convicted of an illegal blockade while being green party leader. That the precedent set will mean that the green party donaters will have their bank accounts seized as well as her own. The irony, it's only matter of time that conservatives take government back and very well can do this now. On twitter a ton of greenpeace and antifa people freaked out at this new precedent. "What if I donate to greenpeace. Some point later they have a protest that goes sideways. My bank account gets seized?" Yep.
  • formerkrogeremp 5y ago
    It sounds the argument being made here is that this was a dangerous precedent being made that can be abused by political parties against their political opponents. This seems to be presented by you with apparent glee as a conservative vs green party/greenpeace/"antifa" or liberal issue. What you'll actually find is that broader society is just intolerant of the economic duress and disruptions caused by such protests. Up to a quarter of Canadian-US trade was going through that area, and real people were suffering due to the trucker blockade. These economic disruptions had secondary effects that impact the lingering impacts of the pandemic and exacerbated supply chain issues. There is not a whit of moral equivalency between climate change protests and some truckers afraid of a needle.
    • flenserboy 5y ago
      "It's ok when it happens to people with whom I disagree."
    • incomingpain 5y ago
      >It sounds the argument being made here is that this was a dangerous precedent being made that can be abused by political parties against their political opponents. Because it was the current government abusing the act to use against their political opponents. Do you agree or disagee with this? >This seems to be presented by you with apparent glee as a conservative vs green party/greenpeace/"antifa" or liberal issue. If Canada is a free country and we do have fair and free elections. Inevitably the conservatives form government again. Andrew Scheer almost was prime minister. I guess the glee comes from the above question. If you disagree and that the current government did not abuse the act to crush a peaceful protest. I will immediately agree with you and accept the precedent that this future conservative government gets to crush all dissenting political protests. The glee you detect isn't glee. I very much disagree with this precedent. The government should NEVER be able to stop a peaceful protest. The glee is how absolutely tyrannical Trudeau acted. >What you'll actually find is that broader society is just intolerant of the economic duress and disruptions caused by such protests. Well first of all, this 'broader society' needs citation. The only people who suggest the majority of canadians agree with the use of the emergency act are the same media who called the protests a bunch of nazis. I dont accept state propaganda as facts sorry. Also what economic duress and disruption? By the government's own admission in their required justification of the emergency act there was no blockades. The emergency act was used entirely and solely as part of the Ottawa protest. Blocking a few blocks in front of parliament. There is no economic duress here at all. >Up to a quarter of Canadian-US trade was going through that area, and real people were suffering due to the trucker blockade. These economic disruptions had secondary effects that impact the lingering impacts of the pandemic and exacerbated supply chain issues. 1/4 of usa trade goes through downtown ottawa for no damned reason? Can you prove that in any way please? Or do you mean the detroit bridge blockade? Not only was there 1 lane open, the detroit tunnel was completely unblockaded. Sarnia's bluewater bridge was not blockaded. Niagara falls, not blockaded. And cherry on top... the ambassador bridge dissolved BEFORE they even mentioned talking about the emergency act. No, I dont expect you are trying to use a non-existent blockade as justification for national emergency. The only place the emergency act was used was in ottawa. Surely you are arguing 1/4 of usa trades has to drive in front of parliament? >There is not a whit of moral equivalency between climate change protests and some truckers afraid of a needle. If you say so. I do believe I get to decide upon my own moral decisions. Here's really what's happened. Trudeau was misinformed greatly by the canadian media. He crushed the legitimate protest because he misunderstood why the canadian media called for the denazification of the protest. Trudeau absolutely acted tyrannically and has not fixed the situation. The precedent is set, conservatives do NOT have the right to protest right now. All of the original reasons for the original protest still stand AND they've added new vaccine mandates making the reason for protesting to increase. Without the right to peaceful protest.. it means other protest will now be required.