5 ms·

They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals?

by Dig1t 2y ago

nick_ 2y ago
They were blowing freight truck horns at all hours of the day and night. Tens of thousands of people's lives and sleep were disrupted for weeks on end. 90% of the stuff they were protesting literally wasn't real. Obviously there is a fine line between legitimate, legal protest and it should be taken very seriously. IMO that particular protest pushed that line too hard.
- adamiscool8 2y ago
  The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in some of the most affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
  - sbarre 2y ago
    Lol do you actually live in Ottawa? Calling downtown near the Parliament buildings "the most affluent areas around the nation's capital" is pretty hilarious.
    - adamiscool8 2y ago
      Is it no longer the most expensive part of downtown? Obviously there are rich suburbs.
      - sbarre 2y ago
        It has never been the expensive part. The Glebe, Sandy Hill, Rockliffe, Island Park, etc.. All those parts of Ottawa's core have always been more afluent than the downtown by the Parliament. The rise of new condos in that area has probably improved it somewhat in the last 10 years but it's still far from "afluent".
        adamiscool8 2y ago
        Point stands regardless, but it is relatively affluent to it's surroundings here: https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/ https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/
        nick_ 2y ago
        The point absolutely does not stand. You've retreated to "relative affluence". For your point to stand, it would also have to be a given that the acceptability of noise pollution correlates with how rich the population is. That doesn't stand either.
        sbarre 2y ago
        Lol what? Point stands regardless? What does that mean? - "Oh my point was proven wrong but I'm going to stick to it anyways? Because fact shmacts?" Your whole argument was that the convoy was shut down because it inconvenienced the wealthy locals.. Which is completely not what happened. It's ok to say you were wrong.
        adamiscool8 2y ago
        It means you can strike "some of the most" from my comment and the point remains unrebutted. >The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
    - nick_ 2y ago
      You can tell when people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they think downtown cores are where rich people live.
      - 1over137 2y ago
        Outside the USA, including Canada, downtown cores are where (many, but not all) rich people live.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        nick_ 2y ago
        I live in Toronto and have been to Ottawa many times, as well as tons of other Canadian and American cities. Downtown cores have some middle class folks in them, usually in somewhat luxurious condo buildings. But in no way does the interpretation of "where all the rich Canadians live" being downtown Ottawa make any sense.
        sbarre 2y ago
        Yes please tell me more about where I live and you don't.
  - nick_ 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - adamiscool8 2y ago
      >Dennis: Think about it. She’s out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. She looks around her, what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. “Oh, there’s nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?” >Mac: Okay…that seems really dark though. >Dennis: No, no, it’s not dark. You’re misunderstanding me, bro. >Mac: I think I am. >Dennis: Yeah, you are. ‘Cause if the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no. The thing is that she’s not gonna say no, she’d never say no…because of the implication. >Mac: Now, you said that word “implication” a couple of times. What implication? >Dennis: The implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for her, but she’s thinking that they will.
      - nick_ 2y ago
        So no, they didn't.
        adamiscool8 2y ago
        Sure, and at first the Canadian government didn't force indigenous children into residential schools - it just withheld resources and services and used a monopoly on violence to make resistance untenable. Believing that's acceptable behaviour from your government, is certainly... a position.
        nick_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
        adamiscool8 2y ago
        Respectfully, it is insane to not recognize the discrete similarities listed, and moreover, how many genocides have their roots in purported "public health measures".
  - throw0101b 2y ago
    > The government turning to wartime measures […] The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war: * §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or, (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. * https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commiss...
    - adamiscool8 2y ago
      >The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime. >The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly: * I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1] In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act: * §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time: * Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2] And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3] >Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold. [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergency-commission-emergencies-act-freedom-convoy https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-act-ottawa-1.6648413 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-... [3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...
- sys_64738 2y ago
  This is the very essence of what real protesting is. It's meant to inconvenience people and be in their face. What do you think the word protest even means?
lupusreal 2y ago
[flagged]
- nick_ 2y ago
  Sorry are you trying to imply that the way various levels of US governments responded to recent left-wing protests has some conspiratorial parallel to the way the Canadian federal government responded to a right wing protest? The city of Ottawa's law enforcement officers were ordered to remove the protesters weeks before the federal government stepped in. The cops basically just didn't do their job. The emergency act was not invoked lightly.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Who said anything about the US government? Left wing protestors get plenty of leeway in Canada but right wing protestors get branded terrorists for being loud. Oh but it "wasn't done lightly", whatever that's meant to mean, so obviously it's kosher.
    - nick_ 2y ago
      Oh I see. You're crazy.
      - dang 2y ago
        Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are, so please don't do it on HN. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. The other commenter was breaking the site guidelines too, but in a different way, and I've responded to them also.
    - squigz 2y ago
      To what "leftist' protests are you referring, exactly?
  - 2y ago
throw0101b 2y ago
> They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals? They were protestors until they started living on the streets, at which point they became occupiers (CC §63(1)): * https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/protesters-build-wooden-structure-in-downtown-ottawa-park-1.5766997 https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/protesters-build-wooden-structure-... * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-truck-convoy-protest-camp-rideau-canal-lawrence-freiman-lane-confederation-park-1.6339844 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-truck-convoy-pr... * https://pressprogress.ca/photos-show-young-child-with-a-gas-can-strapped-to-their-body-next-to-parliament-hill/ https://pressprogress.ca/photos-show-young-child-with-a-gas-... When ordered to disperse they did not, which now goes into disobeying lawful police orders. And if I was a resident of Ottawa, I doubt I would have considered 24/7 honking and the generation of noise "peaceful" (CC §31). * https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/angela-hewitt-plays-on-through-protests-and-pandemics https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/angela-hewitt-play... If you want your movement to succeed and goals achieve your goals you need to get the public on your side, not piss them off and consider you inconsiderate jackasses. Also: is shutting an international border crossing (bridge), which affects the commutes and livelihood (via supply chains) of thousands of people every day, "peaceful"? * https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Know-Your-Rights-Protesters.pdf https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Know-Your-Rights...
- fouc 2y ago
  Sounds like we need some sort of Geneva Conventions around protesting, a set of rules that protestors & governments can agree on so that we differentiate between "legit protesting" vs not. Was Occupy Wallstreet illegit?
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Peacefully protesting can be criminal. The two are not mutually exclusive. The right to protest and speech does not include a right to break the law. The fundamental problem with the Canadian bank response is that it was not proportional, broke convention, and did not fit the crime. If someone is trespassing, you arrest and remove them. Government have incredible power they can wield, but convention is that they do not use it to force compliance in every circumstance.

They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals?

by Dig1t 2y ago

They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals?

They were blowing freight truck horns at all hours of the day and night. Tens of thousands of people's lives and sleep were disrupted for weeks on end. 90% of the stuff they were protesting literally wasn't real. Obviously there is a fine line between legitimate, legal protest and it should be taken very seriously. IMO that particular protest pushed that line too hard.

adamiscool8 2y ago
The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in some of the most affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
- sbarre 2y ago
  Lol do you actually live in Ottawa? Calling downtown near the Parliament buildings "the most affluent areas around the nation's capital" is pretty hilarious.
  - adamiscool8 2y ago
    Is it no longer the most expensive part of downtown? Obviously there are rich suburbs.
    - sbarre 2y ago
      It has never been the expensive part. The Glebe, Sandy Hill, Rockliffe, Island Park, etc.. All those parts of Ottawa's core have always been more afluent than the downtown by the Parliament. The rise of new condos in that area has probably improved it somewhat in the last 10 years but it's still far from "afluent".
      - adamiscool8 2y ago
        Point stands regardless, but it is relatively affluent to it's surroundings here: https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/ https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/
        nick_ 2y ago
        The point absolutely does not stand. You've retreated to "relative affluence". For your point to stand, it would also have to be a given that the acceptability of noise pollution correlates with how rich the population is. That doesn't stand either.
        sbarre 2y ago
        Lol what? Point stands regardless? What does that mean? - "Oh my point was proven wrong but I'm going to stick to it anyways? Because fact shmacts?" Your whole argument was that the convoy was shut down because it inconvenienced the wealthy locals.. Which is completely not what happened. It's ok to say you were wrong.
        adamiscool8 2y ago
        It means you can strike "some of the most" from my comment and the point remains unrebutted. >The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
  - nick_ 2y ago
    You can tell when people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they think downtown cores are where rich people live.
    - 1over137 2y ago
      Outside the USA, including Canada, downtown cores are where (many, but not all) rich people live.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - nick_ 2y ago
        I live in Toronto and have been to Ottawa many times, as well as tons of other Canadian and American cities. Downtown cores have some middle class folks in them, usually in somewhat luxurious condo buildings. But in no way does the interpretation of "where all the rich Canadians live" being downtown Ottawa make any sense.
      - sbarre 2y ago
        Yes please tell me more about where I live and you don't.
- nick_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - adamiscool8 2y ago
    >Dennis: Think about it. She’s out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. She looks around her, what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. “Oh, there’s nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?” >Mac: Okay…that seems really dark though. >Dennis: No, no, it’s not dark. You’re misunderstanding me, bro. >Mac: I think I am. >Dennis: Yeah, you are. ‘Cause if the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no. The thing is that she’s not gonna say no, she’d never say no…because of the implication. >Mac: Now, you said that word “implication” a couple of times. What implication? >Dennis: The implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for her, but she’s thinking that they will.
    - nick_ 2y ago
      So no, they didn't.
      - adamiscool8 2y ago
        Sure, and at first the Canadian government didn't force indigenous children into residential schools - it just withheld resources and services and used a monopoly on violence to make resistance untenable. Believing that's acceptable behaviour from your government, is certainly... a position.
        nick_ 2y ago
        [flagged]
        adamiscool8 2y ago
        Respectfully, it is insane to not recognize the discrete similarities listed, and moreover, how many genocides have their roots in purported "public health measures".
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > The government turning to wartime measures […] The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war: * §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or, (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. * https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commiss...
  - adamiscool8 2y ago
    >The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime. >The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified: The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly: * I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1] In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act: * §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time: * Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2] And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3] >Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)? The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold. [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergency-commission-emergencies-act-freedom-convoy https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-act-ottawa-1.6648413 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-... [3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...
sys_64738 2y ago
This is the very essence of what real protesting is. It's meant to inconvenience people and be in their face. What do you think the word protest even means?

lupusreal 2y ago

[flagged]

nick_ 2y ago
Sorry are you trying to imply that the way various levels of US governments responded to recent left-wing protests has some conspiratorial parallel to the way the Canadian federal government responded to a right wing protest? The city of Ottawa's law enforcement officers were ordered to remove the protesters weeks before the federal government stepped in. The cops basically just didn't do their job. The emergency act was not invoked lightly.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Who said anything about the US government? Left wing protestors get plenty of leeway in Canada but right wing protestors get branded terrorists for being loud. Oh but it "wasn't done lightly", whatever that's meant to mean, so obviously it's kosher.
  - nick_ 2y ago
    Oh I see. You're crazy.
    - dang 2y ago
      Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are, so please don't do it on HN. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. The other commenter was breaking the site guidelines too, but in a different way, and I've responded to them also.
  - squigz 2y ago
    To what "leftist' protests are you referring, exactly?
- 2y ago

throw0101b 2y ago

> They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals? They were protestors until they started living on the streets, at which point they became occupiers (CC §63(1)): * https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/protesters-build-wooden-structure-in-downtown-ottawa-park-1.5766997 https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/protesters-build-wooden-structure-... * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-truck-convoy-protest-camp-rideau-canal-lawrence-freiman-lane-confederation-park-1.6339844 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-truck-convoy-pr... * https://pressprogress.ca/photos-show-young-child-with-a-gas-can-strapped-to-their-body-next-to-parliament-hill/ https://pressprogress.ca/photos-show-young-child-with-a-gas-... When ordered to disperse they did not, which now goes into disobeying lawful police orders. And if I was a resident of Ottawa, I doubt I would have considered 24/7 honking and the generation of noise "peaceful" (CC §31). * https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/angela-hewitt-plays-on-through-protests-and-pandemics https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/angela-hewitt-play... If you want your movement to succeed and goals achieve your goals you need to get the public on your side, not piss them off and consider you inconsiderate jackasses. Also: is shutting an international border crossing (bridge), which affects the commutes and livelihood (via supply chains) of thousands of people every day, "peaceful"? * https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Know-Your-Rights-Protesters.pdf https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Know-Your-Rights...

fouc 2y ago
Sounds like we need some sort of Geneva Conventions around protesting, a set of rules that protestors & governments can agree on so that we differentiate between "legit protesting" vs not. Was Occupy Wallstreet illegit?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Peacefully protesting can be criminal. The two are not mutually exclusive. The right to protest and speech does not include a right to break the law. The fundamental problem with the Canadian bank response is that it was not proportional, broke convention, and did not fit the crime. If someone is trespassing, you arrest and remove them. Government have incredible power they can wield, but convention is that they do not use it to force compliance in every circumstance.