Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors • Hacker News Board

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#61

Post by Overtonwindow » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

“Do what we say or we will make your lives miserable.”

This seems to be the tacit mantra of governments in the era of COVID. Alongside a willingness to entrench at the slightest pushback, in my humble opinion governments across the world have gone too far.

I completely support the right of the truckers to protest, and it would seem that the protest is upsetting the very people that it is meant to upset. I Sympathize with the people of Ottawa, and hope maybe they will come together with the truckers, but I doubt it.

The government cannot budge, the government cannot back down. Like the American government, the Canadian government knows it must fight any question to its authority because if it doesn’t, it runs the risk of losing that authority.

The truckers are going to have to break the Canadian government to win, and frankly I hope they do.

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#62

Post by ben_w » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #15

tyleo wrote: post #3

I’d like to expand on some thoughts I had in another thread that provoked some interesting discussion: If the protests are peaceful, the government should not shut them down. But at what point do the economic impacts of a protest cross a line such that they aren’t peaceful? I personally feel that the slippery slope runs in both directions: * The government expanding its power to block more protests is a slippery slop…

There is a very simple solution, the government lifts the restrictions and resigns. New elections are held and then the people decide if they want a new government that will punish protesters or not.

Lifting the restrictions? The ones which are (at least in name, I am not qualified to discuss further than that) about protecting the health of the population? That seems contrary to the best interests of a nation.

And I’m expressly not saying the Canadian government picked the right response here — I don’t know if they did or didn’t — but what you’re suggesting is way too far in the other direction.

Making it the norm to resign in response to protests makes it very easy for any political opponent on any issue to do a soapbox equivalent of filibustering.

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#63

Post by rini17 » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #44

tyleo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just one side of the slippery slope though. Assuming we took this recommendation as a rule, it seems that a convoy of truckers could organize, shut down an economy, and force an election any time they disagreed with something. This does not seem like a recipe for effective government.

No? It seems a recipe for a perfect government. Whenever X% of the population wants that much to throw down the government, that's probably a good time for a remodel. Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under.

X is how much? 0.1%?

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#64

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #44

tyleo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just one side of the slippery slope though. Assuming we took this recommendation as a rule, it seems that a convoy of truckers could organize, shut down an economy, and force an election any time they disagreed with something. This does not seem like a recipe for effective government.

No? It seems a recipe for a perfect government. Whenever X% of the population wants that much to throw down the government, that's probably a good time for a remodel. Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under.

This would be ridiculous quickly. Imagine the protestors getting Trump to go to re-election within a week of the 2016 election.

Say Hillary won.

How long would it take the anti-Hillary side to shut things down long enough to get another election?

In a polarised partisan climate, you'd have weekly elections.

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#65

Post by ben_w » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #44

tyleo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just one side of the slippery slope though. Assuming we took this recommendation as a rule, it seems that a convoy of truckers could organize, shut down an economy, and force an election any time they disagreed with something. This does not seem like a recipe for effective government.

No? It seems a recipe for a perfect government. Whenever X% of the population wants that much to throw down the government, that's probably a good time for a remodel. Might not be as effective as a dictatorship or a oligarchy, sure, must a much better government to live under.

For what value of X?

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#66

Post by kkjjkgjjgg » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:45 PM UTC

young_unixer wrote: post #17

Is there some point at which people will start rejecting this arbitrary and excessive exercise of power? This sets a dangerous precedent for a country that until now we considered a liberal democracy with freedom and respect for individual rights. I wonder if we're all headed to a point where state control and erosion of freedom are widely accepted by the public in our western democracies.

Yes we are headed to that point. Whether the public will resist at some point is the big question (or if it even still has the power to do so).

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#67

Post by Overtonwindow » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:45 PM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #32

young_unixer wrote: post #17

Is there some point at which people will start rejecting this arbitrary and excessive exercise of power? This sets a dangerous precedent for a country that until now we considered a liberal democracy with freedom and respect for individual rights. I wonder if we're all headed to a point where state control and erosion of freedom are widely accepted by the public in our western democracies.

How do you reject the excessive exercise of power? Its very hard to say. If all it takes is the declaration of an emergency and then people accept that declaration, I don't think you can. " Is there some point at which people will start rejecting this arbitrary and excessive exercise of power?" Well, the truckers are trying, no?

For some reason your comment reminded me of the Reichstag fire decree. It’s worth reading on, how the government used an emergency protection order to go full throat to a dictatorship..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#:~:text=The%2....

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#68

Post by Overtonwindow » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:46 PM UTC

jagger27 wrote: post #56

young_unixer wrote: post #17

Is there some point at which people will start rejecting this arbitrary and excessive exercise of power? This sets a dangerous precedent for a country that until now we considered a liberal democracy with freedom and respect for individual rights. I wonder if we're all headed to a point where state control and erosion of freedom are widely accepted by the public in our western democracies.

Name a single “liberal democracy” where any group would be permitted to occupy a capital city for three weeks uncontested. People really aren’t grasping how weak it makes Canada look that it allowed its own capital to be held in a chokehold so easily. There are people on the streets (and in this thread) demanding that elected officials resign while a strong majority of Canadians disagree with the “protest”.

I think it makes the Canadian government look weak and inept when it can’t come to an agreement with its own people. It does make the Canadian government look weak, but I think they lose face at home more than abroad by not working this out.

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#69

Post by kkjjkgjjgg » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

jagger27 wrote: post #56

young_unixer wrote: post #17

Is there some point at which people will start rejecting this arbitrary and excessive exercise of power? This sets a dangerous precedent for a country that until now we considered a liberal democracy with freedom and respect for individual rights. I wonder if we're all headed to a point where state control and erosion of freedom are widely accepted by the public in our western democracies.

Name a single “liberal democracy” where any group would be permitted to occupy a capital city for three weeks uncontested. People really aren’t grasping how weak it makes Canada look that it allowed its own capital to be held in a chokehold so easily. There are people on the streets (and in this thread) demanding that elected officials resign while a strong majority of Canadians disagree with the “protest”.

Should governments be concerned about looking "weak"?

Re: Trudeau announces intention to freeze bank accounts of protestors

#70

Post by phtrivier » Tue, Feb 15, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #15

tyleo wrote: post #3

I’d like to expand on some thoughts I had in another thread that provoked some interesting discussion: If the protests are peaceful, the government should not shut them down. But at what point do the economic impacts of a protest cross a line such that they aren’t peaceful? I personally feel that the slippery slope runs in both directions: * The government expanding its power to block more protests is a slippery slop…

There is a very simple solution, the government lifts the restrictions and resigns. New elections are held and then the people decide if they want a new government that will punish protesters or not.

You're absolutely right that the "peacemaker" in situations like this should be a secret, anonymous, properly held elections.

However, resigning every time there is a protest, even a spectacular one, is obviously not an option for any democraticaly elected governement.

Pick a cause you defend, and a right you'd want to preserve ; browse recent history to find out when was the last time a massive protest was held by people with the opposite side of view.

Western democracies are warry of calling elections for anything but picking representatives. More direct forms of democracy would clearly help in this case.

The current scenario is that the elected governement takes harsh measure, and the people will have to wait and vote them out of office.

(Which, I believe, is a fundamental difference between most western democracy and more autocratic regimes - I'm ready to reevaluate that when there is suspense again in a russian / NK / china election.)

This is _very_ unfortunate for governements that have been recently elected and have strong parlementary majorities.

I wonder if a better "better scenario" in such crisis would be to have different level of population oversight, depending on the time scale of measures.

As in: first, the elected governement takes extraordinary measures, with relatively free reign for short period of times (days / weeks.) "Extraordinary time calling for extraordinary measures", etc...

Than, parlimentary oversight kicks in, to prolong measures in the "months" scale (I'm one of those annoying people who believe representatives have a role in democracy. Sorry.)

Than, referendum / votations need to occur for anything longer than a few months.

It would not "solve" the issue - because, a vaccine mandate might very well have been agreed by referendum in Canada, and truckers would _still_ have blocked roads. But in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have this process.