It appears this was the result of terrible security at GiveSendGo. I'd agree it could be state sponsored, but I am certain there are enough people with the skills to do this on their own downtown Ottawa (even if it turned out they work for the gov't).
That said, I am thoroughly disappointed the Federal gov't and much of the media coverage. They have done nothing but make the situation worse. I think it is intentional (I assume some political end game), but their actions are fueling even more outlandish conspiracy theories.
The most insane was that all layers of government did nothing to stop the noise (truck horns), but it ended when a 21 year old who simply filed a court injunction and the protesters complied.
I've watched the Toronto Police Service play their A game through this entire debacle. They shut down the protests hard and were clearly visible throughout the city with heavy trucks and busses to block roads and maintain control of the situation.
The idea that Justin Trudeau needs martial law to deal with parked trucks is outrageous. This isn't an insurrection (reference to an MOU was removed from their website and I agree with the assertion that it was a poorly thought out idea, not a threat), there is no violence, and no obvious danger. The last person to use martial law was Trudeau's father (Pierre) for an actual terrorist attack and kidnapping (the diplomat was later murdered). Get some proper police on the job and drop mandates for ineffective measures and let's move on with our lives.
Media coverage of these protests is vastly negative. I remember only a few years ago (2020) when protests were undoubtedly violent across the United States. Video evidence of this violence as well as mass crowd driven theft was widely documented and distributed. I have yet to see video evidence of any violence from freedom convoys, and the ground based video evidence I have seen appears vastly peaceful. This does not mean there isn’t violence. Indeed, blockading roads could be construed as violence based on an argument for different definitions of the word. Yet, from my personal observations, it seems that the protests are essentially peaceful, citizens living in these cities are in support in large numbers, and this is running counter to the narrative being espoused in mainstream media sources, with the possible exception of Fox News. More or less it seems as though media sources are mischaracterizing these protests overall. Furthermore, it can be effectively argued that forcing workers to get vaccinated or lose their jobs is inherently discriminatory and perhaps even anti-freedom. But these are only my personal observations and conclusions, be what they are, a single individuals insight into the times occurring around him, debate as you will.
Yeah, they intend fully peaceful protests and bring long guns, body armor, large cache of ammunition...[0] and call for the overthrow of the democratic government.
This doesn't even resemble a spontaneous protest, it's organized and funded as part of the global push to fascism. The anti-vax component is a thin pretext.
Far better than CHAZ which established a "no-police zone", did not even recognise the US government and where gangs regularly carried assault rifles. And of-course the shootings and the deaths were just glossed over and the whole movement glorified by the media.
The global push to communism is far, far stronger than any step to fascism.
Considering that the CHAZ was in Capitol Hill, I assume the people in that neighborhood were supportive. As for the rest of us in Seattle, most of us never even visited or saw the place (how often does someone who doesn't live in Capitol Hill visit Capitol Hill?), so it was just something we would see on CNN if we were bothering to watch the news at all (it was cool to see FoxNews have some of our buildings burning down even if it wasn't true, their media narrative was pretty messed up).
I've got a friend who lives on Capitol Hill in Seattle. She hated it - it had all the negative effects of the convoy in Ottawa, about not being able to get where you want to go safely.
I suspect that's how it goes for most instances of protest or civil unrest - the apolitical people in the area hate it, because they're the ones you're inconveniencing to make a point, while distant folks' feelings are determined by whether the protesters are on their side.
"According to the criminal complaint, DAVID-PITTS had arrived in Seattle from Alaska just three days before Monday’s protest. After marching with the group in downtown Seattle, DAVID-PITTS is seen on surveillance video piling up trash against the sally-port door at the Seattle Police East Precinct. Over an eleven minute period the surveillance video captures DAVID-PITTS not only piling up the trash, but repeatedly lighting it on fire and feeding the flames with more trash. While DAVID-PITTS was lighting the fire, other people who appeared on the surveillance were attempting to use crowbars and cement-like materials to try to disable the door next to the sally-port to prevent officers from exiting the building"
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/alaska-man-charged-fede...
It didn’t really affect anyone who wasn’t on tv. I’d only think about it when a friend from out of state would ask what it’s like.
The BLM marches closed freeways once in a while but it’s hard to make I5 noticeably worse. I’ve sat in longer backups more frequently in Seattle due to drunk drivers in Tacoma, for example.
It really wasn’t a big enough deal for there to be a majority opinion either way, I’d imagine. I’d completely forgotten about it until I read your post.
There certainly was quite a bit of community support for the protests on Capitol Hill and the liberation of Cal Anderson Park and the surrounding area from being flooded with tear gas for weeks on end.
Most of the people who were in my scout troop participated at one point or another, the Capitol Hill Business Alliance was broadly supportive, albiet they were focused on business centric issues. Many of the businesses in the area operated like normal as well.
Eventually though the park was looking like a Nicklesville (old Seattlites know the etymology of this), and the crowd that had driven back the cops, painted the street with a mural, and acted in solidarity with their neighbors had dwindled, leaving just those that saw free food, free camping and few people left encouraging sociable behavior.
Support in large numbers and largest against are not necessarily contradictions. There can be a majority against something and still have a large minority for something. For example, if 1 in 4 support something, that 250k Ottawa residents.
> Furthermore, it can be effectively argued that forcing workers to get vaccinated or lose their jobs is inherently discriminatory and perhaps even anti-freedom.
From my understanding, this is only the case for truckers crossing the border. Most of the vaccination mandates I have heard of have been at the provincial or municipal levels and only affect employees of the government or publicly controlled institutions (health, education, police). Even then, it is typically on unpaid leave. Relatively few mandates have come from Ottawa, simply because it isn't their jurisdiction. They aren't leaving much room for human rights complaints, particularly since I believe employers were already within their rights to demand certain vaccinations. I very much doubt that it would even qualify as discriminatory, since it does not affect protected classes.
It is not the employers that are demanding these people be vaccinated, They just want their products delivered. The government wont allow drivers to cross an imaginary line without submitting to vaccination: an even more egregious trespass of an individuals liberty than their usual practice of extortion and/or delay.
If by imaginary line you mean an international border and by government you mean the US government, at least the first part is factual.
As for the second part, the US has been asking for a whole host of vaccinations in order to get a visa for multiple decades, same for the Canadian one, so I don't see how it's "an even more egregious trespass of an individuals liberty than their usual practice".
Do you actually think that referring to borders as 'imaginary lines' is productive? Like do you think that it ads to the conversation, or persuades people to agree with you?
11 people were arrested on weapons charges at the Alberta blockade (handguns and body armor) and one person was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder for trying to run over police with his tractor
That says a lot if that's what a violent protest looks like in Canada when the "peaceful" ones in the US involve millions of dollars in property damage and numerous injuries or deaths.
Strangest to me there is actually the realisation that 'loo' being a mainly British word (I knew that), over there they're not called 'portaloos'. ('Porta-potties'!)
While we're on the subject of the fallacy of relative privation, you'll surely acknowledge that the closure of the Ambassador Bridge for a week is a couple orders of magnitude worse than the 2020 protests. After all, the appropriate measure of a protest is dollars lost, and hundreds of millions of dollars of goods cross the bridge every day.
According to Wikipedia there was up to $2b in insured damages and 25 deaths during the 2020 riots. Now regarding the bridge closure; there will be costs for delays and those will be substantial, but it's not like they just throw $400m of goods in the river because the border is closed.
Not really that fallacy - no claim was made that it wasn't a problem. If anything, it's a musing on how media bias may affect how things are portrayed. Specifically with calling something violent. If violence is the adjective we are examining, the loss (or delay) of revenue from the protest would not fit in this model.
I am curious though, are goods not being rerouted?
Absolutely that fallacy. You're holding the 2020 BLM protests up as being far worse. In fact, you've quantified just how bad they were, as a means of demonstrating that these protests are not as bad. The fallacy is not the claim that this isn't a problem, but that its not nearly as bad as this other problem, and therefore not worthy of the reaction.
Many of the large auto manufacturers shutdown production lines in response to the bridge closure. Delayed revenue is lost revenue.
"Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems."
I have not dismissed the issue. Do you have a source to back up your claim? Also, can you quote where I say this protest is not an issue or not worthy of being addressed?
Again, this was mostly about bias in reporting.
"Delayed revenue is lost revenue."
Here's a fallacy - false equivalent. Delaying revenue does not mean that revenue is lost. Demand and orders do not cease to exist simply because production temporarily halts.
The fallacy is claiming that one is not as bad because the other exists. You seem to be defending your comments from absolute privation. I refer to the first comment I replied to,
>That says a lot if that's what a violent protest looks like in Canada when the "peaceful" ones in the US involve millions of dollars in property damage and numerous injuries or deaths.
Perhaps you read that with a different meaning than it was written with. As I've repeatedly said, it's about the bias in reporting. You seem to not be accepting this. Might I remind you that one of the guidelines of this site is to interpret comments charitably.
You misinterpreted my comment and attacked it as being a fallacy. I explained myself and you attacked further, in the process stating a fallacy of your own. Now you are calling this pedantry. Yet you have not responded to the majority of my comments.
Why would I not correct you when you are saying that I'm saying things I'm not?
You're disregarding my premise, and arguing against something else. The severity of the BLM protests in no way sets precedence for other protests, nor informs the minimum level of violence/destruction/disruption that must occur before other protests are criticized and acknowledged as traumatic for the people whose lives have been disrupted. These events stand on their own, and aren't somehow offset by another protest, or absolved by another protest. It's not an overton window.
> The severity of the BLM protests in no way sets precedence for other protests, nor informs the minimum level of violence/destruction/disruption that must occur before other protests are criticized and acknowledged as traumatic for the people whose lives have been disrupted.
But the comparison does inform us on how biased and hypocratical the media and the ruling class are.
You’re arguing that the deprivations suffered by the victims of one civil disturbance are not lessened in any way by the deprivations of a different disturbance.
That BLM, the Night of Broken Glass, and Selma do not make the lives of those affected by the “truckers” any better.
Those events create neither a defense nor condemnation of the “truckers.”
This is true, certainly.
But it does allow third parties (most people on this forum) to create a figure out how bad the situation is.
Likewise, it allows Canadians to assess the actions of their leaders decided if they are appropriate.
> it seems that the protests are essentially peaceful, citizens living in these cities are in support in large numbers
This is not true in any of the relevant cities; it is an extremely vocal, and very small, minority of people who are in support, and I can guarantee you that most of the few people who do support it would change their minds if it was their neighbourhood people were honking in all night.
Note that over 90% of Canadian truckers are already vaccinated, and similar percentages of the large urban centres being harassed are vaccinated as well. Most people are entirely against these "protests", and will be happier when they're over.
> Furthermore, it can be effectively argued that forcing workers to get vaccinated or lose their jobs is inherently discriminatory
It cannot be effectively argued, because it is not discriminatory; "people who refuse to believe in medical science" is not a protected class. If you need to get a background check to get a job, that is not discriminatory. If you need to have a license to do a job, that is not discriminatory. If you need to be vaccinated to do your job (not just COVID, but otherwise), that is not discriminatory.
> and perhaps even anti-freedom.
Freedom has limits. You don't have the freedom to endanger others.
Freedom does not mean "I get to eat my cake and have it too"; it means you're able to make a choice. Do you want to get vaccinated and do your job, or do you want to refuse to get vaccinated and leave that job so that you aren't endangering others?
What these people are protesting is that they made their choice and have to deal with the consequences of that choice. If you don't want to get a driver's license, you can't protest that you should still be allowed to drive a car; if you don't want to get a passport, you can't protest that you should still be allowed to travel internationally. The rules and restrictions are clear and up-front.
Also: I have friends in Ottawa, and am hearing multiple reports of people being harassed or threatened by these "protesters" (many of whom are acting more like terrorists, trying to intimidate everyone around them) for something as simple as wearing a mask.
> Media coverage of these protests is vastly negative.
Keep in mind that in Canada a lot of the media is state owned and operated. So the media coverage might reflect more on what the ruling party wants the people to think of the protests.
On the livestreams they had music blasting and children playing in the snow near the trucks. Doesn’t look like an “insurrection”, as the state media described it, by any stretch (unless they fear snowballs!).
> Keep in mind that in Canada a lot of the media is state owned and operated. So the media coverage might reflect more on what the ruling party wants the people to think of the protests.
Sure, there's the CBC but the rest of our media is not state owned, so that's a weird claim to make.
Except in this case the major private Canadian media all participated in taking something like $600 million Canadian dollars in subsidies from the government. Justin Trudeau even had the audacity to joke about having bribed the media. [0]
I think it is reasonable to consider the possibility that these handouts may have biased the media to the point where they may be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.
I'm not arguing there's not some possible influence, I don't know if you can say that with any media in any country, I was just taking exception to the blatantly false "state owned and operated".
You’re partially correct. Don’t forget the goodie bag the media gets to “support journalism” which basically is a huge pot of money. Or Telford bragging she could get articles written published to smear to smear someone. It not too hard to make the connection between money and favours now is it?
> On the livestreams they had music blasting and children playing in the snow near the trucks. Doesn’t look like an “insurrection”,
Except for the existence of snow, it sounds like things I’ve seen around fighters in the Palestinian intifada. I think you have an unrealistic view of what an insurrection looks like.
> citizens living in these cities are in support in large numbers
Source? The US polls I've seen show 60% support for vaccine mandates, which is probably why the government feels so confident in shutting down the protests. The media I've seen isn't portraying the protestors as violent but as a nuisance.
Do the polls have how many support the protest? If 20% do, then that would be 200k residents in the city. I consider 200k, or 20% of the population to be a large number. Still a minority, but a large minority.
It does irritate me that the media are referring to it by their own name, "The Freedom Convoy", when it should be something more neutral and objective, like "the Harassment Convoy".
Please don't cross into the flamewar style here. Your comment is a noticeable step in that direction, which is against both the letter and the spirit of the site guidelines. You can make your substantive points without that.
Well they did say they were watching videos of it and it seemed peaceful. Basically that the videos they are seeing don't support the message they are hearing. I would be interest to see evidence either way.
> The most insane was that all layers of government did nothing to stop the noise (truck horns), but it ended when a 21 year old who simply filed a court injunction and the protesters complied.
I think one point that the last two years has nailed home (around the world) is that how protestors are treated has little to do with what their tactics and behavior are, and more to do with simply whether their message ideologically aligns with the police.
If the police agree with some group of protestors, then they're treated with kid gloves, and can get away with anything. The police will throw their hands up and say "nope, can't possibly enforce the law anymore, so sorry!" and stand back. If the police do not agree with some other group of protestors, they're going to get beaten, pepper sprayed, and shot with rubber bullets, no matter how they behave. All of a sudden, enforcement is no problem.
Portland Police Department is just one particularly egregious example. Numerous leaked text messages between officers and the Proud Boys. Letting them know to take cover before tear gas is deployed and that they'll be told when it's "all clear" to come back out, letting them know that though some of their leaders have active warrants for arrest, that they are clear to come to the protest because there's no "other agencies" involved in enforcement, so there's no risk.
This is false and I would expect better of HN posters.
A group of the protestors locked the doors to a downtown apartment building with handcuffs and then attempted to set that building on fire.
Although nobody has been injured yet, there have been plenty of weapons seizures as well as incidents of protestors ramming police vehicles and/or attempting to arrest police officers.
Residents of Ottawa are scared to leave their homes for simple tasks like buying groceries because the protestors have assaulted vulnerable individuals for wearing masks.
The entire thing is a tinderbox just waiting for one unhinged protestor to make a wrong move. And even if we escape this incident peacefully, there are the toxic diesel fumes from idling trucks which have been polluting downtown Ottawa's air for the last two weeks and are likely to become trapped in the urban environment.
> A group of the protestors locked the doors to a downtown apartment building with handcuffs and then attempted to set that building on fire.
What evidence is there that that was real? An allegation was made on Twitter, but only thing I've found that digs into the details looks like a complete debunking (see links at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30336974). It's from a biased source and I'm open to any factual refutation, but I've looked for contrary reporting that digs into the details, and haven't found any. Only a lot of repetition of the original allegation.
With a couple rouge agents being your definition of obvious danger, there can never be another protest. Apply that same logic to the protests a year before and see how it goes
I feel like that is an understatement. This is not a few good old boys throwing a snowball. It's acts of arson, attempted murder, probably fits the definition of terrorism. And that's just the apartment building incident.
And of course the protests a year before were in no part better.
Every large protest fits the definition of terrorism, especially I suspect from the perspective of the politicians that the protest is trying to pressure. This is why people have been arguing that the definition is misguided and far to broad pretty much since the inception of that definition.
Oh, so the 'debunking' is not on whether or not an attempted mass murder/arson occurred, but that there is no "direct linkage" between the occupation and the crime.
What that likely means is that they don't know who the people in the video are. It seems pretty likely to me that it's related to the occupation, especially since there was a 'confrontation' earlier that day with residents of the building. It's not like buildings are burnt down in Ottawa every day.
That's great that it "seems pretty likely" to you, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Unless you have concrete information which the OPS doesn't have, I don't think speculation is very useful here.
In the country I grew up in, trying and failing to commit crimes is still a crime. The act itself is the crime, not the success of it. Unfortunately these days it seems like the better determinant of whether something is a crime is someone's political affiliation.
That's fine, you have every right to your suspicions, but unless you feel you have better information about the incident than the police that investigated it, I'm not really sure what your comment adds. The GP made the claim that protestors in Ottawa tried to burn a condo down and a quote from the police chief proves this to be false.
This is one of several accounts I use because my personal identity is tied to my main account, and accusations like the above concern me when I know there are vigilantes out there who find joy in doxing people with different political leanings than them. Rest assured I've been a member of this community since 2014, I'm not one of the dreaded "alt-right trolls" some users are so comically paranoid of.
On that note, I'm not really sure what's alt-right about repeating a quote from an investigating officer, but then again, most people who use that phrase aren't being intellectually honest anyway.
Compared to the violence, burning and looting in front of the American election this is absolutely nothing and have only lasted a few days
Those demonstrations were mostly peaceful according to those we are supposed to listen to, so obviously the current demonstrations are even more peaceful.
Edit: I'm triple vaccinated myself and recommend it for everyone else, but if we have freedom to choose that also must include freedom to do what I think is less smart.
In fact I think at this point the attempt to force people to vaccinate is scaring people away from it.
People still have their rights to do "dumb choices". I'm triple vaccinated, got omicron one month later of being vaccinated, still believe that the vaccine helped me to have it almost asymptomatically, but I'm ok with people saying that dont want to be vaccinated.
To force a division among the population is the real evil. We should demand better investments in the health sector, better salary to all workers involved on that (Doctors, nurses, teachers, policeman, etc), a covid treatment protocol that works and that's peer reviewed and supported by the scientists and eventually not the best for the pharma industry. We need transparency from Politicians in every single decision that affects the population.
>A group of the protestors locked the doors to a downtown apartment building with handcuffs and then attempted to set that building on fire.
For some reason the media failed to show the images in their stories, but the two arsonists on camera (not a group) had purple hair. With all the talk of white supremacist instigators at BLM riots, I wouldn't be surprised if this were a case of the opposite, anti-trucker instigators trying to give the protestors a bad name, and purple hair is more likely associated with the left...which ironically has taken a pro government stance on this issue.
In any case afaik no actual tie to the protests has been reported.
A number of illegal weapons, high capacity magazines, and a large quantity of ammunition were seized in a blockade in Alberta. I would not be surprised if there are people with weapons in Ottawa as well, waiting for an opportunity to strike.
Your link doesn't describe anything as "illegal weapons." It just says "long guns" and "handguns" which are both pretty broad terms that undoubtedly encompass guns that are legal in Canada.
Most hand guns are prohibited[0] weapons in Canada. You need explicit authorization to transport [2] prohibited weapons. There are pretty strict rules[3] for how they're to be transported, too. You're not just allowed to drive around with handguns rattling around in the car, this isn't the US. Large capacity magazines are illegal in almost all cases [1]. Even that machete might be illegal given the context [4].
A machete may be considered a weapon in certain contexts, but that's not a unique law. The US also reclassifies things as weapons once they are used as weapons (in that instance.) Attack someone with a machete and it suddenly becomes a deadly weapon.
Canada bans a lot of weapons for looking "scary" -- nunchuks and butterfly knives for example (both of which are rather notoriously more dangerous to the person wielding them than anybody else). Americans who come to Canada are frequently surprised by the different laws up here. Yes, an attack with a machete renders it illegal in both countries. A concealed machete is illegal in Canada, regardless of intent or use. I'm not so sure about the US (especially with the variance among state laws)
Handguns require a license to transport (ATT). Even if they were acquired legally (and that's a very big if because of RPAL), their presence at the border is very illegal.
Surprisingly, despite "a willingness to use them against police", they didn't use them against police, so it's likelier than not that the story is made up or mischaracterized.
The tweet is deleted. Regardless, I am sure not "all" protesters are looking for violence, but the ones who brought weapons and ammo certainly did. And I am sure not all of them have been found and arrested.
What a convenient thing to happen on the very same day he is expected to announce the taking away of civil liberties of Canadians, and give themselves the right to seize property and equipment.
When asking if anyone in the protest had firearms, a journalist was ejected from a news conference. Would have been a good opportunity to disavow violence, but here we are. In this case, it's not so much painting with broad strokes as much as judging by the company they keep.
I didn't see (nonfringe) calls for martial law. I saw calls for the military to tow the trucks because the actual truck towing companies the police normally subcontracted to were unwillingness to piss off their customer base/risk of violence from truckers/agreement with the protests. And, of the various government agencies, only the military had access to the heavy vehicle movers that were needed.
> I think it is intentional (I assume some political end game)
Most media doesn't have a political endgame. They have a bias for sensationalism and clickbait.
> of the various government agencies, only the military had access to the heavy vehicle movers that were needed
I am 100% certain there are people who can easily pick whatever kind of ignition lock cylinders are used in these trucks. It would be far more efficient to "car jack" these trucks, drive them to an impound lot, and auction them off the next day, than trying to tow them with "military tow trucks" (whatever those are).
Definition, martial law: Martial law is the temporary imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions or suspension of civil law by a government, especially in response to a temporary emergency where civil forces are overwhelmed, or in an occupied territory. [1]
The key phrases are "imposition of direct military control of normal civil functions" and "suspension of civil law by a government".
The Canadian Emergencies Act, which was invoked by the Liberal government today, specifically states the following: "For greater certainty, nothing in this Act derogates from the authority of the Government of Canada to deal with emergencies on any property, territory or area in respect of which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction" [2].
I'd do a deeper reading but I'm a bit lazy, but my understanding is that the EA does not allow, in any way, a shift in governance that could be described as "martial law" - where the military is in control of civil functions and can create or remove laws as military leadership desires. Even with the EA invoked, the federal government still controls the Canadian military (but can be assisted in enforcing civil law _by_ the military).
I'm no fan of Trudeau either, but we should seek to be precise when discussing hot situations like this. People can get very inflamed off of internet posts and the idea that we're under "martial law" is riling people up.
> I'd do a deeper reading but I'm a bit lazy, but my understanding is that the EA does not allow, in any way, a shift in governance that could be described as "martial law" - where the military is in control of civil functions and can create or remove laws as military leadership desires. Even with the EA invoked, the federal government still controls the Canadian military (but can be assisted in enforcing civil law _by_ the military).
Is that martial law is? What you're describing sounds more like a coup to me ("where the military is in control of civil functions and can create or remove laws as military leadership desires").
My understanding of martial law (very colored by being an American) is basically direct enforcement of domestic government authority by the military with little or no recourse to normal civilian oversight (e.g. courts). However, the military isn't acting independently, but is still taking orders from some civilian leader in some part of the government.
Both of the situations you described can be accurate simultaneously.
There are two levels of civil government. The military can override the civil functions of the lower level (the states) while still taking orders from the upper level (the federal government)
In ordinary functioning of government and civil society there's an effective separation of the army and the police in law enforcement. In the US, this is governed by the posse comitatus act. Canada doesn't really have an analogue, the government can request the assistance of the army when lower levels of government are unable to perform their duties sufficiently to maintain order.
The use of the emergencies act makes it clear that this is one of those situations and allows the government to utilize the military to support lower levels of law enforcement.
This is not martial law. This is not a coup. This is not unprecedented - after all Pierre Trudeau used the War Measures Act (predecessor to the Emergencies Act) to restore order in the October Crisis.
This is more like a state calling in the national guard.
The answer to lower levels of government not being able to maintain order isn't to roll over. It's to bring in more help. That's what's being done here. And it's governed by the Charter. Much more stringently than the War Measures Act ever was.
[edit] We cannot allow a small, loud, group of individuals to overturn the democratic will of the people as decided in the last election. This is un-democratic, unfair, and must end immediately. We can talk about ending restrictions in the open, but not with a boot on our throats. This occupation must end before we decide on what to do next. I remind you of the interview Pierre Trudeau gave re: the October Crisis.
Pierre Trudeau: Yeah, well there's a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it's more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of a soldier's helmet. [1]
I highly recommend listening to the longer speech [2]. Far more interesting than any speech given by Justin, IMO. Obviously a different situation, but with similar roots: wanting to overthrow a democratically elected government because they don't like the lawful, legal, constitutional decisions.
They can have their say in peaceful protest, in court or at the next election - and not before.
If it's unlawful, illegal or unconstitutional then avenues exist within the courts to resolve their grievances do they not? I'm led to believe that rule of law continues to prevail within Canada.
[edit] Not just that, Trudeau operates a minority government, meaning two other parties could gang up and oust them at basically any time. And yet, he remains in office. I think this really speaks to how small the vocal minority is.
They've brought guns, ammo, knives [1], built encampments, stashed them full of diesel and propane [2], disrupted trade, jobs, lives, supply chains, threatened violence. Harassed and intimidated healthcare workers. And for what? This is not your average picket, and it's gone on more than long enough.
We're all frustrated, we're all tired of this. I'm open to revisiting the health measures, but not like this.
My understanding is that international law requires nation have some form of martial law.
The idea is that if your nation is “hosting” a battle field, and the police start arresting belligerents and charging them with civilian crimes, the military can override them and say “you can’t charge invading soldiers with a crime for honorably doing their duty” - they must be treated as POWs, not criminals.
For example, if Russia is attacking Toronto, and a Toronto Police Officer comes across a wounded Russian soldier with an AK-47, she can’t charge the soldier for possessing an illegal weapon. The soldier would have to be treated as a POW.
This means the military must - must! - be able to say “this area is under martial law”.
I doubt this applies to the current situation.
But if Canada is as diligent as they claim to be about International law, they need to have the ability to declare martial law.
> That said, I am thoroughly disappointed the Federal gov't and much of the media coverage. They have done nothing but make the situation worse. I think it is intentional (I assume some political end game), but their actions are fueling even more outlandish conspiracy theories.
Didn't the father do the exact same thing back in the 70's?
Of course there's political gains, as they say, never get a crisis go to waste.
Also the Ambassador Bridge blockade was ordered by the court to clear on Friday midnight. Police cleared it Sunday with some arrests, some resistance but not much else.
Pretty standard when it comes to Canadian protests.
If I'm hearing you right, your belief is that law enforcement is not enforcing the current hacking laws that exist evenly. I'd like to understand this belief of yours. Who are they discriminating against?
While there is no outright violence, there is torture to local residents, there was attempted arson, there is continued intimidation and harassment of those wearing masks, there is intimidation of visible minorities, there are attacks on businesses....
Is that enough to convince you that the situation is out of hand and than stricter action is needed?
The protestors haven't complied with not honking.
Please, please be careful with how you frame this. There was severe inaction and dangerous incompetence displayed by Ottawa police but please don't spin this as the federal government overstepping.
Edit - within seconds of posting, this is downvoted. Truly a shameful display by the folks here.
I didn't downvote you, but you're using extreme language like "torture" (I know noise and sleep deprivation are associated with torture but this sort of verbal escalation is not objective) and the only in-depth reporting I've seen on the arson thing makes it seem completely debunked: https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1490557119816425474 (or https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1490525934948081666 - I'm not sure what the right link is). That's a biased source, but I can't find anything comparably factual that is taking the allegation seriously. At a minimum, it's not fair to repeat words like "arson" as if they are established facts when at best they are highly disputable.
Weeks on end of horns outside your window are absolutely torture. They are demonstrably linked to mental health issues. It's not a verbal escalation. We are talking about people who have literally attached train and ship horns to vehicles and are using them incessantly.
That passes beyond "nuisance". Extreme situations can utilize extreme language.
Objectively, the sonic onslaught of their constantly blaring truck horns is equal in effect to well-known psychological warfare tactics. It is fair and accurate to call it torture in this context.
Even worse, it wasn't just truck horns. There were several trucks driving around with train horns installed. And plenty of the apartments in Centretown are right up against the street.
I don't think making 80+ decibels of noise 10 feet from people's windows is even an okay way to protest, no matter who you are or what your cause is.
I used to live in this neighbourhood, right by Somerset and Metcalfe. Protests happened all the time. Some of them were anti-government, even. And none of them launched this kind of sustained assault against innocent citizens. I get the sense a lot of them think they're sticking it to the liberal elite, or something like that. But really - Centretown is (or was when I lived there, at least) one of the more affordable parts of Ottawa.
I wouldn't doubt that for the train horns, especially outdoors. ~80db inside an apartment is what I heard personally from someone I trust who lives there still, so that's usually what I go with.
It's absolutely torture. I don't live in Ottawa, but I was eating at a restaurant near the trucker protest that sprung up in my city two weeks ago, and I nearly lost my mind just hearing the horns blaring for an hour straight. I can't even imagine what the poor people in Ottawa are going through.
i would challenge you to test your opinion by spending even seven days living in downtown Ottawa. You would then seriously reconsider my labelling of 18 hours of illegally loud truck horns as torture as being "extreme language".
They're honking for 16-18 hours per day. For people that live near the convoy, they've been able to sleep for over two weeks due to this. I have friends and family affected by this. I'm fairly sure this constitutes torture if you don't have the resources to up and leave your residence for days at a time in order to sleep.
> They're honking for 16-18 hours per day. For people that live near the convoy, they've been able to sleep for over two weeks due to this. I have friends and family affected by this. I'm fairly sure this constitutes torture if you don't have the resources to up and leave your residence for days at a time in order to sleep.
Are earplugs not a thing in Canada?
Calling honking torture is ridiculous hyperbole. That word should be reserved for the extremely serious kinds of acts it's normally used to describe, lest it become effectively meaningless.
Words themselves don't have any power, and if you try to harness the power of a concept by misusing a word that refers to it, you just cause the word's definition to shift and to weaken its association to the concept (potentially making that concept much harder to access and refer to).
I challenge you to find earplugs that can be worn 24h a day without any physical discomfort, provide 60dB of attenuation across a wide range of frequencies (these horns probably span low 100's of Hz to mid kHz), and are reasonably inexpensive.
Even if you could find such beasts (which I don't think you can), then you have the problem that you effectively can't use your hearing. You thought that social interactions were hard with a mask? Imagine not being able to use your hearing at all.
(yes, 60 dB is necessary because that's how much you'll need in order to sleep - the human ear has an incredibly large dynamic range and even 30 dB_SPL conversations are enough to keep some people awake for hours)
As it stands, many of the residents near these protests are being subjected to low-level sleep deprivation, which is literally torture (as in, used as such by organizations who actually want to extract information or confessions from people).
To clarify - it's not honking that's torture, it's sustained honking at a duration and intensity that will cause sleep deprivation and other psychological damage.
Completely independently of the reason that these people are protesting - this particular means is not humane.
> I challenge you to find earplugs that can be worn 24h a day without any physical discomfort, provide 60dB of attenuation across a wide range of frequencies (these horns probably span low 100's of Hz to mid kHz), and are reasonably inexpensive.
> Even if you could find such beasts (which I don't think you can), then you have the problem that you effectively can't use your hearing. You thought that social interactions were hard with a mask? Imagine not being able to use your hearing at all.
> (yes, 60 dB is necessary because that's how much you'll need in order to sleep - the human ear has an incredibly large dynamic range and even 30 dB_SPL conversations are enough to keep some people awake for hours)
It sounds like you're challenging me with overkill requirements meant to totally mute the horns almost like they're not there, when the realistic problem is to reduce the noise to the point where someone could sleep.
I kind of find it hard to believe that's not possible with and indoor location + silicone ear plugs (and maybe white noise if you're very sensitive).
> As it stands, many of the residents near these protests are being subjected to low-level sleep deprivation, which is literally torture (as in, used as such by organizations who actually want to extract information or confessions from people).
Again, calling it "literally torture" is ridiculous hyperbole, or at the very least invokes misleading associations. A noisy neighbor is being annoying to his neighbors, not torturing them.
What about young children? You have a handwavy method to get a toddler to wear silicone earplugs for 8 hours a night?
Judging by your post history, you seem to be more interested in stirring up shit than actually contributing to the discussion. This bizarre defence of noisemaking jackasses fits with that.
> Judging by your post history, you seem to be more interested in stirring up shit than actually contributing to the discussion.
I'm not, and I'm pretty sure your accusation violates site guidelines.
> This bizarre defence of noisemaking jackasses fits with that.
You should note I'm not defending them or their actions. I just think it's ridiculous hyperbole to call what they're doing "literally torture." If the ancestor comment had simply said they were being annoying and disruptive, I wouldn't have responded at all.
So are you going to set up crimes-against-humanity tribunals to prosecute all the noisy neighbors of the world for being torturers?
And were those truckers performing interrogations that I haven't heard about? Your comparison is as ridiculous as comparing compulsory school to prison. Yeah, you can find some similarities, but you're missing important differences that undermine the comparison.
I don't follow. Torture doesn't have to be used as part of an interrogation to be torture.
And in the noisy neighbors scenario, are they just loud as a by-product of their self-centered preferences or are they making noise intentionally to make everyone miserable and get something they want? Either way, they are causing sleep deprivation and constant stress, which is a form of torture. In the second scenario, it's even done intentionally as a means to an end. Even so, folks are rarely prosecuted for crimes against humanity even for the most grotesque mistreatment of under a dozen people.
Yes, 30 dB ambient noise keeps me awake at night - I know this as someone who had a sibling that played video games and very quietly talked into his mic from another room - which wasn't even noticeable during the day, but during the night, I could hear him clearly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sou... gives 30 dB as a "very calm room", which is what it was.
Comments elsewhere in the thread cite 120+ dB horns outside and about 80 dB indoors.
80-60=20. Let's say the earplugs only have to be 50 dB (and that the average person can sleep with 30 dB of noise in their ears at night) - I still bet you can't find any that fit the requirements above.
There's no "overkill requirements" - I'm handing you concrete, realistic numbers that are reflective of real life and you're trying to handwave them away.
> A noisy neighbor is being annoying to his neighbors, not torturing them.
You literally didn't read one of the last sentences of my comment - "To clarify - it's not honking that's torture, it's sustained honking at a duration and intensity that will cause sleep deprivation and other psychological damage."
My work earplugs aren't rated for super high decibels, but they're a step up from the disposable ones most folks I work with use. They're definitely a solid step up from what most folks are going to buy from the hardware store. I've got coworkers who can converse loudly enough that I can make out the entire conversation over the normal shop noise the earplugs are supposed to be for while 200 feet away and within an enclosed (but not particularly thick-walled) office.
Earplugs will dull the noise, but if I can't take a nap over two guys having a conversation at that distance, I really doubt most folks' ability to get a good night's sleep over truck horns. The earplugs will probably mitigate the physical damage done by the noise, but I highly doubt they do much for the psychological stress. People lose their ability to focus and sometimes their sanity due to injuries that cause a constant ringing in their ears. Even if you can reduce the volume, the constant noise is a type of torture.
Edit: Found the Noise Reduction Rating for a number of different types of hearing pro that I've used in the past. The best one was rated at 33, meaning it roughly reduces the noise by something like 33 decibels. That pair, of course, being the ubiquitous neon yellow 3M product with flames on the sides for enhanced performance. I don't wear them myself because while they're fashionable, they're incredibly uncomfortable for me. This also appears to be among the best non-powered hearing pro that's available on the market. They will take an uncomfortably loud worksite at 105 dB down to effectively under 80 dB and more-or-less within a safe range for hearing. Not a pleasant level for sleeping though, by any means, although I can pull it off myself if I'm tired enough. When you start talking about a truck horn which those earplugs might or might not be able to quiet down close to the level of that 105 dB you'd experience with no hearing pro on a worksite, you're past potential hearing damage and well into a range where there is no reasonable escape from the barrage of sound.
Edit 2: Most of these earplugs in the 25-33 NRR range are definitely available at the hardware store if anyone needs to know that. They're more expensive per pair and seem to come in higher count containers, but they're there and much cheaper than the doctor's visits and hearing aids will be in the future. If you find yourself in a situation where the background noise is uncomfortable at all, please, please, get yourself some if at all feasible. Half the old dudes I've worked with in my life did not think it was worth the hassle and I'm tired of having to scream in people's ears to communicate. Also all the near misses because you have to either throw something at them or close the distance if you see a dangerous situation they don't and need to warn them.
You do know that they're in vehicles that they're moving in and out of the city, correct? It's not like they're all just parked in one spot and staying there the entire time.
Unlike people with fixed addresses, they can just up and move to a quiet part of the city to sleep, and then drive back after.
A line in a Traveling Wilburys song goes "everything is legal as long as you don't get caught." That's what came to mind as I read your reply, which tacitly agrees with my parent comment.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar hell. I understand that emotions are high on this topic, but comments like this are a noticeable step in precisely the wrong direction, and strongly against the site guidelines.
How about 24hrs? Now that's torture, or as we Americans like to claim "enhanced interrogation"... [Enemy combatants were exposed to sensory deprivation which included 24hrs of American heavy metal music and 24hrs of flood spotlights to prevent sleeping.]
I get it, after living peacefully before these protests started it might appear as torture, however it is again just annoying behavior not torture. As mentioned by other comments, ear plugs are a thing, sleeping pills could help, glass of warm milk perhaps.
You have options in this scenario, unlike when you are being physically tortured, you have no options but to endure.
Chill, no need to curse to get your point across as it only paints a poor image of you.
Anyway, noise is noise, whether it comes from a truck, or a dog, a party, or w/e. If you're unable to understand that, then I guess this discussion is futile.
As a counterpoint - it's not the same regardless of the source. This is happening in my old neighbourhood, and several of my friends still live in the area so I've heard firsthand accounts.
It's not just trucks blowing their air horns. That would have been annoying. A bunch of them installed train horns and during the first week were honking them 24/7. It was loud enough to cause hearing damage indoors. I'd be impressed if a dog could bark that loud.
Looking at the live streams, I see visible minorities going to the protests and supporting the truckers and the atmosphere seems festive and celebratory more than anything else.
I've said this before. There's a strong libertarian bent to HN and I'm not surprised if there's a large contingent of this site that actively supports the convoy. There's people here that are strong supports of Peter Thiel, if that's any indication of where their sympathies lie.
But, most of them are not residents of Ottawa, and the lived experiences of people in that city, particurlarly those who have had run ins with the protesters, or struggled through the 16-18 hours / day of honking, had to walk around or be harrassed by them, see the awful imagery of Trump, Confederate etc. flags being waved around, the yellow star morons etc. cannot simply be dismissed as bad or inaccurate media.
A city is being held hostage by an extreme minority and, even in OPs post they mention that the Toronto police handled it properly, but question the admonition levied against the Ottawa police.
The Ottawa police are complicit in this now as well as city council. They sat on their hands while allowing this to spiral out of control, and now want to play the victim or blame others (e.g. blaming counter protesters today).
It doesn't matter if you side with the protest or not. The sheer fact that they've been allowed to have large impact on the city and it's residents, for this long, is proof that the so-called lack of freedom that they're fighting for is simply not the bogeyman they've made it out to be. Especially if you're white.
>A city is being held hostage by an extreme minority and, even in OPs post they mention that the Toronto police handled it properly, but question the admonition levied against the Ottawa police.
>The Ottawa police are complicit in this now as well as city council. They sat on their hands while allowing this to spiral out of control, and now want to play the victim or blame others (e.g. blaming counter protesters today).
>It doesn't matter if you side with the protest or not. The sheer fact that they've been allowed to have large impact on the city and it's residents, for this long, is proof that the so-called lack of freedom that they're fighting for is simply not the bogeyman they've made it out to be. Especially if you're white.
This is really not much different than how Portland handled the BLM protests in 2020. 100 straight nights of extreme protests with violence against police and federal buildings. Only difference is this is during the night and many neighborhoods were terrorized as it moved from downtown. Not much media coverage of this other than conservative journalist Andy Ngo who has himself been violently targeted for simply recording and publishing video of what is happening.
A major difference is that the police would issue dispersal orders, then attack the BLM protesters indiscriminately, or call curfews which basically declared open season on any kind of protester, journalist, civilian, doing anything outdoors after X o'clock. The police were shooting rubber bullets at people sitting on their own porches.
This is not how Ottawa is being handled, this is not how January 6th was handled, and if BLM protesters decided they were going to shut down an international bridge that provided 1/3 of trade with the US, that wouldn't have made it a hour before an extreme response was taken.
If the trucker protest were treated like the BLM protests, you'd see people blinded and dead, and it would be completely torn apart every night to have to be reassembled the next day. At least compare it to Occupy, although they were in a park instead of blocking roads.
The police protected buildings from being set on fire and their officers being attacked with lasers and fireworks. Dispersal orders were only given AFTER the protests turned violent.
Comparing 100+ nights of protests and riots with Jan 6th is ridiculous...one was night after night of the same thing and having a plan in place to defend and the other is a single day where the police lost control and they actually shot someone with real bullets.
> A major difference is that the police would issue dispersal orders, then attack the BLM protesters indiscriminately, or call curfews which basically declared open season on any kind of protester, journalist, civilian, doing anything outdoors after X o'clock. The police were shooting rubber bullets at people sitting on their own porches.
Whilst also advising Proud Boys and Three Per Centers of their "enforcement plans", texting them to "take cover" and that they'd be given an "all clear" when they come back out.
Or being advised that although their leaders had active arrest warrants, that they would not be arrested at any protests that were "supervised" by Portland Police Department, so they should "feel free" to come to protests.
They were in contact with both sides of the conflicts...only one side made their plans clear and also applied for permits. I'm not saying it was the right call, but one side was violent toward police and the other was not...not a huge surprise that the police would choose to work with them.
The Proud Boys applied for a small fraction of permits.
And if you are ordering a protest to disperse, you don't tell one side to go home. If you have a curfew (leaving aside opinions there), it's not a curfew for one side.
If you're telling people who have warrants for their arrest that you will actively not only NOT arrest them but protect them, that's not working with them, that's working for them. Which is unsurprising in PDX, given how many LEOs are members of those same organizations.
Nothing in what you said was a good justification. You're right though, it's not a huge surprise that police would choose to work with militant right wing organizations.
Of the 3 fatalities during that riot 2 were self inflicted and the only remaining one was when a rioter breached the last line of defence between the people screaming "Hang Mike Pence!" and 60 to 80 members of congress. There's been speculation that the tunnel entrance down the hallway from where the shooting occurred was where Mike Pence was evacuated through. I was amazed at the level of restraint displayed by the capitol police in contrast to clearing of lafayette square in the summer with pepper balls, tear gas, flash bangs, etc. At that time the park police didn't even bother to order the crowd to disperse until after they had already started attacking the crowd.
They did all that for a photo op vs. Capitol police falling back as far as they could without risking the lives of members of Congress. Even in the aftermath once the building was evacuated and they were clearing the grounds they handled that with kid gloves compared to many of the BLM protests.
Not much media coverage? I saw coverage of it all the time. It was covered as if it was the end of civilization and it continues to push the narrative today that BLM protests were burning cities to the ground across the country.
I'm not sure where you're getting this whole idea that there wasn't much media coverage on it. A quick google search shows literally thousands of news stories about it.
Main stream media...I live near Portland and the local news covered very little about it. 30 second clip of the peaceful start...and little about the destruction and chaos that was seen night after night.
Eventually even the local news started showing what was going on when their crew were attacked covering the story. However this happened many times before and they simply left and didn't cover what was happening.
BLM was the lead story in just about every newspaper, news channel, magazine and aggregator sites for weeks.
I noticed on a sibling comment you claim to live near Portland and implied that local media did minimal coverage which is also absurd. Again, it was covered obsessively by just about every single local news outlets from their local networks, papers, and podcasts.
BLM was...Antifa riots every night were not. The media seemed to just ignore them...maybe with the theory that they would stop if not getting covered. Millions in damage, many police officers hurt and hundreds of businesses impacted nightly. Go look for stories on all the businesses that left downtown Portland because of the riots and the lack of city leadership to address them. On top of homeless, crime and drugs...it's an absolute shit show.
Again, a quick google search shows thousands of articles that specifically tie antifa to the riots in Portland.
The media did not ignore it at all. If anything, I'd believe that tie-in with "antifa" is greatly exagerrated by the media, since it seems like the situation in Portland is better explained via the horrible police escalation that happened there and the fact that there's a variety of groups that jumped into the vacuum.
He posts video...how is raw video not a reliable source? He certainly has an agenda, but also posts things that many will not. He was not afraid to post video when the actual news teams were threatened and attacked during the riots (by specific groups that you can't really talk about since they don't exist...it's just an idea).
The nice thing about Wikipedia is that claims are sourced. I had no idea who this guy was, but I looked over the statements critical of his credibility and at first glance many of them are sourced at heavily biased media outlets which isn't encouraging. I'm not digging into it enough to say those articles are wrong, but I'd say the clams that he isn't credibile on his wikipedia page aren't looking very convincing so far, or at the very least that view on the guy doesn't seem widely accepted by mainstream sources.
Since even a sourced and cited claim can be utterly bogus, it is actually worse. Because it looks authoritative at a glance when there are many citations next to a claim.
But some citations are nature.com, and some are People Magazine, and they all get the same superscript number.
Then if those claims are bogus, it becomes a matter of your sources vs. their sources, and it ends up all being a matter of faith and perhaps gut feeling.
It's not just their sources vs your sources, it's about the data those sources have, where/how they got it, and how much of it you can verify.
You have to evaluate the evidence and the sources to decide which is more credible. Some things you have to take on faith, but that doesn't make it a dice roll. When it matters you can apply some critical thinking skills, and at least be able to justify the position you've settled on.
In this case I don't care enough about this Andy guy to dig into it, but I was able to determine that I couldn't justify forming an opinion about his credibility using what Wikipedia was presenting to me. If I wanted to get into the woods, I'm sure I could end up with an informed opinion based on more than a gut feeling.
> I've said this before. There's a strong libertarian bent to HN and I'm not surprised if there's a large contingent of this site that actively supports the convoy. There's people here that are strong supports of Peter Thiel, if that's any indication of where their sympathies lie.
To me the political bent of HN isn't relevant when reading a comment. I'd rather take each comment on its own merits, without guessing or assuming what the ideology of the commenter would have to be.
I recently lived in a country in which wearing the wrong color socks is grounds for instant prison, so I prefer when my government's monopoly on violence errs on the side of restraint, as in the case of these protestors.
Should individual protestors get shut down when they harass mask-wearing doctors or honk horns in the middle of the night? Obviously.
But there is some fuzzy line in which we let protestors do otherwise illegal or fineable things that we don't let individuals do.
I could be convinced that skin color is a factor as you mentioned, but at the moment I have no idea.
I don't know what the answer is with these protests, but criminalizing them isn't the answer. I'm an active leftist and do a lot of mutual aid and protesting. I've been beaten by cops and had them deploy munitions against me. Giving cops more latitude to deal with this protest movement will mean that they deploy even more force against me the next time I'm politely asking that they stop murdering people.
The original comment was mentioning the downvotes, not comments. I agree on engaging comments (hence this conversation) but there's definitely brigading happening with votes if you post anything that the libertarians disagree with.
I'm a total moderate, I try very hard not to view these things through a partisan lens. As a free thinking human I feel no need to have my opinions dictated by any group of people. I think your comment is one that has some merit WRT the police's actions and what they might be able to do better, but it is framed in such a hostile, inflammatory, extremely partisan way. You criticize this website for being bent on some partisan streak that you don't like and needlessly bring race into the conversation when this entire thing has nothing to do with race whatsoever.
> is proof that the so-called lack of freedom that they're fighting for is simply not the bogeyman they've made it out to be
It's disingenuous to equate the lack of freedom that they are talking about with the lack of freedom to protest. They are not the same thing, the protesters are talking about vaccine mandates specifically.
what is wrong with listening to "minorities". Doesnt BLM represent a minority, especially in Canada? Also, a couple of confederate and nazi flags do not define these protests.
These people are not the minority. They're self-professed victimes of so-called tyranny that doesn't exist. The sheer fact that they're able to protest for this long, in this way, at the nations capital is ample evidence that this so-called tyranny they're fighting is a delusion.
Equivocating that with the lived experience of millions of people who are fighting for true equality is truly a laughable position.
minority does not need to be defined by race sex or religion. What about people who had covid and reluctant about vaccines? All that word soup is irrelevant. Getting fired after having worked through the heights of epidemic is a serious "lived experience" and also "an ample evidence" of bureaucratic overreach. Anyway, bunch of provinces including Ontario already cancelled vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, only real holdouts are BC and Quebec. Trackers already won. The government can easily deescalate but choosing not to due fear and spite
Getting fired for not getting vaccines was a line that I didn't agree with.
However, the vast majority of organizations that did this were private though, and it was the organization that implemented these policies. I'd hardly equate that with government overreach, and especially not the federal government if you're a nurse/healthcare worker, or worked in a local municipal government.
My point is that these protests don't have anything to do with vaccines, mandates or some perceived minority status that not following them bestows (which, again, is a choice..). If that was the case, they would not be in Ottawa. There might be some people paying lip service to these ideas, but the majority of the people protesting are self-labelling as minorities due to some perception of tyranny from the federal government that does not exist.
Unless you're a federal employee that was fired due to your position on vaccines (over 95% of federal employees are vaccinated) then protesting in Ottawa doesn't make any sense.
It seems pretty clear to me that the protests have everything to do with the vaccine mandates.
Why should only people who are fired be allowed to protest? Most of the truckers are vaccinated, but they are protesting for the right of those who aren't to be allowed to do their job.
If they actually have anything to do with the mandates, then protesting in Ottawa doesn't make any sense.
All of the health and COVID mandate policy is set at the provincial level in Canada, not federally. They should be protesting in Toronto, or other provincial capitals.
However, a good percentage of provincial capitals are currently Conservative governments. So, by deliberatly choosing Ottawa, they're protesting legitimately elected government to force them to step down (despite being democratically elected 6 months ago) and install a new leadership panel made up of the convoy leadership.
The truckers started protesting due to federal mandates preventing them from crossing the borders, so protesting in Ottawa makes lots of sense.
They are asking the prime minister to drop the mandates or step down.
I agree that it isn't reasonable to expect the federal government to tell the provinces what to do, but they have been protests in all the major cities as well (so far as I can tell).
> ... and it was the organization that implemented these policies ...
That may not be true. It is common for governments to implement the really unpleasant policies by using businesses as an enforcement arm (eg, surveillance via banks and telecom companies). It bears asking why companies have all, in coordination, picked up a set of policies that are both ineffective and divisive - it is entirely on the table that it is because of government pressure in the form of OH&S guidelines.
Firing unvaccinated people barely does anything w.r.t. changing the odds that people get COVID eventually. We've seen ample evidence that being vaccinated doesn't change the transmissible situation. So why are companies doing this? Their employees are still going to turn up and transmit COVID. By this point, the anti-vaccine types have probably caught COVID and gained natural immunity anyway so these policies would represent companies shooting themselves in the foot. It is possible they'd do that of their own initiative but it is nevertheless a bit weird.
> My point is that these protests don't have anything to do with vaccines, mandates or some perceived minority status...
Why do you think these protests have just mushroomed up? Have trucker protests been an ongoing thing in Canada for many decades?
Canada is confusing. The below two comments come from the same person, likely Canadian, referring to other Canadians who are an extreme minority who are not the minority.
> > A city is being held hostage by an extreme minority
My mistake. In my first comment, I should have referred to the truck convoy protesters as perceiving themselves as having minority status. I made this comment before people starting to compare these protests to BLM, which is for a an actual minority group.
> I've said this before. There's a strong libertarian bent to HN and I'm not surprised if there's a large contingent of this site that actively supports the convoy. There's people here that are strong supports of Peter Thiel, if that's any indication of where their sympathies lie.
Wait and you've extrapolated this from claims of a downvote made in the first hour after posting a reply on a politically controversial topic? HN is a huge site, are you really expecting unanimous political views? This is par for the course on these threads.
Anyway society loved it at first until they caused too many traffic jams. Public opinion turned and it was over quickly.
If you are a work at home software dev these kind of protests don't affect you until Amazon stops delivering.
Making one city a bit uncomfortable temporarily is well worth creating justice for an entire country permanently. Sucks for Ottowans, but the truckers are doing the right thing morally.
I read the story. The MD does not claim she or her staff has been harassed. Her one claim is "And a lot of people have been harassed, have been told to take their masks off." The MD also claims "I would say that a huge 18-wheeler is not a peaceful thing to have in the middle of your city" which is weird since large trucks are a primary and pervasive mode of transporting goods nearly everywhere. The story also does not disclose that the interviewee is an Ontario public employee, essentially a spokesperson for the government position, which is in opposition to the protestors.
> The MD also claims "I would say that a huge 18-wheeler is not a peaceful thing to have in the middle of your city" which is weird since large trucks are a primary and pervasive mode of transporting goods nearly everywhere.
I must have missed where large trucks sit for days on end, engine running, horns blaring endlessly as part of their "useful public utility".
> The story also does not disclose that the interviewee is an Ontario public employee, essentially a spokesperson for the government position, which is in opposition to the protestors.
This is blatant bias on your part. Doctors employed by the state to provide healthcare are not government spokespeople, however you're trying to spin it here.
The interviewee does not assert that "large trucks sit for days on end, engine running, horns blaring endlessly," just that "a huge 18-wheeler is not a peaceful thing."
I deny that pointing out the obvious and undeclared conflict of interest is bias, blatant or not. The physician is articulating the same position as her employer who is in opposition to the protestors. Would it be fair for a Facebook employee to comment on an issue regarding their employer and not disclose it, especially if they worked in a portion of the company directly involved in the issue at hand?
EDIT:
Also, the parent comment to mine claimed of the NPR interview: "Here's an interview with a MD in downtown Ottawa, speaking of her and her staff at a medical clinic getting harassed in the street for wearing a mask."
This description is not true of the interview text available at the link when I read it.
I assume of course that you’re equally vehement that any protestor who is employed by the government or military also makes sure to point out that they’re a government employee and that they’re speaking against their government’s policies as an individual, just so we don’t confuse them for spokespeople too, yes?
We would not want confusion and ambiguity there either, after all.
My observations are hardly "vehement." In NPR's home country more physicians are non-government employed so it would make sense to establish that the person is commenting in alignment their employer's position even if they were not specifically authorized to speak. It is also typically disclosed if a protestor is protesting their own employer as it bolsters the case for their integrity.
Since both governments and nongovernmental actors use news media to advance their cases it is important to evaluate and understand the context of an interview especially if it doesn't make the assertions that the linking person claims it makes.
Also, I did not claim that the interviewee is a spokesperson, but that they articulate a position in such close alignment with their employer that they are essentially a spokesperson. It isn't that there is confusion about a person's role. It is that either NPR didn't disclose or the physician didn't disclose a conflict of interest and allow the reader to evaluate the interview with that in mind.
> While there is no outright violence, there is torture to local residents
Why did you use the word torture here? Torture is a well-defined word with an accepted meaning. Do you feel that it is appropriate? Or are you looking for an emotionally-loaded reaction?
Can I also claim that my loud college neighbors are torturing me when they stay up too late on the weekend? Of course I can, but it sure is disingenuous to anyone who has actually been tortured.
> Can I also claim that my loud college neighbors are torturing me when they stay up too late on the weekend? Of course I can, but it sure is disingenuous to anyone who has actually been tortured.
If they did it for a week straight after you'd lodged several noise complaints and had the police go nowhere, yeah, I think that would qualify. It's certainly not the most severe type of torture but intentionally depriving a person of sleep and attempting to damage their eardrums qualifies.
If your loud college neighbours were setting off a train horn outside your building, repeatedly, I think you'd expect them to be handled by the police (if not arrested) pretty immediately.
If your loud college neighbours were assaulting people in the streets, shouting death and rape threats at you, you'd probably consider them violent.[1] Another post of mine has many more links if you're interested.
I'm not sure how much actual violence is required for a protest to become violent. Is it just that nobody's been killed yet? That seems to be what everyone is waiting for and I sincerely hope we don't get there (thankfully it looks like things may be defusing today).
If a person or group knowingly deploys sonic psychological warfare techniques upon innocent people, they are torturers. In this context, the constant blaring of truck horns is deliberate and not meant in kindness or frivolity. The negative psychological effects upon the local residents are now well known and well documented.
Okay but the thing about torture is, in order to be torture you must be prevented from leaving the situation. Are they literally trapping people in their homes? No. You just really really don't like them and so are trying to delegitimize their protest with use of loaded language. Torture means things like having your skin pealed off or your fingernails removed. Torture means things like being imprisoned and repeatedly being made to feel as though you are drowning. Constant honking must certainly be annoying! But as far as I'm aware, protests are supposed to be uncomfortable and annoying. This is not torture. It's like terrorist. The word terrorist now means somebody did a thing that the government doesn't like. Are we going to do this same thing with torture? Because I'm not here for it.
Me pointing out that this is not torture, that torture means specific things and that this doesn't meet the commonly-accepted definition of torture, followed by you glibly inserting the phrase "its fine" is a perfect microcosm of why online discussion is doomed.
Torture means you are in pain and you cannot stop it. Not by getting on the bus and riding across town, not by wearing earmuffs, it means that you, the person being tortured, cannot stop the torture.
This is clearly not the case when there is noise outside your house that you dislike. Words have meanings, let's please stick to using them.
You want to be absolutely pedantic about torture "meaning specific things", and where "commonly-accepted definitions" happen, conveniently, to mean what's more convenient to you.
Dictionaries, on the other hand, define torture as "inflicting pain and suffering on".
The UN Conventions on Torture in no way specify that imprisonment, formal or otherwise, is a required component for something to be defined as torture.
So my opinion is that your vision of torture in this instance is far more narrow, because it fits your worldview more.
I'm just trying to understand here, you're advocating that people lose their livelihoods for donating to a protest movement you don't approve of? Not participating in illegal action, not physically hurting anyone, just giving money to the wrong people online?
Can you possibly think of any circumstances where this sort of principle might backfire?
> It appears this was the result of terrible security at GiveSendGo.
Don't victim blame, and call a spade a spade. It was the result of targeted black hat hacking and identity theft, probably made easier by poor security at GiveSendGo.
That said, I am thoroughly disappointed the Federal gov't and much of the media coverage. They have done nothing but make the situation worse. I think it is intentional (I assume some political end game), but their actions are fueling even more outlandish conspiracy theories.
The most insane was that all layers of government did nothing to stop the noise (truck horns), but it ended when a 21 year old who simply filed a court injunction and the protesters complied.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/injunction-ottawa-granted-1...
I've watched the Toronto Police Service play their A game through this entire debacle. They shut down the protests hard and were clearly visible throughout the city with heavy trucks and busses to block roads and maintain control of the situation.
https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=2376560
The idea that Justin Trudeau needs martial law to deal with parked trucks is outrageous. This isn't an insurrection (reference to an MOU was removed from their website and I agree with the assertion that it was a poorly thought out idea, not a threat), there is no violence, and no obvious danger. The last person to use martial law was Trudeau's father (Pierre) for an actual terrorist attack and kidnapping (the diplomat was later murdered). Get some proper police on the job and drop mandates for ineffective measures and let's move on with our lives.