Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

ottawacitizen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#271

Post by colechristensen »

ff317 wrote: post #230
colechristensen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like , it is authoritarian response to something which should be protected. Using government power intended for things like war to suppress a protest is ridiculous, if this is what being "liberal" is about, I'm out. I hope the response is a protest escalation. Not my country, not my protest, but I know who I'm rooting for. Contrast this to what was happening in Minneapolis a couple of summers ago... p…

Serious question though, which applies to both the Canadian truckers case and the Minneapolis example above - does a right to protest an issue also include a right to inflict economic harm (on broader society, in poorly-targeted fashion) in order to raise awareness? Is the amount of economic harm (say, %GDP of the town, region, or country) or how broadly it's targeted ("random retail stores"? "Anything that relies on…

"Economic harm" is a really weak criterion all around for restricting protest rights and one ripe for abuse. I'm not sure if this is the only impact that a line should be drawn at all.

"Public safety" is a good one, you're free to protest but there has to be adequate access for emergency services to get to people in need.

"No significant destruction" is a good one, not just making a mess in the streets but when your movement starts actively destroying property, looting, etc.

If you keep doing economic harm, your movement will tend to get pretty unpopular pretty quickly and the social pressure instead of government force will likely get to you in the end.

Lots of people walking of the job will do significant amounts of economic harm, I don't want people in certain jobs to become effective slaves because their job is important to the economy. And also a general strike is a very powerful action which should be done from time to time, explicitly very economically powerful and definitely should be protected.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#272

Post by skrbjc »

fishidns wrote: post #247
chrisdhoover wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polling whether rights should be suspended is dangerous. I know nothing of Canadian law, but in the US if 2/3 polled said a peaceful protest should be broken up by the military. The response should condemnation and reassertion of our unalienable rights.

Why do you say it's peaceful? The only reason for the act is because of the illegal blockades which is affecting essential services, goods and livelihood of local business and citizens. A peaceful protest cannot hold people hostage by blocking their access to essential services and goods, and trapping them in. If the protest stopped doing that, then it's fine to continue as long as it wants. You can't have a very sma…

You seem to have never heard of a strike.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#273

Post by animal_spirits »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #185
animal_spirits wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a snap election was it not? To me it seemed like the Canadian government was trying to take advantage of some weird timing/power trick to remain in government. Instead of waiting for the normal time to re-elect they saw an opportunity to stay in power. I am uneducated on Canadian politics so I could be seeing it wrong

What is the "normal time" for an election? Elections don't have a set regularity, as long as they happen at least every 5 years.

Here in the US it is every 4 years, I didn't know that it was more ambiguous in Canada

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#274

Post by squarefoot »

I'm usually all in favor of workers protesting; not this time however. During war time food and resources are rationed; does people complain against the government? Nope. So why during a pandemic that in just two years killed 5 fucking millions people -and counting- should they protest against perfectly sound measures? Am I missing something, or "get vaccinated" doesn't even sound close to "one loaf of bread per day per family"?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#275

Post by naasking »

WesternWind wrote: post #191

Some facts (and a few polls) suggest that the Trucker convoy isn't a broadly popular movement of truckers as much as a well funded tiny minority without broad support even from truckers. First 90% of Canadian truckers are vaccinated. https://newrepublic.com/article/165341/fox-news-vaccine-cana... Evidence suggests that funding for this protest is in large part foreign (IE not from canada) and that most canadian donat…

This is deceptive. It's not supported by a majority of Canadians, but their message was still supported by almost half of Canadians at the outset, and is still supported by a third. When a third of your population speaks, you should listen if you're a representative democracy.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#276

Post by malermeister »

egberts1 wrote: post #210

“everyone has a right to assemble” - PM Trudeau, May 21, 2021 “get those hospital workers, get those anti-Vaxxers, get those oil consumers, get those truckers, get those protesters; crush ‘em all!” - Shorter Trudeau, today. https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1394099973709565954

Assembling != Putting Heavy Machinery on the Roads.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#277

Post by defaultname »

colechristensen wrote: post #61
vorpalhex wrote: post #8

> The Emergencies Act is the modern-day replacement to the War Measures Act. It allows the federal government to force companies to provide services, it can require public protests to end, and limit mobility rights by preventing people from moving to designating areas. > > The act also allows for the military to be used as police, but several sources said that is not under active consideration. Not a good look for Tr…

It doesn't look like , it is authoritarian response to something which should be protected. Using government power intended for things like war to suppress a protest is ridiculous, if this is what being "liberal" is about, I'm out. I hope the response is a protest escalation. Not my country, not my protest, but I know who I'm rooting for. Contrast this to what was happening in Minneapolis a couple of summers ago... p…

"Using government power intended for things like war"

This isn't the war measures act. It is a response specifically targeted to situations like this.

"I hope the response is a protest escalation"

That's neat. I hope that every protester that misused a privilege of their CDL lose their truck license, lose insurance, have their bank accounts locked, and face enormous fines. I guess we have differing hopes.

Sign petitions. Make a new political party. Lobby. Do a campaign. But if you try to force your political will through force -- which parking large trucks throughout cities and on border crossings is -- you have crossed a line and need to be reigned in.

"Not my country"

Oh gosh, what a surprise...

And then, of course, a comparison with completely irrelevant other events that most of us also found reprehensible.

I hate when the protests appear on HN because it makes me realize how terrible "right wing" so many on here are (not conservative -- I'm conservative -- but rather a particularly...stupid and angry version that now parades as right wing in the US), and how absolutely reprehensible opinions are. A sort of "look someone previously in a different country and a completely different event tore stuff down so let them go wild in another country to own the libs". Just garbage takes that should be embarrassing to the speaker.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#278

Post by nonamechicken »

alphabettsy wrote: post #214
1024core wrote: post #5

It is ironical that Trudeau is whining about these "protests" now, when they're at home. He was singing a different tune when farmers in India were doing similar things: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/situation-is-concern...

Edit: I’ll avoid commenting on other nations events that I don’t understand.

> You don’t believe there’s a distinction to be made for how the protesters were being treated and what prompted the remarks?

From https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/news-why-did-justin-trudea...

"Trudeau expressed concern about the Indian security forces' attitude toward these peasant protesters and said that his government has always been a supporter of peaceful protests."

"Sikh vote bank politics matters in Canada. Sikh voters matter to Trudeau's Liberal Party, Conservative Party, and Jagmeet Singh's New Democratic Party. The Sikh population here is close to five lakhs. Sikh separatism or Khalistan has been an essential issue in the relations between India and Canada."

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/...

"Sikh, numbering less than half a million, form the largest ethnic group among Indian-origin Canadians. All four of Trudeau’s Indian-origin ministers are Sikh, and Trudeau has publicly boasted how he has more Sikh ministers than Modi. Amarinder Singh, chief minister of the Sikh-dominated state of Punjab and himself a Sikh, has publicly accused Trudeau’s ministers of having sympathies with Canadian Sikh extremists who would like to see Indian Punjab separated from India into the state of Khalistan. Last year, Singh had refused to meet Trudeau’s defense minister, Harjit Singh Sajjan. All four Sikh ministers have recently visited India, and New Delhi would have liked it if Trudeau didn’t bring them along again. But for Trudeau, this trip is all about the Sikh vote in Canada."

"Canada’s position is that it cannot curtail the right to freedom of speech and expression of its Sikh citizens, but New Delhi wants Trudeau to publicly distance himself from Sikh separatists. "

> It was reported that they were being attacked and beaten in India.

The videos and news reports I saw show protestors being violent. They were using tractors to attempt to run over cops, beating cops with batons, walking around with swords etc. Some examples:

Cops jump off wall to escape protestors at Red Fort: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1qFKUtfvMc

Protestors using tractors against cops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7so5TwIMyM

Protestor attacking cop with sword: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEzMEzzb-94&t=53s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9feGjEr95nM

If anyone has any videos of the protestors being attacked which would prompt leaders of other nations to condemn, please share. I am from South India, and police using batons/water canons/tear gas is a standard practice even for small protests.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#279

Post by jbay808 »

chrissnell wrote: post #255
pas wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> oppose vax mandates why? could you explain your stande on other mandates/requirements and what's this vax mandate does that makes it so different? (eg. you need a passport/visa-like thing to enter, you need clothes, if you arrive by car that needs papers and a valid safety profile, you need to use the seatbelt, and so on)

Because we are free individuals and can make medical decisions for ourselves and our abilities to feed our families should not depend on upon our willingness to take a medication that does not appear to stop the spread of Omicron COVID. The mandates also make no exception for natural immunity which DOES appear to at least slow the spread of Omicron COVID.

This answer seems to be a mix of principles and practicals. I'm curious which matter more to you. Hypothetically, in an alternate reality where the vaccine is super effective at reducing transmission of Omicron, and where Omicron is super deadly, would you support a vaccine mandate? Or is it the principle that matters more, where regardless of the vaccine's effectiveness or the dangerousness of the virus, you believe you should be free to decide for yourself whether to get a vaccine, without it impacting your employability?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#280

Post by refurb »

defaultname wrote: post #265
refurb wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure any of those things matter? - Plenty of vaccinated people against vaccine mandates and other restrictions. Doctors are allowed to be Covid positive and treat patients in BC and QC. But apparently truckers who are Covid negative are a problem? - Foreign money influence is a problem, sure, but businesses? They can’t support a protest? - Last poll I saw (Ipsos) said 1 out of 3 Canadians support the protest.…

"Last poll I saw (Ipsos) said 1 out of 3 Canadians support the protest" That grossly misrepresented poll asked only if respondents sympathize with their cause . If you agree that mandates need to go. Note that when asked directly, 60-70% of Canada are over mandates, and just being asked to show sympathy already lost 50% of those people. But this doesn't mean that those people support this protest. Indeed, in subseque…

I’m not sure we disagree? 46% having sympathy shows it’s not a vocal minority in the least.

And sympathy is a kind of support. I mean, you can have support without sympathy for the cause they are protesting?

22% said they should stay, so 1 out of 5 directly support it.

Post reply on HN