Comment by visiblink | Hacker News Reader

Comment by visiblink | Hacker News Reader

I don't generally agree with these protestors, but the government's approach to shutting them down is a major threat to freedom in Canadian society.

Freezing their bank accounts when they have not been proven guilty of any crime is an abuse of power.

Interfering with the social funding drives of a political resistance movement sets a precedent that might affect all political protest in the future.

I don't know what to think of the staged media campaign smearing people for bringing their kids to a protest. Should the state be able prevent you from exposing your kids to your deepest convictions? Maybe they should have smeared my parents for taking me to church, women's centers, and union picnics.

If the police and government had taken the appropriate steps at the outset of this protest (parking tickets, towing vehicles, laying charges for blocking streets), none of this would be even close to necessary now. But as the article points out, that would be very visible, and would require a bit of political courage.

Freezing bank accounts when you have not been convicted of a crime happens all the time and is the way things have to work. If you let money flow freely in the banking system contingent on criminal convictions any old drug cartel could pay you a million bucks after you serve your time to let 100 million flow through your accounts or whatever. If you can't freeze accounts without an arrest that is already too slow. It is the way the banking system already works.

There is no "staged media campaign" to smear people, the media was reporting on the fact that having kids in the red zone had become illegal with the emergency orders. Kids come to protests all the time, it is not a big deal, but when the cops hand out flyers telling you that you have to leave and you don't, keeping your kids there with you, you are going to get some extra attention - it is not remotely comparable to church, women's centres, or union picnics. If you brought your kids to walk the line with you on a wildcat strike that might be comparable.. if the cops had handed you a flyer saying they were going to forcibly remove your picket line soon.

I agree that early enforcement may have made a difference - but it is clear from the reporting that towing vehicles at the outset was never an option - the towing firm that moved a shack /at the request of the protestors/ received a huge amount of harassment. In other cities pre-emptive measures were successful - sometimes by the police and sometimes by citizens. In my most generous moments I sometimes can forgive the OPS for thinking that this wasn't that big a deal at the start.

>Freezing bank accounts when you have not been convicted of a crime happens all the time and is the way things have to work. >It is the way the banking system already works.

Okay, sure. So your argument boils down to that's the way it is and it's practical.

>There is no "staged media campaign" to smear people, the media was reporting on the fact that having kids in the red zone had become illegal with the emergency orders.

At the point when the reporting on kids began on every network, there were no emergency orders.

>it is not remotely comparable to church, women's centres, or union picnics. If you brought your kids to walk the line with you on a wildcat strike that might be comparable..

Fair. Point taken.

>In my most generous moments I sometimes can forgive the OPS for thinking that this wasn't that big a deal at the start.

I remember the police presence at Oka, Gustafsen Lake, and the WTO in Montreal. It seems like these protesters got a lot more leeway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com