4 ms·

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

by 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.

by bb88 4y ago

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.