[flagged]
What this episode makes clear is that many people actually love authoritarianism as long as the actions of the state in the moment appear to align with their own ideology. Next time it won't, which is why it must be resisted on a principled basis. This precedent being set is a dictator's dream come true and you will have no leg to stand on as someone that cheered on the tools of oppression.
Sadly, it most likely will. The left I used to know wouldn't be caught dead cheering on the coordination between federal government and private businesses/banks to deny people the ability to organize and protest. But here we are, and there we'll be when the government decides to label whatever the next movement is as a "threat to democracy."
> to organize and protest.
All the sit-ins in the past 60 years of protesting, ended up in people being arrested. And fines (as well as imprisonment) were levied against the arrested protesters for disruption of government operations and services.
Further these days, often protesters go in expecting to be arrested. Activists will often seek people who aren't afraid of being arrested.
If you cause damage during the protest, you really can't whine about the punishment.
> The left I used to know wouldn't be caught dead cheering on the coordination between federal government...
Oh I think Abbie Hoffman's supporters would still hate the FBI COINTELPRO today. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) Hoover's FBI more or less got away with infiltration and assassination because the enemy was "stinking hippies" or "terrorists".
But don't you see any kind of resemblance to that and what's happening currently with the all the "nazis" and "white supremacists"? It's odd to me that you can mention COINTELPRO and think that things like that don't still happen.
I guess you can rightly say that I have no proof of that. But in 50 years, if we ever get documents released explaining how COINTELPRO was expanded and used against lots of the movements of our time, you owe me a beer.
But COINTELPRO is the premier example of law enforcement corruption in the US, and those who were affected by it still live with it to this day. And I don't think anyone really wants justice served without due process in the US these days. And arguing that your opponents support that or are willing to look the other way when it happens is rather unfair.
If the truckers staged a boycott instead of an occupation, I feel like their side might have a lot more sympathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott
As to your red herring about the right being labeled as "nazi"s, I think the media does a pretty good job of portraying the "Racist Right" from the "Right". It's also pretty clear whether a politician/person/group/etc is willing to openly denouce racism or not.
When the blockade is significantly funded from outside the country the policies are supposed to be about [0], when effective mechanics of the protest aren't merely speech but crippling trade, when the stated substance is basically claiming the privilege of unrestrained motion across international borders without regard to vaccination status, even if it were true that "one idiot or provocateur in a sea of tens of thousands" were engaging in fundamentally unacceptable (e.g. nazi) performance, there's still be plenty of reasons for sensible and restrained government authorities to intervene.
> This precedent being set is a dictator's dream
Which precedent? That authorities might use authority to stop trade disruption?
Seizure of property from people involved in that disruption? Bigger and far more routine problems in terms of civil forfeiture.
Needing to be vaccinated to cross a border? You may want to look at precedents established over the last century or two and ask yourself why the totalitarian catastrophe you seem to be imagining has only crossed some kind of threshold now, almost as if it isn't coming.
[0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/where-things-stand-majo...
Do you feel the same about the BLM protests?
Even in cases like the sanctions on Iran, I don't think we attempt to prosecute people who had financial interactions with Iranian people or businesses before the sanctions were imposed.
Let's assume that both the blm protests and the convoy both had "a few idiots or provocateurs in a sea of tens of thousands." Now compare the media coverage and government handling of the two things, and compare how those idiots are portrayed compared to the tens of thousands. Do you see a difference? It seems to me that all blm-related events are generally considered peaceful protests (even the ones where buildings are burned down), while the convoy is nothing but a big nazi flag waving party. Did any blm related entity have their bank accounts frozen?
> Did any blm related entity have their bank accounts frozen?
Interesting to think about. Just imagine the headline of "Donald trump freezes bank accounts of BLM protestors" and the uproar and legal battles that would immediately follow. Different countries (laws, rights, legal precedents), different levels of public support for the underlying cause, "black bloc" obscuring the protestor identities.
Yes.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/amazon-suspends-black-lives-ma...
Canada has the right (just as the US does) to limit foreign influence in its domestic affairs and its democratically elected government is exercising that right.
It wasn't even limited to those who actually broke any laws. Multiple incidents have been reported by Canadians who donated as little as $50 to the protest BEFORE it was declared illegal, having their bank accounts frozen without any formal charges.
Given that they are not even charging these people with crimes, they are denied due process and their economic lives are destroyed for the crime of committing a lawful act that happened to be unpopular with the ruling party.
To portray this as a reasonable step to curtail foreign influence in domestic affairs seems intellectually dishonest. This was government overreach pure and simple.
This said, I love Canada and don't believe Canada should tolerate one iota foreign interference in our domestic affairs, especially if it sows division or reduces trust in Canada's institutions. Whether you believe the blockading of border crossings, occupation of Parliament Hill, and disruption of peace in Ottawa were peaceful protests or unlawful assemblies, they were amplified and prolonged by foreign money. Canada should rightly do what it takes to nip foreign influence in the bud.
I do wish we would apply those foreign influence and foreign funding rules more consistently though. A few years ago, the prime minister in question, accepted millions in funding from Chinese investors to his WE charity. In order to avoid having to defend those actions he even prorogued parliament.
It would also be nice to limit foreign investment in Canadian real estate so that more Canadians could afford a home in their native land, but I might be dreaming.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-M...
Canadians only have two hands. Even the Quebecois.
This was separatist group that for a time took control over the border, threatened and blockaded critical infrastructure and committed thousands of crimes (bribery, threats, assault, setting a fire in a building).
The criminal investigations are ongoing. Due process will be had.
The police unfortunately dropped the ball, they tried that option too. But just arresting specific people also wasn't enough.
Polling shows that the majority of Canadians supported the use of the act.
1. WWI
2. WWII
3. FLQ Crisis - an incident that included the kidnapping of federal ministers by a terrorist organization
By contrast, this protest has been incredibly peaceful when compared to other similar protests or occupations. There is a debate happening in parliament right now on whether or not to extend the Emergency powers now that the government has successfully cleared the protestors and taken back control of downtown Ottawa.
I personally don't believe this incident warranted the suspension of civil liberties. It isn't clear to me that the government did what they could to apply the existing laws on the books. If anything the biggest issue was that the Ottawa police appeared reluctant to enforce existing laws on the protestors. That is a different issue and does not justify the imposition of the Emergency act.
Invoking the Emergencies Act after 3 weeks was warranted after the police failed doing it's job.
The government did not have a clear picture or control over the situation. A foreign organization could have used it to supply these people, which is what happened. This was a big hole in Canada's national security.
Assuming you are referring to the January 6th insurrection incident, I don't think the two are comparable. What happened in Canada could fairly be described as an occupation and would therefore be most similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Notably the Occupy movement, despite being equally frustrating for the local and national government as well as the civilian population, was allowed to go on for close to 2 years.
I don't claim that Canada should have allowed this protest/occupation to go on for that long, but I think it is clear that had the Ottawa police had the will to take action, the existing laws were sufficient to put an end to any illegal activity.
Peaceful protest, not occupation, is lawful under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So my hypothesis is that the Canadian Government implemented the Emergency Measures act in order to suspend the Charter so they could suppress an otherwise lawful activity.
Politically this is probably true, but ows never as far as I recall blocked main roads, and certainly not for extended periods. Whatever you think the legitimacy of that tactic is, it's not the same.
And fwiw the ottowa police claimed that they didn't have the resources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/16/ottawa-protest..., though I too question that claim.
Police need to be able to stop those who break the law, while simultaneously protecting those who are merely protesting. Even if they’re part of the same crowd.
But not, like literally making roads impassable at all hours for days (https://www.dw.com/en/canada-court-orders-protesting-trucker...).
(and there's something to be said for "the police shouldn't be able to put down a large scale protest of involving thousands of people and vehicles. Perhaps if the police force is powerful enough to do that, it's too strong?)
Lasted for a few days at most, not like in Canada.
Occupy protestors took a nearby park. Tried to stay out of the way otherwise.
It’s complicated whether they were responsible for blockage. Initially it was police who were in the way. After a while the police left but the activists stayed. The park and area around in became uninhabitable and unnavigable. Garbage in streets.
Very different protests. And very different from what’s happening in Canada.
This is especially insane because you can no longer distinguish between “protestors legally protesting” and “protestors illegally blocking critical infrastructure.”
That is very much the government being stupid.
This is what I don’t get. The Canadian police had the power to stop the protestors who crossed the line from protest to riot.
But they didn’t.
I don’t understand why. Why did they allow the ambassador bridge to be shut down so long?
They had the power to stop it. They just chose not to.
Only that the protest turned into an occupation and/or a blockade that caused economic damage and negatively impacted the residents of Ottawa.
These were remarkably peaceful protests, for the most part, by both the protesters and the police.
However it’s not acceptable to shut down public roadways.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/191-arrests-later-ottawa-polic...
Maybe freezing accounts contributed to this particular outcome, but I don't accept that it was necessary.
The majority of southerners supported slavery and breaking away from the union.
His books are more relevant today, as the state is re-establishing its authority to define "friend" and "enemy". "Good" and "evil".
Tolerating the "other" side's views is no longer acceptable.
The state is re-establishing its authority (and monopoly?) to determine public "friend" and "enemy".
Slightly off topic but the inconsistent treatment/reporting of these protestors and BLM is what gets me. BLM protestors flying "antifa" flags (let's be honest Marxists) are just as bad as Nazis in my book - seriously misled people with unworkable ideas about how the world should be run.
Anyway if you're coming down hard on protestors who are causing disruption but not to protestors who are setting fire to buildings then there's something seriously wrong.
Let's be clear about what you're saying: people who are vehemently opposed to Nazis are just as bad as Nazis. This is the definition of "fake centrism" or (sarcastically) "enlightened centrism". You're really saying that a new flag created to express opposition to Nazis, fascism, authoritarianism, and genocide is as bad as a flag that has been used for almost a century to represent those exact things? They're just as bad as each other? Are there good and bad people "on both sides", too? You need to seriously take a hard look at yourself in a mirror if you believe this. One group is expressly saying "we should subjugate and genocide non-whites" and the other group is expressly saying "we should not tolerate genocide and subjugation" and they are just as bad in your eyes!?
You need to look yourself in the mirror or better yet, read a history book or two about fascism and national socialism and take a good look at antifa again.
You've actually brought up a good point, with the overuse of the term "Nazi" it's hard to have a meaningful conversation about the far right and their deeply unpleasant beliefs. Simply calling them Nazis is lazy and unhelpful.
You and CodeGlitch can argue whether that applies in this situation. But the idea itself is perfectly reasonable.
To my knowledge, there was a singular incident of Nazi flag on the very first day of a 25 day protest. There is also some evidence that it may have actually been the PM's personal photographer who took the photos of the Nazi flag [1].
It is also a curious fact that this flag incident took place at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier, a $300/night luxury hotel in the heart of Ottawa, known for hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, that now curiously houses a large contingent of police from all over Canada [2]. It seems suspect to think that truckers and racists would choose such an iconic and expensive venue to display this symbol of hate.
Given that most of us never expected the severe curtailing of civil liberties by a liberal democracy such as Canada, I think it is prudent for us all to be skeptical about the facts on the ground in this incident as it almost appear engineered to sow the seeds of hate against the protesters in this case.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada
[1] https://twitter.com/McloughlinGuy/status/1489468112009408514...
[2] https://twitter.com/GuitarBill609/status/1495447010291372034...
I do find it suspect that this all went down at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier which is a hotel most well known for hosting foreign dignitaries and heads of state, as well as more recently large numbers of police brought in from around the country.
This single nazi flag incident has been repeated by the government and it's proponent so many times now to paint this entire movement as racist which is do feel is an unfair characterization of the protesters, most of whom were simply Canadians who felt the need to be heard.
You don’t need to be staying at the hotel, or even visiting the hotel to use it. Thousands of pedestrians, including many tourists coming from other hotels downtown, use that walkway every day to access Wellington and the Parliament.
It’s also a great vantage point to be seen from the bridge spanning the canal, where I assume this photo was taken.
So no, this did not “all go down at the Chateau Laurier”, it went down outside it, on a heavily trafficked public walkway.
I retract the following claim in my parent comment.
> There is also some evidence that it may have actually been the PM's personal photographer who took the photos of the Nazi flag [1]
Correction: There is NO evidence that the PM's personal photographer was a party to this photo incident. I regret making that unsubstantiated claim.