4 ms·

Locked up, fined, those who supported them have been fined or had their business shutdown. Bank accounts frozen. Crypto wallets blocked. Campaigns to discredit

Locked up, fined, those who supported them have been fined or had their business shutdown. Bank accounts frozen. Crypto wallets blocked. Campaigns to discredit their grievances such that the population doesn't understand what they were protesting and why.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bb88 4y ago
Well, to be fair, they did conspire to disrupt transportation of goods and services -- and as far as I can tell succeeded in large measure in doing so. I think that's what laws are for in the end, am I wrong?
- gruez 4y ago
  >Well, to be fair, they did conspire to disrupt transportation of goods and services -- and as far as I can tell succeeded in large measure in doing so. Can't you make the same argument for all protesters? Or do also think that when your preferred side is protesting, they should stick to holding up signs in free speech zones?
  - throw0101b 4y ago
    > Can't you make the same argument for all protesters? The protests of the truckers was not the problem. The illegal occupation was. It was only after they failed to disperse (and due to the incompetence of the municipal and provincial governments) and occupied cities streets for days/weeks disrupting the lives of residents that an emergency was declared.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >It was only after they failed to disperse (and due to the incompetence of the municipal and provincial governments) and occupied cities streets for days/weeks disrupting the lives of residents that an emergency was declared. In other words, they should have kept their protests within free speech zones? Note, my previous comment wasn't arguing for whether their actions were illegal or not, it was to ask whether people would hold up their standards to protests for their preferred side.
      - throw0101b 4y ago
        There's a difference between rolling into town for a day or three and disrupting things to get noticed, and setting up residency for weeks. There are limits to protests and free speech. The Charter does not grant people the right to set up occupations.
        gruez 4y ago
        >There's a difference between rolling into town for a day or three and disrupting things to get noticed, and setting up residency for weeks. There are limits to protests and free speech. Again, I'm not arguing for unlimited protests, I'm simply expressing skepticism that people are consistently applying their standards for "protests that aren't okay and we should get the cops to crack down on". Based on your responses it seems like you agree that some level of illegality should be allowed, but draw the line at "a day or three". Was this arrived at a principled way? How do you feel about the following protests, which probably lasted more than that? * Cop City protests in Georgia * George Floyd protests in the Minneapolis area * Capitol Hill Occupied Protest * Hong Kong protests * Occupy Wall St * 1989 Tiananmen Square protests
        throw0101b 4y ago
        Go read Chenowith's book: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 Effective and non-effective tactics—as determined by the historical record of >600 movements over the last 120 years—are discussed, as are all of the above events.
        cam_l 4y ago
        >There are limits In oz we have a 50yr occupation protest. Maybe the limit reached wasn't so much the time, but more the nuisance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy
- 13years 4y ago
  I'm not sure what they may have actually been charged with. I have seen "mischief" as one official charge. However, almost any protest could be labeled as a disruption of some sort. Furthermore, when it comes to laws, this was exactly what the protest was about. They were contesting the authority of the government to take certain actions in manners that many perceived as unlawful.
throw0101b 4y ago
> Locked up, fined, those who supported them have been fined or had their business shutdown. Bank accounts frozen. Crypto wallets blocked. You may want to expand the timeline: They were asked to disperse, they did not. They became an illegal occupation, and still didn't leave when told. Only after they occupied Ottawa for days/weeks, disrupting the lives of residents, was the Emergencies Act invoked and all the above actions taken. No one forced them to commit illegal acts. > Campaigns to discredit their grievances such that the population doesn't understand what they were protesting and why. They were protesting public health measure that were needed to protect the public (quarantines, vaccines). Probably worth noting that the folks in the convoy didn't have broad support in their industry: * https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry-not-all-truckers-support-the-freedom-convoy-1.5757952 https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry... * https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/ https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-... * https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-president-on-ottawa-protests/ https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-... * https://globalnews.ca/news/8635963/south-asian-canadian-truckers-convoy-blockades-industry/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8635963/south-asian-canadian-truc...
- 29083011397778 4y ago
  Per grandparent, "...there's a reason I was so against what was done to the Canadian truckers even though I generally disagreed with them." We don't need to agree with the message to recognize that the means used to shut them down were, at best, not fantastic. There's blame to be had all 'round, and nobody comes off terribly sympathetic. That said, by your logic, any protest can be shut down as soon as it starts to work by declaring it illegal. That's part of why trains keep derailing in the states too - those that care about safety and working conditions, and have the power to change both by striking, cannot legally strike. That's why nurses unions keep getting the short end of the stick: they cannot bargain effectively, because they're chained to the bargaining table due to an inability to legally strike as long as they need to. Simply declaring protests as illegal can leave us feeling like we took the high road with the Canadian trucker protest, but doesn't lead to a world I especially want to live in.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bb88 4y ago

Well, to be fair, they did conspire to disrupt transportation of goods and services -- and as far as I can tell succeeded in large measure in doing so. I think that's what laws are for in the end, am I wrong?

gruez 4y ago
>Well, to be fair, they did conspire to disrupt transportation of goods and services -- and as far as I can tell succeeded in large measure in doing so. Can't you make the same argument for all protesters? Or do also think that when your preferred side is protesting, they should stick to holding up signs in free speech zones?
- throw0101b 4y ago
  > Can't you make the same argument for all protesters? The protests of the truckers was not the problem. The illegal occupation was. It was only after they failed to disperse (and due to the incompetence of the municipal and provincial governments) and occupied cities streets for days/weeks disrupting the lives of residents that an emergency was declared.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >It was only after they failed to disperse (and due to the incompetence of the municipal and provincial governments) and occupied cities streets for days/weeks disrupting the lives of residents that an emergency was declared. In other words, they should have kept their protests within free speech zones? Note, my previous comment wasn't arguing for whether their actions were illegal or not, it was to ask whether people would hold up their standards to protests for their preferred side.
    - throw0101b 4y ago
      There's a difference between rolling into town for a day or three and disrupting things to get noticed, and setting up residency for weeks. There are limits to protests and free speech. The Charter does not grant people the right to set up occupations.
      - gruez 4y ago
        >There's a difference between rolling into town for a day or three and disrupting things to get noticed, and setting up residency for weeks. There are limits to protests and free speech. Again, I'm not arguing for unlimited protests, I'm simply expressing skepticism that people are consistently applying their standards for "protests that aren't okay and we should get the cops to crack down on". Based on your responses it seems like you agree that some level of illegality should be allowed, but draw the line at "a day or three". Was this arrived at a principled way? How do you feel about the following protests, which probably lasted more than that? * Cop City protests in Georgia * George Floyd protests in the Minneapolis area * Capitol Hill Occupied Protest * Hong Kong protests * Occupy Wall St * 1989 Tiananmen Square protests
        throw0101b 4y ago
        Go read Chenowith's book: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650 Effective and non-effective tactics—as determined by the historical record of >600 movements over the last 120 years—are discussed, as are all of the above events.
      - cam_l 4y ago
        >There are limits In oz we have a 50yr occupation protest. Maybe the limit reached wasn't so much the time, but more the nuisance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy
13years 4y ago
I'm not sure what they may have actually been charged with. I have seen "mischief" as one official charge. However, almost any protest could be labeled as a disruption of some sort. Furthermore, when it comes to laws, this was exactly what the protest was about. They were contesting the authority of the government to take certain actions in manners that many perceived as unlawful.

throw0101b 4y ago

> Locked up, fined, those who supported them have been fined or had their business shutdown. Bank accounts frozen. Crypto wallets blocked. You may want to expand the timeline: They were asked to disperse, they did not. They became an illegal occupation, and still didn't leave when told. Only after they occupied Ottawa for days/weeks, disrupting the lives of residents, was the Emergencies Act invoked and all the above actions taken. No one forced them to commit illegal acts. > Campaigns to discredit their grievances such that the population doesn't understand what they were protesting and why. They were protesting public health measure that were needed to protect the public (quarantines, vaccines). Probably worth noting that the folks in the convoy didn't have broad support in their industry: * https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry-not-all-truckers-support-the-freedom-convoy-1.5757952 https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry... * https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-those-engaged-in-road-border-protests/ https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-... * https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-president-on-ottawa-protests/ https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-... * https://globalnews.ca/news/8635963/south-asian-canadian-truckers-convoy-blockades-industry/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8635963/south-asian-canadian-truc...

29083011397778 4y ago
Per grandparent, "...there's a reason I was so against what was done to the Canadian truckers even though I generally disagreed with them." We don't need to agree with the message to recognize that the means used to shut them down were, at best, not fantastic. There's blame to be had all 'round, and nobody comes off terribly sympathetic. That said, by your logic, any protest can be shut down as soon as it starts to work by declaring it illegal. That's part of why trains keep derailing in the states too - those that care about safety and working conditions, and have the power to change both by striking, cannot legally strike. That's why nurses unions keep getting the short end of the stick: they cannot bargain effectively, because they're chained to the bargaining table due to an inability to legally strike as long as they need to. Simply declaring protests as illegal can leave us feeling like we took the high road with the Canadian trucker protest, but doesn't lead to a world I especially want to live in.