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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#891

Post by yalogin »

tw600040 wrote: post #436

When protests were happening in India this is what Trudeau had to say: "Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue. We’ve reached out through multiple means to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns. This is a moment for all of us to pull together,"Justin Trudeau said. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/situation-is-…

Not every protest is the same just because they call it that. The one going on in ottowa is a nonsensical, made up, cult based brainwashing that got spilled into the open. Don’t equate it to other genuine forms of protest.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#892

Post by wyager »

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.

Isn't it interesting how demonstrations contrary to the regime tend to be treated as criminal non-protests while demonstrations amenable to the regime tend to be treated as "legitimate" protests? Certainly this classification cannot be derived a priori in any other way; for example, the regime media generally treated vastly more disruptive and destructive demonstrations in 2020 as "legitimate" protests despite those demonstrations involving ex ante illegal activities like arson and theft.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#893

Post by rubatuga »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #877

Why are so many Americans obsessed about Canadian politics all of a sudden? The comments here are mostly non-Canadian, and are not representative of the current general sentiment in Canada. While invocation of the Emergencies Act is always concerning, it's pretty clearly warranted here. There's always chance for abuse, but Trudeau's minority government is on thin ice and if they cross any lines they're as good as gon…

I’m Canadian, I work in healthcare. Around half the healthcare workers I’ve talked to want an end to mandates and passports. At this point, the vaccine mandates are ethically speaking, on thin ice as well. Autonomy and freedom from coercion is fundamental to informed consent.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#894

Post by parineum »

dotnet00 wrote: post #716
bregma wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember, a self-selected 10% of the population imposing unwanted hardship on the remaining 90% is less of a revolution and more of a tyranny.

The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny, unless you're arguing that the interests of minorities don't matter? I should clarify that I don't mean to say that this makes the protest valid, just that the argument that protest is only acceptable if an arbitrary number of people are involved is not all that good.

>The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny

10% of people oppose nearly everything and it isn't tyranny so, unless you're an anarchist, your point is ridiculous.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#895

Post by wyager »

not2b wrote: post #580
BitwiseFool wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Protesting is not and will not be illegal." The trick is to categorize the protest as something else.

A "protest" that prevents people from crossing a border or shuts down a city isn't a protest. It is hostage-taking. The US First amendment has some good language on this: the people have a right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Imposing a blockade does not qualify. If they just sit in front of Parliament and hold up signs and shout, but don't impede anyone going about…

> A "protest" that prevents people from crossing a border or shuts down a city isn't a protest. It is hostage-taking.

If I go through your post history am I going to see a consistent belief expressed in mid 2020?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#896

Post by wyager »

yalogin wrote: post #891
tw600040 wrote: post #436

When protests were happening in India this is what Trudeau had to say: "Let me remind you, Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protesters. We believe in the process of dialogue. We’ve reached out through multiple means to the Indian authorities to highlight our concerns. This is a moment for all of us to pull together,"Justin Trudeau said. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/situation-is-…

Not every protest is the same just because they call it that. The one going on in ottowa is a nonsensical, made up, cult based brainwashing that got spilled into the open. Don’t equate it to other genuine forms of protest.

Very wise and true - only demonstrations for correct things are protests. Demonstrations for incorrect things are terrorism, brainwashing, etc.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#897

Post by wyager »

andrew_ wrote: post #411

The number of comments on this that are just fine with wild authoritarian abuses like this "because vaccines are good" is astounding. People have such idealogical myopia and are shocked and appalled when the same measures are used against their interests.

The amount of object-level thinking on modern HN is disappointing but not surprising. Even as recently as 5-6 years ago you could generally rely on HN users being smart enough to at least comprehend the meta-level issues at stake; there no longer seems to be much awareness at this level.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#898

Post by lifeplusplus »

ComradePhil wrote: post #528
andrew_ wrote: post #411

The number of comments on this that are just fine with wild authoritarian abuses like this "because vaccines are good" is astounding. People have such idealogical myopia and are shocked and appalled when the same measures are used against their interests.

Considering that: - the vaccines are relatively new and long term effects are unknowable, - efficacy against the current variant questionable and - the current variant being mild enough even in unvaccinated populations it is perfectly reasonable to have a significant percentage of the population to be unvaccinated, just to have a control for long term studies and for backup in case horrible side-effects come up in th…

the more unvaccinated, the more spread, more mutations, and more risk of continuing pandemic for years.

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#899

Post by monkeydreams »

rmbyrro wrote: post #867
_clhx wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech ends IMO when people can't sleep or enjoy the city they live in for a very extended time b/c of the 24/7 honking. I am all for demonstrating, but I think it is a little ridiculous what they are doing.

I think it's worth looking for a common ground that accommodates free speech and sleeping? My personal opinion: your threshold to kill free speech is way, WAY too low.

You think that the onus is on the sleepers rather than the protestors? Why should the sleepers have to put up with endless noise (along with the damage that sleeplessness brings) just so another person can exercise their right to free speech?

Re: Trudeau Invokes Emergencies Act

#900

Post by JamisonM »

rmbyrro wrote: post #867
_clhx wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech ends IMO when people can't sleep or enjoy the city they live in for a very extended time b/c of the 24/7 honking. I am all for demonstrating, but I think it is a little ridiculous what they are doing.

I think it's worth looking for a common ground that accommodates free speech and sleeping? My personal opinion: your threshold to kill free speech is way, WAY too low.

I think the commenter is exactly saying that they would accept a common ground that accommodates free speech and allowing residents to live in peace free of noise pollution, they are complaining that this common ground does not currently exist.
Post reply on HN