Justin Trudeau’s crackdown on protests could make things worse
economist.com
economist.com
A fair comment in my view, but it does raise an interesting question - what is this comparable to? This is something extreme, it must be comparable to some major past event. Attacking truck drivers in this way isn't normal peacetime activity, it looks like a lot of extreme measures are being taken.
> "The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful."
Also, woah. Is that at all true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
The nazis used this pattern too, but they also systematically murdered group B, which in my opinion disqualifies direct comparisons.
The vaccine situation isn't like that. People decided on their own whether to get a vaccine. Just like whether they decide on their own how to vote, how to eat, etc. Some of them are militant about whether others should eat meat or inject vaccines, they're not encouraged to be militant by Justin Trudeau or Stanford researchers.
I think that the division of people by vaccination status is active, like a division by religion or language would be active.
> they're not encouraged to be militant by Justin Trudeau or Stanford researchers.
I am not sure about this. Some argue that demand characteristics lead to the outcome of the experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Dem...
The BBC experiment had a different outcome. Like the Danish "experiment" today (no mandates, no protests, nobody calling for state of emergency).
As I understand, with measles vaccines an outbreak can be prevented, while SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not stopping the virus even in fully vaccinated populations.
We also need to look at risks. Covid risks are spread unevenly over a population and it does not look to me like the threat is existential for humanity.
Especially younger people are looking at worse risk/benefit ratios than older people.
Since the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not good at preventing transmission, I don't think that a mandate is needed, suitable or adequate.
There are no mandates to quit drinking, smoking, potato chips and extreme sports or to do yoga, to eat healthy and to take proper supplements. Introducing such mandates may technically be possible, but it would leave us with a system like the social credit score where we need to prove our smoking, drinking or yoga status in order to be allowed to just be. Being required to prove our vaccination status already introduces a little bit of this and vaccinations could be done without this, by just not mandating them.
I think it is fair to protest against this.
To me that answer makes you look like the kind of person who protests against using a condom on a one-night stand because you don't know whether it'll protect against an unwanted pregnancy next week, and anyway the risks of an unwanted pregnancy are uneven.
Then the ethnic genocides news came which connected Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Justin's father) to "wiping out the Indian problem" with the Catholic Church.
Justin distanced himself only to wait a few months and show his lack of basic decency. Blocking people's access to their own money is extremely low. I find it hard to have any kind of respect for Justin Trudeau.
Other than that, I really thought that I'd have to wait longer - at least till the end of analog money - to see first signs of western-government-turned-slave-master.
When we forfeit cash, we forfeit freedom and ownership. There will just be corporations and government allowing us access to "our" money under strict slavery-like conditions.
Also if you are going to start freezing bank accounts, how are you going to identify people? They may not even have an ID on them and the truck might be stolen for all we know.
How do you get rid of trucks without towing trucks?
You have to understand that those who are in power don't want solutions or good of the people. They want total obedience.
Essentially all governments initially promised a lockdown with the express purpose of not having to deal with a long drawn-out epidemic. I can only say: Well done!
Then came the promises: okay, not short, but they'll keep vulnerable groups safe! Well, studies now say, most people vulnerable to covid ... died. Despite the measures.
So we have the worst of all possible worlds:
1) people who were sensitive to covid for some reason largely died (as proven by very comparable death rates between countries with vastly different measures, once you exclude the tiny, obviously lying (China, Russia, a bunch of others), islands other than Britain, or those that don't have any health care to effectively determine cause of death)
2) we had ENORMOUS negative impacts from ineffective measures to prevent 1.
But you can't talk with people who imagine they're disease free, and terrified of losing that "pure" status. It is very well known that any human's immune system is constantly fighting a few hundred battles with a few hundred different diseases, even in the cleanest human alive. And on top of that, fights with internal problems, like cancers, even the odd too enthousiastic immune system cell.
Of course, now that all measures have failed, people have generally decided to settle on the most hateful conclusion possible: that the spread of all waves was the fault of all these other people who don't agree with extreme measures ...
I mean, isn’t it getting close to that?
This period of time really shines a light on us all, doesn't it?
Now, the city bus service in Ottawa, also has heavy tows, that can pull a double-decker bus, or a semi tractor.
They could've been doing this a long time ago.....but they didn't.
Why? They had all the tools.
Sure thing.
Is this for real? This is like a parody of a parody of a parody of what the most strident libertarians would accuse "big government" types of wanting to do, right? This isn't actually being considered? Nobody can actually justify charging people with precrime, right?
And while you’re at it, we need to protect the children, so we need to monitor 100% of the internet and ban encryption.
But it’s for your safety.
This is not unique, in most countries you can be charged for planning a terrorist attack as well.
What Canada already has (compelled speach laws) and is planning to do certainly is unique, except maybe a couple dictatorships if you criticize the regime.
While the proposed text defines hatred as
"[...] the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain",
"A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit [...]
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor."
I can only remember, being from ex-yugoslavia, which used to be a diverse ex-communist country, a similar set of "terrorizing of free speech" laws, right after WWII by Tito. They had been deemed necessary to use fear of Communists to quell any desire for any kind of revenge for the massacres and exterminations in death camps from WWII, and suffocate any nationalism.
They were rescinded in the mid 1950's because of the harm they had caused back then. It was used to send 75K people in gulag, a lot innocent, just denounced by people who didn't like them. 54K never came back, 60K more were sent to regular prison for 1-5 years.
Also, seeing the 1990's, they quite obviously didn't work, people just kept their fear of the other and desire for revenge inside, not talking, slowly simmering to a boiling point.
Not saying Trudeau's opening polar work camps, but he certainly stepped on (over ?) the border of that territory.
This seems unlikely to achieve anything, given that the convoy seems consist of antivax folks for whom patient explanation of the principles by authority figures is ineffective.
> The police already have ample powers to quell disorder.
But apparently haven't been using them.
Entire article is fluff. And not at all tech related.
So calling them anti vax is about as descriptive and useful as calling them racist or mysoginist.
Further, I said the convoy seems to consist of antivax folks, which is not incompatible with what you said.
It’s like calling someone who is against forced labor an “anti-work” person.
> The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful.
Why do newspapers do this?
The also never sign their posts, as they usually have multiple collaborators and reflect the opinion of the entire editorial team.
Source: they wrote about it a few years ago.
The reason you got confused about that is because actual newspaper behave like opinion magazines these days too.
Yes
Not just the tone but there are several indications. Like the "Leaders" section. Or phrases like "The Economist has long argued..."
But yeah the lack of an author byline is weird and not something I agree with.
Probably, the author was obligated to write this by a superior and chose to do it anonymously. I heard this happens sometimes in the media from where I come
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...
The belief seems to be that the mask mandates are there to protect the mask wearers.
They aren't. They are there to protect immunocompromised people who still have to go about their life as best as they can. Many people could go without masks and if they get sick, it's mild (though there are studies[1] that show even a mild covid can cause lasting heart damage). But before they even knew they were sick they would be spreading it to everyone around them. And there are quite a few immunocompromised people who if they get COVID may very well die. I'm married to one.
Do you drive 70 mph in a 30 mph zone? If you are advocating removing mask and vaccination mandates then that is effectively what you are doing.