By far the easiest way to remove the trucks would be to end the COVID mandates.
Trudeau isn't escalating because he can't. He no longer has popular support for his mandates from the electorate or within his own government.
The reality is it's past time to remove the mandates anyway. Even die-hard laggard California is dropping most of the mandates this Monday. It seems like Trudeau is more worried about the appearance of his 'Authoritah" slipping.
This is not a group that's united around decades of systemic oppression like other civil rights movements. They're united against a common enemy. If the mandate goes away, so do the truckers.
There's enough medical dissent surrounding the topic to warrant pause, especially for something that gives no value to the receiver (young, healthy folks).
[0] https://ethanmaurice.com/books/zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle...
It... doesn't sound like it? Canada's vaccination rate overall is incredibly high at 80%, for truckers specifically somebody in the thread above is mentioning 90%, which is believable.
So, there is the minority, the 10%, who are already losing money by idling, but also risk their job, more losses, fines and jailtime, just to absolutely refuse to do what... spend 5 minutes at a pharmacy? And do what 90% of their peers already did? Really doesn't sound like life disruption.
In terms of disruption, my understanding is that mandates for truckers came into effect just 3 weeks ago.
It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
'strong legal ground' yet the Supreme Court disagreed with you.
You can posit about the future all you want, it won't change the reality of the present.
Now I no longer believe you are commenting in good faith, you are simply pushing an agenda.
State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional.
This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.
Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined?
Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
The people who work at the restaurants have a right to a healthy and safe work environment (this is why smoking was banned in restaurants).
These worker rights trump the "right" of someone to be able to go to a restaurant in a way that puts workers' health at risk. The reasons is because that worker has no choice, while on the other side, the other person has choices of: 1) get vaccinated or 2) feed themselves by making a sandwich at home.
This is why the only stuff that is getting shut down are things at the intersection of "not essential" and "notable cause of cases."
I've felt especially bad for young people who are at minimal risk from covid, having their lives turned upside down, who will inherit the extra trillions of dollars of debt all this will have cost.
For the purposes of covid I'm not sure if that is a black and white situation legally, at least in the U.S. Neither the rights of workers or patrons are spelled out as constitutional rights, because the constitution limits the government. This even kind of came up in the Supreme Court, which said that OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the name of workplace safety.
But doesn't the degree of danger and the trade-off involved in lockdowns matter? There's been a lot of mitigations against covid, some which make more sense than others as we've learned more, some that have costly effects - both financial and otherwise, especially for young people. Some look at the total count of 931k dead in the U.S. and want to do more. Some look at the same number as 1 out of 350 of the population, skewing old and unhealthy, and think we've done too much. We don't close restaurants for the flu, which kills tens of thousands of people.
I don't think this comes down to just a workplace safety issue. I think the degree of danger is quite important, and honest people have very different opinions of the risks and tradeoffs involved. The degree of danger and the mitigations required to make a difference in that danger are better known and quite different than two years ago. That is why there will be more and more calls to remove the existing mitigations.
A large, large percentage of the population disagrees and we're now playing a game of chicken. Who will win?
Democracy can/should be more nuanced than simple majority/mob rule. Super majorities, local rule, and consensus are all ways of achieving that. Ideally groups of people would not be allowed to impose on other groups of people. I'm just throwing out a general statement about the idea of democracy, food for thought.
Many places haven't voted on lockdowns. I think Switzerland did at some point, which makes sense (as they are more of a real democracy than Canada). There's an initial emergency that may need a quick response, but later on there is time for the people to vote.
Your point about the minority dictating policy by attrition is interesting to think about. Conservatives might tend to like that feature, not adding new laws unless enough people agree. I assume Progressives would tend to feel the opposite. I'd add that the amount of people voting would seem to make a big difference. It's hard for tens or hundreds of millions of people to agree, easier for smaller groups. Compromise is also a wonderful thing, too, when the 85% respect the 15% enough to do so.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-...