5 ms·

"Protests are meant to be disruptive". It was a very effective protest, and from my memory almost entirely peaceful, which is way more than can be said of other

"Protests are meant to be disruptive". It was a very effective protest, and from my memory almost entirely peaceful, which is way more than can be said of other protests in 2020-21. Honking horns somehow caused more media outrage than actual riots It was surprising to see how quickly people turned around into saying that blue collar workers uniting and striking was a bad thing (with several suggestions that they be forced to work somehow), that protesting government authoritarianism is in fact fascism, that calling someone a Nazi is somehow supporting Naziism, and that the government coercing people by threatening their livelihoods due to their political activities (or refusing medication), and deciding what is and isn't "legitimate" political views, is actually defending democracy And I have no faith in "yes the law has technical pathological cases but obviously nobody would do that". I used to, but I've just seen enough cases of the letter of the law being twisted with complete disregard to the spirit. E.g. practically any law to do with terrorism

defrost 3y ago
> blue collar workers uniting and striking don't get to close off access to and from work sites for days and weeks on end, nor do they get to block customers. > protesting government authoritarianism is A-OK in my book - but blocking intersections and pissing off fellow citizens and stopping their free travel is not. The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest - not the fact that they were protesting and not the words that they were saying.
- refurb 3y ago
  So clearly you would have supported the same things - suspension of Charter/Constitutional rights, during the BLM protests when businesses were burnt down?
  - defrost 3y ago
    Please don't paraphrase and assume my position, it weakens your position to strawman in that manner. Depends on the circumstances - which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
    - refurb 3y ago
      I’m not paraphrasing and assuming, I’m drawing conclusions from your statements. What do you mean “blocked off transport”? Is that the only form of protest deserving of harsh measures? Do you not think rioting in commercial centers and setting fire to businesses would rise to a similar level as blocking downtown streets as was done in Ottawa? Clearly you feel blocking city streets is sufficient, so burning down businesses must as well?
      - defrost 3y ago
        > I’m drawing conclusions from your statements. Flawed conclusions. > What do you mean “blocked off transport” See the upthread link to the Canadian Charter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Ch... Follow the links to see how "freedom to assemble" allows the "Right to protest" but doesn't guarantee the a right to "substantial disruption". Unions (for example) have (location dependant) a right to strike, to protest, but not a right to block access to a business. > Do you not think rioting in commercial centers and setting fire to businesses ... For which specific protest was this a stated core goal of that protest? Surely these were incidental actions by third parties that happened coincidental with otherwise peaceful protests? In the Canadian case under discussion the entire purpose was specifically to blockade, inconvenience, and shutdown key areas until their demands were met - this took place over the course of a month. Again, which which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
        refurb 3y ago
        I already asked if you don't consider burning down stores to be at least as impactful to commercial trade as blocking roads, but you didn't answer. I'd argue that burning down multiple businesses has a far higher impact than just blocking the street temporarily when it comes to "blocking access to a business", as you put it. And whether or not the protest has that as the "stated goal" is irrelevant. It happened, thus in order to stop it you should be willing to apply the same force of law. You seem fine having two different standards - one where blocking a street in protest deserves suspension of Charter rights and one where burning down businesses doesn't. You're entitled to your belief, but I can state that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest Am I understanding this right? They think the government should step in and freeze the bank accounts of people who haven't been tried or found guilty of a crime, and who just inconvenienced them?
  - defrost 3y ago
    Not the personal accounts of people - the accounts used to land donations in to fund the continued blockading of public thoroughfares.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I mean, that's still terrible, but how do they feel about the freezing the personal accounts of people[0]? [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385
      - defrost 3y ago
        Actually freezing or potentially freezing? As I mentioned in a comment above I'm not aware of any individual that had their personal savings frozen. I recall a lot of reporting that it might happen and I recall a question time in which the accusation was made that it had happened but when pressed no actual details of to whom could be provided. That dates back to about the time of your linked reporting which also talks about the potential for abuse but does not cite an example of abuse. If you have an actual verified account of this actually happening it would be of interest.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Actually freezing or potentially freezing? Either. I don't really understand that anyone would think that a government being able to freeze someone's assets for protesting that government is a good thing. This isn't the potential for abuse, in a sort of "price of freedom" way. This is an abusive power that, at best, was not used.
Radim 3y ago
> I have no faith in "yes the law has technical pathological cases but obviously nobody would do that". I used to, but I've just seen enough cases of the letter of the law being twisted with complete disregard to the spirit. E.g. practically any law to do with terrorism I actually count this as the primary positive outcome of COVID. So many people woke up to the reality of state power during that period. No more "this couldn't possibly happen here" or "they'd never!". And even more after COVID, once the propaganda relented and the veil dropped even further. You'd have to be really obtuse (or otherwise invested) to not get the memo by now. The pool of people who got a taste of the oppressive medicine has extended from "fringe" / "criminal" to wide swathes of "normal", middle class population. A costly lesson for sure, but extremely valuable.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  You somehow missed the cold war, the draft, ... Societies have a lot of power and at times use it; and such use might not be wrong. People believing those things don't exist were just ignoring history. If you want to check out of society that will need quite a bit of doing.
  - Radim 3y ago
    I did not miss the cold war (I was born under communism), I do believe that societies exist and have power, and I do not want to check out of society. What a bizarre non-sequitur.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      You might have missed how the West was during the cold war then. But why then complain when societies act? Having strong reactions to pandemics is historically normal nor can I see anything to wake up to in terms of oppression.

defrost 3y ago

> blue collar workers uniting and striking don't get to close off access to and from work sites for days and weeks on end, nor do they get to block customers. > protesting government authoritarianism is A-OK in my book - but blocking intersections and pissing off fellow citizens and stopping their free travel is not. The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest - not the fact that they were protesting and not the words that they were saying.

refurb 3y ago
So clearly you would have supported the same things - suspension of Charter/Constitutional rights, during the BLM protests when businesses were burnt down?
- defrost 3y ago
  Please don't paraphrase and assume my position, it weakens your position to strawman in that manner. Depends on the circumstances - which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
  - refurb 3y ago
    I’m not paraphrasing and assuming, I’m drawing conclusions from your statements. What do you mean “blocked off transport”? Is that the only form of protest deserving of harsh measures? Do you not think rioting in commercial centers and setting fire to businesses would rise to a similar level as blocking downtown streets as was done in Ottawa? Clearly you feel blocking city streets is sufficient, so burning down businesses must as well?
    - defrost 3y ago
      > I’m drawing conclusions from your statements. Flawed conclusions. > What do you mean “blocked off transport” See the upthread link to the Canadian Charter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Ch... Follow the links to see how "freedom to assemble" allows the "Right to protest" but doesn't guarantee the a right to "substantial disruption". Unions (for example) have (location dependant) a right to strike, to protest, but not a right to block access to a business. > Do you not think rioting in commercial centers and setting fire to businesses ... For which specific protest was this a stated core goal of that protest? Surely these were incidental actions by third parties that happened coincidental with otherwise peaceful protests? In the Canadian case under discussion the entire purpose was specifically to blockade, inconvenience, and shutdown key areas until their demands were met - this took place over the course of a month. Again, which which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
      - refurb 3y ago
        I already asked if you don't consider burning down stores to be at least as impactful to commercial trade as blocking roads, but you didn't answer. I'd argue that burning down multiple businesses has a far higher impact than just blocking the street temporarily when it comes to "blocking access to a business", as you put it. And whether or not the protest has that as the "stated goal" is irrelevant. It happened, thus in order to stop it you should be willing to apply the same force of law. You seem fine having two different standards - one where blocking a street in protest deserves suspension of Charter rights and one where burning down businesses doesn't. You're entitled to your belief, but I can state that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest Am I understanding this right? They think the government should step in and freeze the bank accounts of people who haven't been tried or found guilty of a crime, and who just inconvenienced them?
- defrost 3y ago
  Not the personal accounts of people - the accounts used to land donations in to fund the continued blockading of public thoroughfares.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I mean, that's still terrible, but how do they feel about the freezing the personal accounts of people[0]? [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385
    - defrost 3y ago
      Actually freezing or potentially freezing? As I mentioned in a comment above I'm not aware of any individual that had their personal savings frozen. I recall a lot of reporting that it might happen and I recall a question time in which the accusation was made that it had happened but when pressed no actual details of to whom could be provided. That dates back to about the time of your linked reporting which also talks about the potential for abuse but does not cite an example of abuse. If you have an actual verified account of this actually happening it would be of interest.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Actually freezing or potentially freezing? Either. I don't really understand that anyone would think that a government being able to freeze someone's assets for protesting that government is a good thing. This isn't the potential for abuse, in a sort of "price of freedom" way. This is an abusive power that, at best, was not used.

Radim 3y ago

> I have no faith in "yes the law has technical pathological cases but obviously nobody would do that". I used to, but I've just seen enough cases of the letter of the law being twisted with complete disregard to the spirit. E.g. practically any law to do with terrorism I actually count this as the primary positive outcome of COVID. So many people woke up to the reality of state power during that period. No more "this couldn't possibly happen here" or "they'd never!". And even more after COVID, once the propaganda relented and the veil dropped even further. You'd have to be really obtuse (or otherwise invested) to not get the memo by now. The pool of people who got a taste of the oppressive medicine has extended from "fringe" / "criminal" to wide swathes of "normal", middle class population. A costly lesson for sure, but extremely valuable.

RandomLensman 3y ago
You somehow missed the cold war, the draft, ... Societies have a lot of power and at times use it; and such use might not be wrong. People believing those things don't exist were just ignoring history. If you want to check out of society that will need quite a bit of doing.
- Radim 3y ago
  I did not miss the cold war (I was born under communism), I do believe that societies exist and have power, and I do not want to check out of society. What a bizarre non-sequitur.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    You might have missed how the West was during the cold war then. But why then complain when societies act? Having strong reactions to pandemics is historically normal nor can I see anything to wake up to in terms of oppression.