Hacker News Reader

Comment by dghlsakjg | Hacker News Reader

This… isn’t a good thing. The official stated goal of this protest was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Canada. They put it in writing on their website. Their protesters have used their trucks to ram counter protesters. Their are literally hundreds of criminal investigations around this, including hate crime investigations. And that is considering that the police have adopted a soft touch.

The reason that the courts shut it down is that no one knows where the money is coming from, but it is very clear that a significant percentage of it is coming from outside the country.

A commercial vehicle isn’t speech. Money isn’t speech. If you want to wave a swastika flag around, go for it. If you want to use a 10 ton machine to disable infrastructure and threaten people, that’s not free speech.

Put another way: do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement?

View on HN

It's nonsense put out by the media and you bought it. This is more peaceful than any protest in the summer. Hundreds of crimminal investigations? The worse crime is carrying gas in a can. The ramming of trucks into other protesters happened at blm protest in the US.

The government and media have powerful tools that can shape stories to the masses. Smart people like yourself can easily fall prey. If that's the only information allowed to be heard you may not be getting a 360 view. $And you want to give them total control?

Do we want only government supported movements?

Is it a peaceful protest when you're harassing citizens of your capital with non-stop honking? Or literally BLOCKADING popular border crossings?

Seems peaceful to me, altough certainly breaking some laws.

Also known as civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience assumes repercussions usually. I have yet to see anything actually happen to these protestors.

I don't want them hurt. I just find it odd to contrast how they are treated vs how other protests are usually treated.

> Is it a peaceful protest when you're harassing citizens of your capital with non-stop honking?

Would you rather they be burning buildings and assaulting federal buildings? As far as major protests go in the Western Hemisphere over the past few years...this one is about as tame as it gets.

I would rather that neither happens.

If it isn’t right when one protest group does it, it doesn’t make it right for another to do it.

This is literally the rules we teach in kindergarten

> If it isn’t right when one protest group does it, it doesn’t make it right for another to do it.

This is a false equivalence - people honking their horns is not comparable to looting and burning down buildings.

You're the one who brought it up. Just because their behavior isn't as bad as it could be doesn't excuse their bad behavior.

Would you have less of a semantic issue with the term: "non-violent"?

Given that there has been sporadic violence associated with the protest and counter protesters that isn’t accurate.

Well then do you prefer the term: "mostly peaceful"?

The entire world has been watching closely for the entire protest.

I live in the middle of it. Until the injunction, there was 16 to 20 hours a day of nonstop bigrig air horn blasting at us. That is nowhere near peaceful or non-violent.

> That is nowhere near peaceful or non-violent.

you have a very different definition of non-violent than the majority of the planet.

it sounds non-violent, but also not peaceful :)

Having near 100db constantly for hours straight sure feels violent to me.

> do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement?

Yes, we do, because the alternative, no matter how they may try to sugar-coat it, is the establishment choosing their opposition.

The unstated part of what I'm trying to read in good faith is that you are saying that money is speech? I understand that in theory, but I also think that in practice, we have proven that money does not tend to flow evenly to just causes.

As an extension of that, look what western governments have funded covertly, and what it has wrought, especially since the start of the 20th century.

I really doubt that this will be limited to individuals donating to a populist cause (which to be clear, all three major parties, and a HUGE majority of Canadians don't support). I don't see that being the majority of it. I suspect that intelligence agencies, and corporate interests will be far more likely to be the ones that use the unlimited untraceable money to destabilize social systems.

Is your position that crowdfunding platforms are bad because intelligence agencies and other baddies could use them to funnel destabilizing movements in places with social and political instability? Since when was that a problem they needed to solve?

Did you raise this issue during previous mass protest crowdfunding events or do you not like this protest in particular, but others can be okay?

> Is your position that crowdfunding platforms are bad because intelligence agencies and other baddies could use them to funnel destabilizing movements in places with social and political instability? Since when was that a problem they needed to solve?

If they want to stay in compliance with US law, that is absolutely something that cloudsourcing platforms need to solve. Foreign political donations are very much restricted in the US.

As for your second question, I think that ALL political causes need to have guardrails about who is funding them, and how they are allowed to disrupt critical infrastructure. Also your question is textbook bad faith what-aboutism

> The unstated part of what I'm trying to read in good faith is that you are saying that money is speech?

The U.S. Supreme Court took that position, in their famous Citizens United ruling: "The court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns" [0]

(I'm not the original poster)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Notably, the supreme court has never allowed unlimited foreign money to be donated to political causes, which is VERY illegal in the states. So even the US government agrees that there are limits to money as free speech

I don't disagree with your point that money corrupts politics. I was responding specifically to your questioning of why the equivalency of money and free speech came up.

I don't get the difference between money and speech. Free speech doesn't mean I can just mutter something to myself in my own home. Most things cost money. So if I want to pass out pamphlets to spread my message, that will cost money. So how can you say I have free speech if I'm restricted from spending money.

Consider newspapers. They require money. If money doesn't equal speech, how can I print and distribute my newspaper without spending money? I don't see a system in which you can have free speech while restricting money related to speech

> which to be clear, all three major parties, and a HUGE majority of Canadians don't support

Unpopular speech is precisely the speech that needs to be defended. If its popular and everyone agrees with it, what's the point?

This is about anonymous foreign money funding political movements.

Is it free speech if a foreign political actor sponsors someone to blow an air horn outside your bedroom window for a week straight? Because that is literally what happened in Ottowa.

If that’s free speech, would you mind providing your address for free speech purposes?

> Is it free speech if a foreign political actor sponsors someone to blow an air horn outside your bedroom window for a week straight? Because that is literally what happened in Ottowa.

I don't know what a "foreign political actor" means, but should a private individual be able to give money to anyone they want? Yes. Should the person receiving the money obey local laws? Yes. But this is more civil disobedience. Protesting is valid political speech.

Do I want that to happen in my back yard? Of course not. But that's not particularly useful. Perhaps I don't want bars on my block where I live, but that doesn't mean I have the right to make bars illegal. That's just silly

You’re drawing equivalence between government action and non-government action, and applying that equivalence to a case where the non-government action is directly opposing the government action.

Further, you’re using a denunciation of the actions of government as an argument against the rights of the people to protest against it.

This debate would be a lot more productive and a lot less dangerous if you could stick to the actual disagreement at hand, which I think has something to do with vaccines, but I’m not sure anymore, rather than trying to build a case for rejection of all rights even marginally related to any form of opposition. And please understand that I have much less interest in the opposition rights than the unrelated collateral damage that any such restrictions would cause.

>"The official stated goal of this protest was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Canada."

Where does it say that and what does that mean? Overthrow is a violent usurpation of power. Getting a government to capitulate is not an overthrow.

In the US we had plenty people who during the previous administration made exaggerated claims about what they wanted to achieve as well. I didn't see Gofundme shut down donations or freeze funds.

> Where does it say that and what does that mean? Overthrow is a violent usurpation of power. Getting a government to capitulate is not an overthrow.

It was on their website. Here's the link to the original https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined...? It called for the all elected representatives in disagreement to step down, and for the organizers of the protest to be installed as a ruling committee for the country until such time as they saw fit.

Here is a good quote showing the battiness of this document:

> The matter to be discussed and agreed upon is this; The Senate of Canada and the Governor General, combined referred to as the Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately”.

> In the US we had plenty people who during the previous administration made exaggerated claims about what they wanted to achieve as well. I didn't see Gofundme shut down donations or freeze funds.

What aboutism.... I think that money is not free speech in those cases either. But they also weren't actively asking for the government to agree to all of their demands or else step down.

And that is what I mean by overthrow. Their explicit ask as quoted above was that all government reps do what they say or else resign, and that they be given a committee to rule the country.

Fair comment, but I don't think that amounts to "overthrow". If that were the case, many mass protests could be categorized as wanting to "overthrow" some government (official, local, state, national). Pussyhat, YellowVest, BLM, someone wanting the sheriff to resign, etc., depending on how you interpret their demands. I think that is unfair and I disagree.

Making demands of and petitioning the government is a basic right of the electorate in democratic governments.

> And that is what I mean by overthrow.

You're using "overthrow" in a manner that isn't consistent with the definition - deliberately, I suspect.

My use of overthrow is as follows: an unelected group removing a legitimately elected governing body from power via direct force or threats.

They haven’t stormed parliament with guns. They have used force to inflict measurable economic damage and threatened tocontinue it until their demands were met, and are threatening to escalate and continue their economic damage.

As a side note: I don’t disagree with everything this group stands for. I think that if we are to have mandates, their should be explicit achievable goals tied to them. If they said border requirements will be lifted when the ICU availability rises above 5%, that makes sense to me.

What I don’t agree with is that anonymous money from abroad should be allowed to be used by political organizations, especially ones with explicit goals of regime change.

What _threats_ are being made? The protesters are demanding (asking) that the government _resign_.

> They have used force to inflict measurable economic damage and threatened to continue it until their demands were met.

The "measurable economic damage" pales in comparison to the economic damage causes by draconian lockdown policies promogulated by western governments.

>My use of overthrow is as follows: an unelected group removing a legitimately elected governing body from power via direct force or threats.

There is no force, so that leaves threats.

This is classic non-violent civil disobedience. You can say it is illegal - it is!. You can disagree with it - not all civil disobedience is good. Just don't conflate the threat of civil disobedience with a threat of violent revolution or overthrow.

Threats aren't inherently illegal or violent. You can threaten to not vote for a politician unless they approve your policy. You can threaten to not go to work unless they resign. Crossing over into non-violent civil disobedience, you can threaten to illegally sit in a bus seat or road until a policy changes. This is a world different than threatening to hurt someone unless you get what you want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

This reads like a legal opinion brief. It’s all based on interpretation of existing law. Yours may be different, but about that quote specifically isolated, what exactly is wrong with it? What exactly is your position in opposition to that statement?

“… the Federal Government may violate and neglect all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws with no challenge or change to their appointed status.”

Please do not introduce your medical or legal opinion on any topic except whether the terms of this specific document, as applied to any other real or perceived injustice that you believe in, implies an earnest attempt to overthrow a legitimate functional democracy.

So, anytime a protest asks for government officials to resign, it's now a "threat to democracy "? I'm sorry, but that is so ridiculous and such a transparent way to justify getting any protest you disagree with to be dealt with with violence ( I mean, it's an overthrow attempt, according to you, right? That would require the army to intervene? ). You have to realize that sometimes protests happen, and you won't agree with them, and everything you disagree with is not a threat to democracy. Labeling every protest a coup is the blatant threat to democracy here.

>It called for the all elected representatives in disagreement to step down, and for the organizers of the protest to be installed as a ruling committee for the country until such time as they saw fit.

This is fake news that is not supported by your link.

>Federal Government are to uphold and enforce all Canadian and International Human Rights Laws that are clearly laid out in the MOU or “RESIGN their lawful positions of authority Immediately”.

What part of that is batty? They are demanding that the federal government change policy or resign. I can demand my governor support LGBTQ rights or resign. What is the difference. I can demand all I want and it doesn't cross to overthrow or revolution unless violence is involved.

>and that they be given a committee to rule the country.

This again is nonsense and unsupported. There is no ruling committee. The only committee mentioned has no powers whatsoever. The Only federal government requirement for the Committee is to appoint some people and share the schedule for lifting the bans with the Committee.

> Their protesters have used their trucks to ram counter protesters.

Got a source for that? I'll believe it when I see it. I have only been made aware of one car attack so far, and it was perpetrated by a left-wing individual against protesters.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/08/canada-trucker-protest-hit-and...

With these kinds of protests you always have to worry about infiltrators --like the Greek austerity protests where confederates committed violence while dressed as protesters to make the movement look violent for the news audience.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/02/07/vancouver-police-co... https://globalnews.ca/news/8603842/trucker-fired-vancouver-c...

It literally took me less than a minute. The video is in the article. You can find other incidents if you bother to look.

As to the reply to this: if you are slowly and carefully crushed under the wheels of a truck. It doesn’t matter how slowly and carefully it happens. Having driven vehicles this big I can promise you that at the point the driver made contact he could no longer see the cyclist that he knew was in front of him. If the cyclist had tripped he would have only known about it when he felt the bump under his tires.

Regardless using a 10 ton machine to move people you disagree with is no way to go through life.

'Ram' implies some degree of speed. That truck very slowly and carefully pushed the cyclist, who was blocking traffic, aside, without injuring them.

You post two links to the same incident in *Vancouver*? Not Ottawa? Not Windsor? Not Coutts, AB?

And then turn and castigate the person you are replying to with a dismissive "...if you bother to look."

I chose Vancouver because it is the city closest to me.

Besides, what’s wrong with Vancouver?

He asked for proof. I provided validated proof from different sources with undeniable video showing exactly what he was castigating me about.

>do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement?

Yes.

>do we really want the ability for anyone anywhere to anonymously fund any political movement?

Like how western nations fund color revolutions and ideological shifts in countries where the majority of citizens are against such funding? Either accept that true liberal (free) democracy means foreign influence to the point of possibly destroying the democracy, or accept that both sides do it relentlessly in a game of power.

I encourage you to push your question further. The tech exists, some people want it according to this article. "Do we really want the ability"....if your answer is "no", it sounds like the window is closing for you to do something about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com