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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#501

Post by 0cVlTeIATBs »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #488
daenz wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No it isn't. And this is entire event has been orchestrated by "people with power" with a political agenda which is hostile to most of the population. It has almost exactly zero organic content. No amount of rhetoric and gaslighting is going to change that.

Could you summarize who the "people in power" are and their agenda, in your opinion?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#502

Post by jcadam »

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.

Banks can freeze accounts based on suspicion alone with no recourse? That’s how you start a bank run…

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#503

Post by ROTMetro »

This whole thing is so sad. My mom lived her final days in fear as she was on chemo treatment and COVID would have been a death sentence to her. The state we live in is very anti-mask, and people were outright hostile to us when we would go out in public here. To a little old lady. With no hair. Who was obviously very sick. My daughter has an autoimmune disease that again puts her at very high risk. She likely will never be able to go out in public and live a normal life again is what we have been told. I am triple vac'd and would be even without these family stories. But I also believed in HIPPA and not treating people with AIDs differently and don't understand why now all of the sudden we must treat people differently based on their medical status. This is not who we are. Remember my body my choice? People wanting to deny medical care to other human beings is as un-understandable as the people harassing my cancer tricked mom for wearing a mask. Just stop for a second people, take a breath, and try to be human. Please get vaccinated. If not for you than for others who have family that love them. Try not to advocate condemning people to death because you don't like their like choices, if not for them then for the family that loves them and would be devastated by their loss. Take a second to undig your feet from your current position and start over, because this isn't working, and it's hurting us all. These are all actual human beings, some in fear for their life from a very real threat from a severe disease, some in fear for their civil rights that their ancestors fought for. I am not right, you are not right. We hold an opinion. That should NEVER lead to deaths for those we disagree with. You don't want a rushed experimental mRNA vaccine, get the Johnson and Johnson shot. It's basically the flu shot. You feel like AIDS patients shouldn't be discriminated against? Then don't require MEDICAL passports declaring people's medical status'. You feel like it's women's bodies they have a say, then don't require experimental vaccines approved in a rush to be put in other's bodies. Seriously people just slow down for one second, and always try to humanize the other, and look at other beliefs we hold and see how someone could hold the belief they have. Take a second today on this day of love and have some compassion. You are valuable, you are important, and your view is important. But people shouldn't die because of it if you can help prevent that. They too are valuable and important and loved.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#504

Post by screye »

hiyer wrote: post #440

When a section of Indian farmers imposed similar blockades on Indian highways, Trudeau was shilling their "right to protest" to pander to his Sikh voters. This despite the fact that the Indian protests were far from peaceful - devolving into riots[1], and the protest sites being venues for rapes[2] and gruesome murders[3,4]. With peaceful protests in his own backyard, Trudeau has forced private organisations to block…

The hypocrisy goes deeper.

Trudeau had been advocating via the WTO for the removal of farming subsidies & MSP for Indian Farmers for years at that point.[1]

If he had any semblance of moral consistency, then he would have been an ardent supporter of the farm bill.

[1] https://theprint.in/diplomacy/trudeau-backs-farmers-protest-...

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#505

Post by SECProto »

kerneloftruth wrote: post #303
Jackim wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trudeau is calling the whole protest illegal. Last week they arrested an old man for merely honking his horn to show support. So, anyone attending a protest is joining an illegal activity...and can have their accounts frozen. There's no guarantee of due process in Canada's constitution?

> Trudeau is calling the whole protest illegal.

The whole protest has been illegal from the start (violating the highway traffic act)

> Last week they arrested an old man for merely honking his horn to show support.

Source? Either way, yes, there was an injunction granted specifically against honking horns.

> So, anyone attending a protest is joining an illegal activity...and can have their accounts frozen.

No, anyone attending this specific protest at this specific time when there is a provincial state of an emergency (and now the invoking of the federal emergencies act, which requires provincial assent) is joining an illegal activity, and anyone providing monetary support to said illegal activity may have their accounts frozen.

> There's no guarantee of due process in Canada's constitution?

There is indeed. The Emergencies Act is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms, section 7 of which covers legal rights[1] and section 1 of which lays out how these rights are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". It'll be up to the courts to decide after the fact whether these restrictions were demonstrably justified (hint: with the province declaring the protest illegal, declaring a state of emergency last week, and the protesters totally refusing to move: they will be found justified. Our court system is not nearly as politicized as our southern neighbours')

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#506

Post by alea_iacta_est »

Ensorceled wrote: post #486
pumaontheprowl wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic that you're complaining about violence in the context of a protest against forcibly jabbing people with a vaccine they don't want. The government's policy here is violence in itself. If you truly were concerned about violence against innocent people, you'd be on the side of the protesters, not spreading unsourced lies in effort to have them silenced.

No one is forcibly jabbing anyone in Canada. There is no violence being done.

Not being able to earn a living is violence.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#507

Post by bawolff »

colechristensen wrote: post #101
barbazoo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should be done differently? In Alberta restrictions have been lifted but the occupation of the border still hasn't ended.

Put the measures being protested directly up for a vote by the Canadian legislature (so they're not just executive actions), if they're not struck down the government should resign / do a no confidence vote, let people elect a new government. Let the people have their voice. If protests continue take actions that let them protest but reduce their ability to be disruptive. With the current dynamics of the disease thou…

> Put the measures being protested directly up for a vote by the Canadian legislature (so they're not just executive actions), if they're not struck down the government should resign / do a no confidence vote

Wtf, you want them to vote, and if trudeau wins the vote, you want him to resign? Really a heads i win tails you lose sort of plan.

Besides,its a minority government, trudeau doesn't have to put it up for a vote, if he was going to lose, the opposition would put it to a vote.

And that's ignoring that 95% of what they are protesting isn't even federal juridsiction and has nothing to do with trudeau. He wouldn't be able to interfere if he wanted to.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#508

Post by ed25519FUUU »

philistine wrote: post #495
rafale wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me at "closer to an insurrection".

Their core demand up until two days ago was to depose our current federal government and replace it with a their own government. When is a cat not a cat? How clear must it be for you to understand?

Sounds like basically every protest since the summer of 2020.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#509

Post by salawat »

gruez wrote: post #438
salawat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! Now you're starting to get what people have been making such a fuss about in the U.S.! The moment you can unilaterally freeze bank accounts of your own citizens, you're basically putting fundamental restrictions on what they can and cannot do! If citizens can't even fund raise for their own protests, you have a problem. ...Now the fact a bunch of donors are American and not Canadian is... Fascinating... I'…

>...Now the fact a bunch of donors are American and not Canadian is... Fascinating... >I'm not sure what to do about that little chestnut... Sorry Canada. Welcome to politics by free trade I guess??? That'd make sense if they were only freezing the funds that were received from outside the country, but according to the article they're freezing the accounts of "anyone linked with the protests".

...Yeaaaaaah. that's jumping the shark for me. Give em' hell in that case, I suppose.

Taking a second look through the media coverage, I've gotta laugh though... To think that your Federal capital should be immune from a glorified sit in, and to go and make a big fluff about demanding to "take it back"

...Yet no moment of reflection in this is a symbolic gesture to the people of Ottawa on what the Federal mandates have taken from the protestors. It's like people are shouting completely past one another. It's one of the most sublime examples of dysfunction writ large I've lived through to date.

Sad that...

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#510

Post by sangnoir »

colechristensen wrote: post #271
ff317 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

This one is also ripe for abuse - outside forces have been using agents provocateurs for centuries, often undercover cops.

Post reply on HN