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

Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#41

Post by klyrs »

refurb wrote: post #37

Not sure what’s up with British Commonwealth countries but there is a definite split when it comes to individual rights. Australia is creating a massive surveillance state, NZ won’t allow their own citizens into the country (2 years now!) and Canada pulls out a sledgehammer to deal with protestors on the front steps of its legislature . Maybe Canada can adopt some of Singapore’s rules? Permits for any protest (even a…

If you think this is the sledgehammer, you should read up on what they did to G20 protesters. It wasn't weeks of friendly fraternization.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#42

Post by refurb »

klyrs wrote: post #41
refurb wrote: post #37

Not sure what’s up with British Commonwealth countries but there is a definite split when it comes to individual rights. Australia is creating a massive surveillance state, NZ won’t allow their own citizens into the country (2 years now!) and Canada pulls out a sledgehammer to deal with protestors on the front steps of its legislature . Maybe Canada can adopt some of Singapore’s rules? Permits for any protest (even a…

If you think this is the sledgehammer, you should read up on what they did to G20 protesters. It wasn't weeks of friendly fraternization.

I don’t recall a suspension of Charter Rights?

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#43

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #28
ulrashida wrote: post #25

Given the author's command /41 to "always invert, invert, invert" does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? That feels like something most citizens of a country would be against. Without the massive inflows of cash this protest would have been just as demonstrative, but not as crippling or…

>does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? If you're against that, the reasonable reaction would be to block foreign transfers and/or freeze the portion of funds that came from foreign sources, not ban them from the financial system entirely. Imagine the government shutting down an oppositi…

[deleted]

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#44

Post by smnrchrds »

refurb wrote: post #42
klyrs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think this is the sledgehammer, you should read up on what they did to G20 protesters. It wasn't weeks of friendly fraternization.

I don’t recall a suspension of Charter Rights?

There is no suspension of charter rights. Emergencies Act unambiguously says all charter rights remain in effect.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#45

Post by refurb »

smnrchrds wrote: post #44
refurb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t recall a suspension of Charter Rights?

There is no suspension of charter rights. Emergencies Act unambiguously says all charter rights remain in effect.

Indeed...

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2022/02/can...

"The Charter allows the Government to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society where limits on guaranteed rights and freedoms can be justified in a free and democratic society."

The Emergencies Act can give the government the power to force you to act on their behalf.... "Directing specified persons to render essential services". If that's not a violation of the Charter..."the right to life, liberty and security of the person", I don't know what is.

It's basically saying "we'll respect the Charter because the Charter allows reasonable violations of those rights".

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#46

Post by salawat »

8note wrote: post #20
jevoten wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But taking money out of the equation for only some, and not others, takes us even further from democratization of speech.

Properly, the government needs to fund the publication of speech by every citizen, so anyone can spend as much as Peter Thiel can

Square one. What the government giveth, it can take away. See Canada.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#47

Post by AnimalMuppet »

salawat wrote: post #3
malermeister wrote: post #2

The core point made here is wrong. > 6/ Freedom of speech might require such activities like: > A website > A pamphlet > An advertisement > Paying a graphic designer > Travelling to a different location All of those amplify your speech, but they're not prerequisites for speech. You can speak without any of them - I'm doing it right now! Same for all the other various things mentioned in this thread. None of the thing…

Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud. Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Mon…

> Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about.

Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#48

Post by woodrow »

gruez wrote: post #28
ulrashida wrote: post #25

Given the author's command /41 to "always invert, invert, invert" does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? That feels like something most citizens of a country would be against. Without the massive inflows of cash this protest would have been just as demonstrative, but not as crippling or…

>does that, absent a financial emergency power, mean we should normalize allowing foreign money to bankroll people with semis to blockade cities under the flag of protest? If you're against that, the reasonable reaction would be to block foreign transfers and/or freeze the portion of funds that came from foreign sources, not ban them from the financial system entirely. Imagine the government shutting down an oppositi…

It is illegal for anyone who is not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to contribute to a Canadian political party or campaign. This is also true in the United States.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#49

Post by salawat »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #47
salawat wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change freedom of speech to "freedom to realistically effect change", and you'll ultimately end up at the point everyone is dancing around, but no one is willing to say out loud. Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. You can't buy a printing press without... Money. You can't buy a computer without... Money You can't get an internet connection without... Mon…

> Freedom of Speech everyone is all about. Freedom to be Heard is what everyone is in a tizzy about. Nobody has freedom to be heard. "Freedom to be heard" equals "freedom to force others to listen (or at least to hear)". I deny that anyone legitimately has that freedom.

The Court, the Executive, and anyone sufficiently close to tweak their or, or with a big enough pocket book to have a lobbyist's ear beg to differ. Hence, the concern whenever it appears Governments are flexing it a bit brazenly.

Re: Great thread on what’s problematic with Canada’s anti-protest actions

#50

Post by raxxorrax »

refurb wrote: post #37

Not sure what’s up with British Commonwealth countries but there is a definite split when it comes to individual rights. Australia is creating a massive surveillance state, NZ won’t allow their own citizens into the country (2 years now!) and Canada pulls out a sledgehammer to deal with protestors on the front steps of its legislature . Maybe Canada can adopt some of Singapore’s rules? Permits for any protest (even a…

You don't only have that in Singapore, many western countries have similar laws. Germany for example. It is not a good example though and should not be copied or presented as anything good.
Post reply on HN