3 ms·

> 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 fa

> 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

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