4 ms·

The federal response was largely due to the abject failure of the city & provincial governments to enforce their laws. The city and province had plenty of too

The federal response was largely due to the abject failure of the city & provincial governments to enforce their laws. The city and province had plenty of tools to get rid of the protesters: noise bylaws, parking bylaws, et cetera. They failed completely, so the Federal government was forced to intervene. The federal government did not have nuanced tools to deal with the truckers so used the blunt hammers they did have.

loceng 2y ago
[flagged]
- mlekoszek 2y ago
  Can you explain what these illegal orders were, within the purview of Sloly's role as police chief? Also, who is the second Ottawa police chief you're talking about? For that matter, who is the third one? Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform?
  - loceng 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mlekoszek 2y ago
      Is this a runaround way to say you don't have any reliable sources to share with us? I'm sure if you linked them they would be very convincing.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - freedomben 2y ago
    > Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform? I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion about much of this, but at least on this one I don't think you need grounds to disbelieve stated reasons for resignation. I've personally witnessed many people resigning and giving reasons like "to focus on my family" or "to focus on my health" or something when in reality they were parachuting out before getting fired or were resigning for other reasons but didn't want to burn a bridge by telling the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if being untruthful (or only partially truthful) in resignations is more the norm than is being honest, and when talking about politics that probably goes up even more.
    - zahlman 2y ago
      >but at least on this one I don't think you need grounds to disbelieve stated reasons for resignation. I don't even see a contradiction in the first place. Of course someone who perceives received orders as illegal, and feels strongly enough about it to consider resigning, would "fail to perform" those orders.
  - loceng 2y ago
    I stand corrected that it Sloly was the 2nd police chief during the protest, not sure how or when I warped that in my mind to thinking that he was the 2nd resignation. My point still stands though and as you say: he was pressured to resign because he wouldn't do what the politicians were demanding of him - which is in line with your "failure to perform" claim. The actions then done under the Emergencies Act to "clear" the Freedom Convoy from downtown were found to have been illegally invoked. And you know crime in Ottawa went down during the Freedom Convoy too, right? Have you put your shoes in the Freedom Convoy participants at all I wonder to balance your perspective? Do you care about the RCMP horses trampling and breaking bones of an elder disabled indigenous woman, who just moments before was basically preaching about love and peace? I can find that video for you if you'd like, if you haven't seen it. Otherwise it's not worth it to put anymore of my time to debate this one on one, when I'm responding to someone who tries to support their argument with "when most sources agree" without citing any sources, and where I can predict which sources you'll cite.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > […] against the peaceful protestors. At some point they stopped being protestors and became occupiers. There is no Charter right to occupy—as the pro-Palestinian folks also learned [1] (which was simply re-iterating previous precedent, see perhaps [2]). [1] 2024 ONSC 3755 [2] 2011 ONSC 6862
  - stretchwithme 2y ago
    At what point is that, legally? Did they attack anybody? Obstruct anyone's access to a building they had a right to access? Or does someone just need to declare that someone is an occupier?
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > At what point is that, legally? Presumably when they started setting up residence by not moving their trucks, living in them, and 'importing' fuel supplies into the city: * https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/protesters-say-theyre-here-for-long-haul-as-supporters-donate-food-fuel-other-supplies https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/protesters-say-the... Or it could have been when they set up saunas and barber shops: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/ottawa-truck-convoy-protesters-unfazed-by-emergencies-act https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/ottawa-truck-c... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (IANAL)
      - loceng 2y ago
        Preventing protestors from getting supplies like fuel to keep warm (etc) is an international crime. They worked with local authorities to position trucks to allow adequate lanes and access to all of downtown. Ottawa being the capital of Canada, it wasn't the first protest they've had - and so this was all standard practice/protocol for local authorities.
    - tensor 2y ago
      Yes, they harassed people, they cornered people, yes they restricted access to stores, buildings, and yes they used their truck horns to attack local residents by preventing them being able to sleep for days on end. Preventing people from sleeping via loud noise is literally considered a torture tactic.
glitchc 2y ago
That's basically what happened. Between the three police forces, the jurisdiction was unclear. Parliamentary police and city police could not decide which laws to enforce as it depended on where the protestors were located. The province mostly polices highways and small townships that cannot afford their own police force. They quickly regained control of the highways to divert any additional incoming trucks but couldn't step in within city limits for trucks that were already there.

loceng 2y ago

[flagged]

mlekoszek 2y ago
Can you explain what these illegal orders were, within the purview of Sloly's role as police chief? Also, who is the second Ottawa police chief you're talking about? For that matter, who is the third one? Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform?
- loceng 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mlekoszek 2y ago
    Is this a runaround way to say you don't have any reliable sources to share with us? I'm sure if you linked them they would be very convincing.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- freedomben 2y ago
  > Furthermore, on what grounds are you claiming that Sloly resigned over illegal orders, when most sources agree it was over failure to perform? I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion about much of this, but at least on this one I don't think you need grounds to disbelieve stated reasons for resignation. I've personally witnessed many people resigning and giving reasons like "to focus on my family" or "to focus on my health" or something when in reality they were parachuting out before getting fired or were resigning for other reasons but didn't want to burn a bridge by telling the truth. I wouldn't be surprised if being untruthful (or only partially truthful) in resignations is more the norm than is being honest, and when talking about politics that probably goes up even more.
  - zahlman 2y ago
    >but at least on this one I don't think you need grounds to disbelieve stated reasons for resignation. I don't even see a contradiction in the first place. Of course someone who perceives received orders as illegal, and feels strongly enough about it to consider resigning, would "fail to perform" those orders.
- loceng 2y ago
  I stand corrected that it Sloly was the 2nd police chief during the protest, not sure how or when I warped that in my mind to thinking that he was the 2nd resignation. My point still stands though and as you say: he was pressured to resign because he wouldn't do what the politicians were demanding of him - which is in line with your "failure to perform" claim. The actions then done under the Emergencies Act to "clear" the Freedom Convoy from downtown were found to have been illegally invoked. And you know crime in Ottawa went down during the Freedom Convoy too, right? Have you put your shoes in the Freedom Convoy participants at all I wonder to balance your perspective? Do you care about the RCMP horses trampling and breaking bones of an elder disabled indigenous woman, who just moments before was basically preaching about love and peace? I can find that video for you if you'd like, if you haven't seen it. Otherwise it's not worth it to put anymore of my time to debate this one on one, when I'm responding to someone who tries to support their argument with "when most sources agree" without citing any sources, and where I can predict which sources you'll cite.
throw0101d 2y ago
> […] against the peaceful protestors. At some point they stopped being protestors and became occupiers. There is no Charter right to occupy—as the pro-Palestinian folks also learned [1] (which was simply re-iterating previous precedent, see perhaps [2]). [1] 2024 ONSC 3755 [2] 2011 ONSC 6862
- stretchwithme 2y ago
  At what point is that, legally? Did they attack anybody? Obstruct anyone's access to a building they had a right to access? Or does someone just need to declare that someone is an occupier?
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > At what point is that, legally? Presumably when they started setting up residence by not moving their trucks, living in them, and 'importing' fuel supplies into the city: * https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/protesters-say-theyre-here-for-long-haul-as-supporters-donate-food-fuel-other-supplies https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/protesters-say-the... Or it could have been when they set up saunas and barber shops: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/ottawa-truck-convoy-protesters-unfazed-by-emergencies-act https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/ottawa-truck-c... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (IANAL)
    - loceng 2y ago
      Preventing protestors from getting supplies like fuel to keep warm (etc) is an international crime. They worked with local authorities to position trucks to allow adequate lanes and access to all of downtown. Ottawa being the capital of Canada, it wasn't the first protest they've had - and so this was all standard practice/protocol for local authorities.
  - tensor 2y ago
    Yes, they harassed people, they cornered people, yes they restricted access to stores, buildings, and yes they used their truck horns to attack local residents by preventing them being able to sleep for days on end. Preventing people from sleeping via loud noise is literally considered a torture tactic.

glitchc 2y ago

That's basically what happened. Between the three police forces, the jurisdiction was unclear. Parliamentary police and city police could not decide which laws to enforce as it depended on where the protestors were located. The province mostly polices highways and small townships that cannot afford their own police force. They quickly regained control of the highways to divert any additional incoming trucks but couldn't step in within city limits for trucks that were already there.