8 ms·

I don't think your assessment reflects the current attitudes in Canada. With such a polarizing topic, it's easy to fall into a bubble. I think this is true (and

I don't think your assessment reflects the current attitudes in Canada. With such a polarizing topic, it's easy to fall into a bubble. I think this is true (and fairly normal) for any political in-group--we tend to overestimate our public support. In this case, though, it's really just not there. > Even those on the left are seeing this as way too far. Generally, people are [sympathetic](https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy-support-ottawa-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy...) to the occupiers, but I wouldn't read too much into that--I'm in the large minority that have "sympathy" for them, but I want them gone as soon as possible. Canadians say their opinion is unchanged, or that they're more likely to support vaccine mandates because of the occupations and blockades. A small majority want mass arrests and criminal charges, and significant majority want it to be ended by force. [source](https://angusreid.org/trudeau-convoy-trucker-protest-vaccine-mandates-covid-19/ https://angusreid.org/trudeau-convoy-trucker-protest-vaccine...). Indeed, rather than this being "way too far," for most Canadians, it's not far enough. > The Ottawa police have been unable to end the protests because they are legal peaceful protests. The occupation is in violation of several court injunctions, which makes it illegal. As for peaceful? I'd disagree--there's been too many incidents of violence for me to characterize it that way, but frankly that's secondary when you're in systematic violation of court orders (without even considering all of the civil violations like parking, noise, public defecation, etc.) > the reason Trudeau has gone this far is because there is no roadmap to no restrictions. Restrictions are staying. The protesters forced hishand and revealed this reality. Every single province had a pre-existing deconfinement plan. They've been accelerated as the hospital situation continues to improve.

sleepingadmin 5y ago
>I don't think your assessment reflects the current attitudes in Canada. With such a polarizing topic, it's easy to fall into a bubble. I think this is true (and fairly normal) for any political in-group--we tend to overestimate our public support. I love reading /r/ontario and /r/canada. Obviously cant comment like I do here without getting banned from those subreddits. So their bubble literally sees the truckers as a military occupation that needs to military to violently remove them. That's certainly not a misrepresentation of the general consensus there. The threads about people killing and driving into protestors got applauds. So certainly very polarized. >Generally, people are [sympathetic](https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy...) to the occupiers, but I wouldn't read too much into that--I'm in the large minority that have "sympathy" for them, but I want them gone as soon as possible. People generally support what they represent. They look at the global trend of everyone dropping restrictions and they want the same. However, how many Canadians believe these protesters are also racists, sexists, and white supremacists? The smearing is going to have an effect. >Indeed, rather than this being "way too far," for most Canadians, it's not far enough. Yes, it seems very polar. Trudeau's in the tanks polls wise because the people who believe the smears think this is a military occupation that needs violence to solve. >The occupation is in violation of several court injunctions, which makes it illegal. Like what? That's the thing about peaceful assembly charter right. There's virtually no case law. Which means you can't really injunct against it. You can go after them for bylaw violations that dont involve people. You can ticket a car that is parked illegally. An illegally parked car is not something that makes it a military occupation or even for that matter illegal. >As for peaceful? I'd disagree--there's been too many incidents of violence for me to characterize it that way, but frankly that's secondary when you're in systematic violation of court orders (without even considering all of the civil violations like parking, noise, public defecation, etc.) That's the problem with fundamental human rights. I have a right to peacefully protest. Someone else showing up and being violent doesn't remove my right. That's what fuels counter protesters to be violent. City bylaws also have absolutely no bering here. >Every single province had a pre-existing deconfinement plan. They've been accelerated as the hospital situation continues to improve. Which will certainly appease many of the protesters to go home. Not all will go home. This legislation that Trudeau just engaged is specifically designed not to stop peaceful protesters. This means Trudeau has to pull the trigger on military eventually.
- cmonagle 5y ago
  > People generally support what they represent.[...] The smearing is going to have an effect. It's not smearing to accurately describe them based on their actions and words. We have a free press in Canada and they're right to report on the backgrounds of the organizers. They're holding press conferences demanding the dissolution of the government that we just elected, the organizers (not just participants) have documented white supremacist rants. This isn't popular, and I'm not surprised most Canadians haven't fallen for what some people on the internet are trying to represent them as. > Like what? That's the thing about peaceful assembly charter right Repeating "peaceful assembly" over and over again doesn't change the nature of the occupation. Constant 150 decibel noise is damaging to health and well being. Stockpiling illegal arms is not legal. Threats to bodily harm are not peaceful. Attempted arson is not peaceful. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "city bylaws have no [bearing]", we're all subject to the same laws. Re injunctions: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/protesters-violate-court-injunction-through-weekend-1.6349861 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/protesters-violate-cou... https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/judge-hears-arguments-in-request-for-injunction-against-ambassador-bridge-blockade https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/judge-hears-argument... https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/judge-grants-injunction-against-noise-idling-fireworks-in-ottawa-1.5780769 https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/judge-grants-injunction-against-no... You can disagree, but the courts have decided, and they are the authority on legality. I think the most interesting point is this: > I have a right to peacefully protest. Someone else showing up and being violent doesn't remove my right. That's absolutely correct. If you're not violating noise limits, not parked illegally, and comply with the same laws as everyone else, you can ABSOLUTELY continue demonstrating. The Emergencies Act doesn't change that.
  - sleepingadmin 5y ago
    >That's absolutely correct. If you're not violating noise limits, not parked illegally, and comply with the same laws as everyone else, you can ABSOLUTELY continue demonstrating. The Emergencies Act doesn't change that. We seem to consume different news sources. It's remarkable to read responses today. Shock from the far-left to the far-right. This isn't political anymore. Here's a Libertarian socialist antifascist with 190k followers on twitter: https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1493511896351211520 https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1493511896351211520 As you are aware, the emergencies act doesn't allow the government to really do anything different than what has already happened to this peaceful protest. It doesn't allow them to remove any charter rights. What's about to happen will infringe the rights of the protesters. Under the act... Compensation 48 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the regulations made under section 49, the Minister shall award reasonable compensation to any person who suffers loss, injury or damage as a result of any thing done, or purported to be done, under any of Parts I to IV or any proclamation, order or regulation issued or made thereunder. When Trudeau finally orders the protest to end and infringes their rights. The Crown will be paying significant compensation to the protesters.

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>I don't think your assessment reflects the current attitudes in Canada. With such a polarizing topic, it's easy to fall into a bubble. I think this is true (and fairly normal) for any political in-group--we tend to overestimate our public support. I love reading /r/ontario and /r/canada. Obviously cant comment like I do here without getting banned from those subreddits. So their bubble literally sees the truckers as a military occupation that needs to military to violently remove them. That's certainly not a misrepresentation of the general consensus there. The threads about people killing and driving into protestors got applauds. So certainly very polarized. >Generally, people are [sympathetic](https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy https://globalnews.ca/news/8610727/ipsos-poll-trucker-convoy...) to the occupiers, but I wouldn't read too much into that--I'm in the large minority that have "sympathy" for them, but I want them gone as soon as possible. People generally support what they represent. They look at the global trend of everyone dropping restrictions and they want the same. However, how many Canadians believe these protesters are also racists, sexists, and white supremacists? The smearing is going to have an effect. >Indeed, rather than this being "way too far," for most Canadians, it's not far enough. Yes, it seems very polar. Trudeau's in the tanks polls wise because the people who believe the smears think this is a military occupation that needs violence to solve. >The occupation is in violation of several court injunctions, which makes it illegal. Like what? That's the thing about peaceful assembly charter right. There's virtually no case law. Which means you can't really injunct against it. You can go after them for bylaw violations that dont involve people. You can ticket a car that is parked illegally. An illegally parked car is not something that makes it a military occupation or even for that matter illegal. >As for peaceful? I'd disagree--there's been too many incidents of violence for me to characterize it that way, but frankly that's secondary when you're in systematic violation of court orders (without even considering all of the civil violations like parking, noise, public defecation, etc.) That's the problem with fundamental human rights. I have a right to peacefully protest. Someone else showing up and being violent doesn't remove my right. That's what fuels counter protesters to be violent. City bylaws also have absolutely no bering here. >Every single province had a pre-existing deconfinement plan. They've been accelerated as the hospital situation continues to improve. Which will certainly appease many of the protesters to go home. Not all will go home. This legislation that Trudeau just engaged is specifically designed not to stop peaceful protesters. This means Trudeau has to pull the trigger on military eventually.

cmonagle 5y ago
> People generally support what they represent.[...] The smearing is going to have an effect. It's not smearing to accurately describe them based on their actions and words. We have a free press in Canada and they're right to report on the backgrounds of the organizers. They're holding press conferences demanding the dissolution of the government that we just elected, the organizers (not just participants) have documented white supremacist rants. This isn't popular, and I'm not surprised most Canadians haven't fallen for what some people on the internet are trying to represent them as. > Like what? That's the thing about peaceful assembly charter right Repeating "peaceful assembly" over and over again doesn't change the nature of the occupation. Constant 150 decibel noise is damaging to health and well being. Stockpiling illegal arms is not legal. Threats to bodily harm are not peaceful. Attempted arson is not peaceful. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "city bylaws have no [bearing]", we're all subject to the same laws. Re injunctions: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/protesters-violate-court-injunction-through-weekend-1.6349861 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/protesters-violate-cou... https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/judge-hears-arguments-in-request-for-injunction-against-ambassador-bridge-blockade https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/judge-hears-argument... https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/judge-grants-injunction-against-noise-idling-fireworks-in-ottawa-1.5780769 https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/judge-grants-injunction-against-no... You can disagree, but the courts have decided, and they are the authority on legality. I think the most interesting point is this: > I have a right to peacefully protest. Someone else showing up and being violent doesn't remove my right. That's absolutely correct. If you're not violating noise limits, not parked illegally, and comply with the same laws as everyone else, you can ABSOLUTELY continue demonstrating. The Emergencies Act doesn't change that.
- sleepingadmin 5y ago
  >That's absolutely correct. If you're not violating noise limits, not parked illegally, and comply with the same laws as everyone else, you can ABSOLUTELY continue demonstrating. The Emergencies Act doesn't change that. We seem to consume different news sources. It's remarkable to read responses today. Shock from the far-left to the far-right. This isn't political anymore. Here's a Libertarian socialist antifascist with 190k followers on twitter: https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1493511896351211520 https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1493511896351211520 As you are aware, the emergencies act doesn't allow the government to really do anything different than what has already happened to this peaceful protest. It doesn't allow them to remove any charter rights. What's about to happen will infringe the rights of the protesters. Under the act... Compensation 48 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the regulations made under section 49, the Minister shall award reasonable compensation to any person who suffers loss, injury or damage as a result of any thing done, or purported to be done, under any of Parts I to IV or any proclamation, order or regulation issued or made thereunder. When Trudeau finally orders the protest to end and infringes their rights. The Crown will be paying significant compensation to the protesters.