6 ms·

Applying for jobs has almost entirely moved online these days. And this is just one of many such things. Does whoever wrote that bill understands that? Or do th

Applying for jobs has almost entirely moved online these days. And this is just one of many such things. Does whoever wrote that bill understands that? Or do they just naively think that "it's just time out for people who break the rules".

BJones12 1y ago
They want to ruin the lives of those who oppose them. The Canadian Liberal government has previously attempted the same goal by de-banking protestors, in a move that the courts later ruled unconstitutional.
- Spivak 1y ago
  If there's an avenue for extrajudicial punishment it seems like every government is angling to use it. How did we wind up with such openly vindictive and unprincipled people in our governments? Like you call yourself Liberals, surely it's clear as day that such a thing isn't compatible with how you believe government should operate. You're doing this because you can't arrest them for a crime—shouldn't that give you pause?
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    They call themselves Liberals because co-opting a party is easier than starting one and because it’s useful that people think they’re liberal. But a label doesn’t necessarily match reality — just like North Korea isn’t a democratic republic. A lot of people have trouble with that concept, eg, thinking that a party called “Liberals” believes in liberal governance.
  - hunterpayne 1y ago
    Liberals believe in things like free speech and equal protection under the law. There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal. Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. You want to know what a liberal sounds like? Listen to Bill Clinton's speech in the 90s or a current day Republican. Those are liberals.
    - Lio 1y ago
      > There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal. > Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. I’m sorry but that is not true. E.g. Liberal Party of Australia is a centre right party.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      > Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. I mean, this is just delusional. Most liberal politicians in the US are slightly center right. And the US is not alone in that. There's very, very, VERY few marxists out there. What happens is that someone is neoliberal in 99% of circumstances. And then they take a slightly more communal approach to one problem. And now, they're Marxist. Uh, no. They're neoliberal, they're just not stubborn. If you're on the US and you advocate, say, single payer healthcare, you're not a Marxist. You can listen to these people. They're staunch capitalists, and they're arguing we should make an exception for this one thing. That's not Marxism.
    - senordevnyc 1y ago
      Pretty amusing to hear someone say that current day Republicans care at all about free speech or equal protection under the law.
      - Spivak 1y ago
        Credit where it's due I think Republicans, people whose political ideology is Republicanism as opposed to the RNC whose dominant political ideology is now Conservatism, can still lay claim to those things. But they are a dying breed aren't they.
- btbuildem 1y ago
  Let's not defend the konvoy agitators here, these were legit seditionists who were given far too much leeway to start with. Cutting off their access to crowdsourced funds was too little too late, they should have been shut down more forcefully much sooner.
  - sojournerc 1y ago
    Next time you want to protest something your government is doing (ie, a bill to restrict internet access without due process), remember your comment. The truckers were peaceful and principled. I wish I was surprised that people can hold opinions such as this, but I see so many cheering for authoritarianism in what once were liberal societies. Freedom dies not with a bang but a wimper after being crushed by people with "good intentions".
    - sojournerc 1y ago
      Crazy brigading going on in this thread. Up 5 down 7 back to 1... Wtf. I guess a little truth is too hard for some people
  - zahlman 1y ago
    One person's "sedition" or "insurrection" is another's "protest" or "activism". As an objective matter, the convoy protests are documented to have resulted in no deaths, eight injuries and a few hundred arrests (and very speculative estimates of economic damage); whereas the George Floyd protests are documented to have resulted in nineteen confirmed deaths, over 14,000 arrests and ten figures of directly measurable economic damage (i.e. insurance claims resulting from vandalism and arson).
  - glitchc 1y ago
    > ..who were given far too much leeway to start with. Listen to your language. Freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest are now far too much leeway? The very rights protected by the Charter? Because they are protesting against things you like? Or protesting for things you don't like? Your like and dislike trumps their freedom does it? You do realize who you sound like, don't you? Think about it. Mull it over carefully in your mind. Your rhetoric is dangerously close to a well-known Sozialisticher party.
- aceofspades19 1y ago
  No one got "debanked", it was a temporary freeze for a few days and for a small number of accounts. I also disagree that it was to ruin the lives of those who oppose them, the money was released back to them, that seems like an odd way to ruin someone's life. Surely the tyrannical Liberal government would have been able to do more than keep them from accessing their money for a few days if they truly wanted to ruin lives.
  - isaacremuant 1y ago
    This is such a disingenous comment. Yes. They did attack their sources of income and blocked protestors from accessing THEIR money to stop them from protesting. You minimizing it like "just a few accounts, just a few days" is not only false but also doesn't acknowledge the fact that it should NEVER Happen. But hey, there's always the one saying that reality doesn't happen even when the government attacks from all angles as a coercion mechanism. What's the euphemism now? What's the handbook? "Free speech but not freedom of consequences"?
    - aceofspades19 1y ago
      It's not false, the Emergencies Act was only invoked from February 14th 2022 to February 23rd 2022. That's 9 days. Between 180 and 219 accounts were frozen based on the sources I found. Please tell me which part is false.
  - rifty 1y ago
    It may very well be trivial for a few days, but it's worth considering the full length it could be in effect for. The emergency act after initial confirmation can be in effect for 30 days before reapproval (it can be voluntarily ended as it was in the convoy instance). If we put someone in jail, as in to disable their ability to interface with society, we would have the expectation to feed and shelter them decently for that duration. Removing access to funds under the emergency act has no baseline duty of care expected from the government, despite government action disabling them from acquiring food or shelter independently in modern society for a number of days beyond which someone could starve. The number of days is unpredictably constrained by popular sentiment in a heated moment not a pre-encoded ethical baseline. I don't think this hypothetical and the potential grave consequences is going to be often likely, yet i don't see why it need be a possibility to entertain.

BJones12 1y ago

They want to ruin the lives of those who oppose them. The Canadian Liberal government has previously attempted the same goal by de-banking protestors, in a move that the courts later ruled unconstitutional.

Spivak 1y ago
If there's an avenue for extrajudicial punishment it seems like every government is angling to use it. How did we wind up with such openly vindictive and unprincipled people in our governments? Like you call yourself Liberals, surely it's clear as day that such a thing isn't compatible with how you believe government should operate. You're doing this because you can't arrest them for a crime—shouldn't that give you pause?
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  They call themselves Liberals because co-opting a party is easier than starting one and because it’s useful that people think they’re liberal. But a label doesn’t necessarily match reality — just like North Korea isn’t a democratic republic. A lot of people have trouble with that concept, eg, thinking that a party called “Liberals” believes in liberal governance.
- hunterpayne 1y ago
  Liberals believe in things like free speech and equal protection under the law. There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal. Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. You want to know what a liberal sounds like? Listen to Bill Clinton's speech in the 90s or a current day Republican. Those are liberals.
  - Lio 1y ago
    > There isn't a political party in the English speaking world who uses the word 'Liberal' in their name which is actually Liberal. > Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. I’m sorry but that is not true. E.g. Liberal Party of Australia is a centre right party.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    > Every single one of them is better described as Socialist or Marxist. I mean, this is just delusional. Most liberal politicians in the US are slightly center right. And the US is not alone in that. There's very, very, VERY few marxists out there. What happens is that someone is neoliberal in 99% of circumstances. And then they take a slightly more communal approach to one problem. And now, they're Marxist. Uh, no. They're neoliberal, they're just not stubborn. If you're on the US and you advocate, say, single payer healthcare, you're not a Marxist. You can listen to these people. They're staunch capitalists, and they're arguing we should make an exception for this one thing. That's not Marxism.
  - senordevnyc 1y ago
    Pretty amusing to hear someone say that current day Republicans care at all about free speech or equal protection under the law.
    - Spivak 1y ago
      Credit where it's due I think Republicans, people whose political ideology is Republicanism as opposed to the RNC whose dominant political ideology is now Conservatism, can still lay claim to those things. But they are a dying breed aren't they.
btbuildem 1y ago
Let's not defend the konvoy agitators here, these were legit seditionists who were given far too much leeway to start with. Cutting off their access to crowdsourced funds was too little too late, they should have been shut down more forcefully much sooner.
- sojournerc 1y ago
  Next time you want to protest something your government is doing (ie, a bill to restrict internet access without due process), remember your comment. The truckers were peaceful and principled. I wish I was surprised that people can hold opinions such as this, but I see so many cheering for authoritarianism in what once were liberal societies. Freedom dies not with a bang but a wimper after being crushed by people with "good intentions".
  - sojournerc 1y ago
    Crazy brigading going on in this thread. Up 5 down 7 back to 1... Wtf. I guess a little truth is too hard for some people
- zahlman 1y ago
  One person's "sedition" or "insurrection" is another's "protest" or "activism". As an objective matter, the convoy protests are documented to have resulted in no deaths, eight injuries and a few hundred arrests (and very speculative estimates of economic damage); whereas the George Floyd protests are documented to have resulted in nineteen confirmed deaths, over 14,000 arrests and ten figures of directly measurable economic damage (i.e. insurance claims resulting from vandalism and arson).
- glitchc 1y ago
  > ..who were given far too much leeway to start with. Listen to your language. Freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest are now far too much leeway? The very rights protected by the Charter? Because they are protesting against things you like? Or protesting for things you don't like? Your like and dislike trumps their freedom does it? You do realize who you sound like, don't you? Think about it. Mull it over carefully in your mind. Your rhetoric is dangerously close to a well-known Sozialisticher party.
aceofspades19 1y ago
No one got "debanked", it was a temporary freeze for a few days and for a small number of accounts. I also disagree that it was to ruin the lives of those who oppose them, the money was released back to them, that seems like an odd way to ruin someone's life. Surely the tyrannical Liberal government would have been able to do more than keep them from accessing their money for a few days if they truly wanted to ruin lives.
- isaacremuant 1y ago
  This is such a disingenous comment. Yes. They did attack their sources of income and blocked protestors from accessing THEIR money to stop them from protesting. You minimizing it like "just a few accounts, just a few days" is not only false but also doesn't acknowledge the fact that it should NEVER Happen. But hey, there's always the one saying that reality doesn't happen even when the government attacks from all angles as a coercion mechanism. What's the euphemism now? What's the handbook? "Free speech but not freedom of consequences"?
  - aceofspades19 1y ago
    It's not false, the Emergencies Act was only invoked from February 14th 2022 to February 23rd 2022. That's 9 days. Between 180 and 219 accounts were frozen based on the sources I found. Please tell me which part is false.
- rifty 1y ago
  It may very well be trivial for a few days, but it's worth considering the full length it could be in effect for. The emergency act after initial confirmation can be in effect for 30 days before reapproval (it can be voluntarily ended as it was in the convoy instance). If we put someone in jail, as in to disable their ability to interface with society, we would have the expectation to feed and shelter them decently for that duration. Removing access to funds under the emergency act has no baseline duty of care expected from the government, despite government action disabling them from acquiring food or shelter independently in modern society for a number of days beyond which someone could starve. The number of days is unpredictably constrained by popular sentiment in a heated moment not a pre-encoded ethical baseline. I don't think this hypothetical and the potential grave consequences is going to be often likely, yet i don't see why it need be a possibility to entertain.