4 ms·

This was my first thought as well, still can't believe how everyone in my social circle was just okay with that oppression because it was "deplorables" doing it

unsupp0rted 3y ago
I spent the duration of the trucker's protest sitting at home, fully vaccinated, and wearing a mask to go to the grocery store. My sibling worked daily at the vaccination clinic. I 180º disagreed with the content of the trucker's argument (less so these days). But I fully supported their right to protest, loudly and irritatingly, because someday I'll need to protest loudly and irritatingly for something I care about. But of course now I won't protest, because I don't want my bank account arbitrarily frozen with no legal basis "voluntarily" by my bank. And that's just my bank account, not the basic income I rely on for food.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Can I come camp outside your house and set off a 120dB train horn at 3AM?
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    Is my house around Parliament Hill? Obviously in the interest of protest you can do something annoying, even at 3am, but you can't do something criminal. A train horn goes up to 110dB. If you do something illegal, like blast a train horn enough to potentially cause damage of one kind or another, then you can be arrested. You have to be careful about the actual charge though, because arresting someone vaguely "for public disturbance on Parliament Hill" eventually gets you arresting people for holding up blank pieces of paper while standing in silence too. Freezing the bank account of people who hold signs on parliament hill or people who donate to people who hold signs on parliament hill isn't a part of arresting them for doing something illegal.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Things are arguably worse in the USA. 35 states have laws on the books preventing personal boycott of Israeli products. In some states employees can and are fired for choosing not buy products in their personal life. It is really disgusting. Imagine laws requiring the firing teachers because they choose not buy Israeli shampoo or whatever at home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...
- sudobash1 3y ago
  I agree that the laws are over-reaching, but not to the extent that you suggest. The Wikipedia article that you cite notes that these laws take one of two forms: > (1) contract-focused laws that condition the receipt of government contracts on an entity certifying that it is not boycotting and will not boycott Israel; and (2) investment-focused laws that mandate public investment funds to divest from entities involved in boycotts of Israel. Neither of these are bans on "personal boycotts". They are penalizing corporations which boycott Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#cite_note-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#cite_note-6
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    look at the case law section. There are plenty of real people, mostly teachers, fired from their jobs because they refuse to certify.
- jancsika 3y ago
  > Imagine laws requiring the firing teachers because they choose not buy Israeli shampoo or whatever at home. By all means, do not imagine laws in this case. Read about a law, a lawsuit, and an amended law that have already been recorded in our history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Koontz_v._Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Koontz_v._Watson
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    yeah, it truly is disgusting. especially Koontz v. watson. Kansas lawmakers amended the law so that it no longer applied to individuals like the plaintiff, rendering the case moot, but leaving the underlying constitutional issues unresolved.
incomingpain 3y ago
Months before the federal government did the same thing to the wetsuweten anti-oil blockades. Politics or deplorable status isn't the problem, it's that out government turned tyrannical.

unsupp0rted 3y ago

I spent the duration of the trucker's protest sitting at home, fully vaccinated, and wearing a mask to go to the grocery store. My sibling worked daily at the vaccination clinic. I 180º disagreed with the content of the trucker's argument (less so these days). But I fully supported their right to protest, loudly and irritatingly, because someday I'll need to protest loudly and irritatingly for something I care about. But of course now I won't protest, because I don't want my bank account arbitrarily frozen with no legal basis "voluntarily" by my bank. And that's just my bank account, not the basic income I rely on for food.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
Can I come camp outside your house and set off a 120dB train horn at 3AM?
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  Is my house around Parliament Hill? Obviously in the interest of protest you can do something annoying, even at 3am, but you can't do something criminal. A train horn goes up to 110dB. If you do something illegal, like blast a train horn enough to potentially cause damage of one kind or another, then you can be arrested. You have to be careful about the actual charge though, because arresting someone vaguely "for public disturbance on Parliament Hill" eventually gets you arresting people for holding up blank pieces of paper while standing in silence too. Freezing the bank account of people who hold signs on parliament hill or people who donate to people who hold signs on parliament hill isn't a part of arresting them for doing something illegal.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Things are arguably worse in the USA. 35 states have laws on the books preventing personal boycott of Israeli products. In some states employees can and are fired for choosing not buy products in their personal life. It is really disgusting. Imagine laws requiring the firing teachers because they choose not buy Israeli shampoo or whatever at home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...

sudobash1 3y ago
I agree that the laws are over-reaching, but not to the extent that you suggest. The Wikipedia article that you cite notes that these laws take one of two forms: > (1) contract-focused laws that condition the receipt of government contracts on an entity certifying that it is not boycotting and will not boycott Israel; and (2) investment-focused laws that mandate public investment funds to divest from entities involved in boycotts of Israel. Neither of these are bans on "personal boycotts". They are penalizing corporations which boycott Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#cite_note-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#cite_note-6
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  look at the case law section. There are plenty of real people, mostly teachers, fired from their jobs because they refuse to certify.
jancsika 3y ago
> Imagine laws requiring the firing teachers because they choose not buy Israeli shampoo or whatever at home. By all means, do not imagine laws in this case. Read about a law, a lawsuit, and an amended law that have already been recorded in our history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Koontz_v._Watson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Koontz_v._Watson
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  yeah, it truly is disgusting. especially Koontz v. watson. Kansas lawmakers amended the law so that it no longer applied to individuals like the plaintiff, rendering the case moot, but leaving the underlying constitutional issues unresolved.

incomingpain 3y ago

Months before the federal government did the same thing to the wetsuweten anti-oil blockades. Politics or deplorable status isn't the problem, it's that out government turned tyrannical.