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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#371

Post by [deleted] »

rtpg wrote: post #215
busymom0 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I along with my friends (who are vaxxed but only did so because their work coerced them) have been at the protest in Ottawa for 3 weekends. It's always been peaceful, friendly and almost like Canada day celebrations. It was loud the first week due to honking but even that's stopped. And even if there were honking, that's not violence. I am brown and my buddy is black and neither of us met with anything other than fri…

"got natural immunity which is superior" is factually incorrect, at least to every statistical study done by national health orgs. I see many people say "this person, who is vaccinated but got COVID anyways, is allowed to do X. Other person, who has a negative COVID test but am not vaccinated, cannot. That is hypocritical." Can someone explain the hypocrisy? People do get that negative COVID tests have relatively lit…

[deleted]

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#372

Post by amscanne »

jleyank wrote: post #297
amscanne wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a couple of the decisions from challenges to the rules that I thought were overreaching (for example: the hotel quarantine requirement even for vaccinated Canadians), and the bar held by the judges seemed incredibly low — merely that it was “necessary” for public health. No data needed, the mere assertion is enough. I feel like in the US, states, the federal government and the judiciary tend to be more adversa…

If you’re hep on freedom, tool on up the road to Quebec and protest their legalized discrimination based on language, religion and probably gender. Laws that violate their own charter passed via the notwithstanding clause. This is an anti Trudeau protest by the 35% of the population that is right wing. With some “get the Governor General to disband the government” throw in. Some folks just hate being told what to do.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m not in favor of the Quebec language laws or more recent laws regarding religious symbols. However, I’m not sure how whataboutism helps.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#373

Post by mmastrac »

synthos wrote: post #102
ameminator wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, how is someone supposed to protest? I mean, I see clear differences between going up to someone's home or into someone's workplace and making noise in the street. Any protest is almost guaranteed to inconvenience someone, unless you want to limit a "protester" to yelling in their own home. So what would you suggest is the line?

Work with the city to park in a designated spot and then protest on foot in front of parliament. Not 'move-in' and set up hot tubs, saunas, and sleep in your truck on Wellington.

Honestly, if they had moved in _purely_ on foot, we would not have gotten to this point. We've had anti-vaccine/anti-mask/anti-mandate protests weekly in most major Canadian cities and they've been untouched, no matter how annoying or inconvenient the population finds them.

The blockades of the border and overwhelming presence of truck/train horns at all hours of the day were the tipping point.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#374

Post by naasking »

squarefoot wrote: post #274

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…

The necessity for a lot of these restrictions were because of waste and underfunding of the healthcare system for decades. The significance of these protests will now change the calculus for future budgets and what sort of restrictions the public will accept in the future.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#375

Post by sacrosancty »

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…

Handy hint for arguing on the internet. All your sources, with the possible exception of cp24.com are openly politically biased in the direction of your argument. There's no use using them to persuade anyone. Using sources whose bias is opposite to what they're showing is much more powerful.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#376

Post by dragonwriter »

School-Cotton wrote: post #227
jsjsbdkj wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had ranked choice you'd have a Liberal/NDP supermajority. Vote splitting on the left is the only way the CPC has held on.

> If we had ranked choice you'd have a Liberal/NDP supermajority. That's unlikely to be true, because there would be way more viable parties. Maybe you would indeed have a supermajority of left-of-center parties but you can't conclude that they'd all have the same Covid restriction policies as the current ones.

> That's unlikely to be true, because there would be way more viable parties

Ranked choice (any form, not just IRV) voting systems without proportional allocation (whether multimember districts with STV, mixed member proportional, or party-list proportional, or something else) do not significantly increase the number of viable parties.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#377

Post by fartcannon »

selcuka wrote: post #364
fishidns wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to make sure everyone has the correct piece of data to think about this. The mandate says that non-Canadian truckers need to be vaccinated to enter the country. The mandate says that Canadian truckers, if they are not vaccinated, are not going to be exempt from the normal border entry measures, which is that they'd need to quarantine on entry unless they are vaccinated. The US has a similar mandate for Cana…

> How do you feel about paying for healthcare of people who are not vaccinated and need care to treat COVID? I'm not anti-vaxxer nor oppose vax mandates; but your question misses the point. I am happy to pay for healthcare of people who are not vaccinated the same way I'm happy to pay for healthcare of smokers with lung cancer. I would still do my best to educate them, though. Negligence or ignorance of others should…

They are getting educated. Near constantly. At what point does not getting a vaccine become negligence?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#378

Post by karmakaze »

pas wrote: post #216
buscoquadnary wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First 90% of Canadian truckers are vaccinated. https://newrepublic.com/article/165341/fox-news-vaccine-cana ... My understanding was this was about the mandates and restrictions themselves not about the vaccine. I mean I am vaxxed and oppose vax mandates.

> 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)

They shouldn't be necessary if enough of the relevant population is vaccinated and given the risk profiles of current variants.

Or if they are necessary, show me the data that supports it.

Reaching for a mandate 'just because', is poor government.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#379

Post by daenz »

Jackim wrote: post #54
makomk wrote: post #24

Headline on the front page of BBC News right now: "Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60383385 This feels downright dystopian, especially if the move away from cash and towards centrally-controlled electronic payment systems is anywhere near as widespread in Canada as elsewhere.

That is an exaggerated headline. Accounts being used to fund illegal activities can be frozen. Protesting is not and will not be illegal. Blocking critical infrastructure is illegal.

That's like saying civil forfeiture is ok because the police will only ever take things from people involved with actual crimes, and that if you're not doing crime you have nothing to worry about. Do you forget how things are manipulated by people with power?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#380

Post by monocasa »

srcreigh wrote: post #307
pkd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no loss of mandate, if the opinion polls are anything to go by. Besides, the Canadian people chose the government in the middle of the pandemic last year. Is there a more comprehensive definition of a "mandate" than a federal election? Whether the response is authoritarian depends on how it is enforced. The police have basically failed to enforce any law on the occupiers on parliament hill (I live here). If…

For what it's worth, Trudeau lost the popular vote last year.

And gained five seats versus the previous election.
Post reply on HN