Hacker News Reader

Comment by unsupp0rted | Hacker News Reader

Are protesting truckers eligible for a universal basic income? Or is their next monthly UBI payment from the government, along with the unfreezing of their bank account, contingent on them giving up any protest and going home?

How many months of UBI will anybody who donated to protesting truckers be penalized for the offense?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/even-small-donation-t...

> “Just to be clear, a financial contribution either through a crowdsourced platform or directly, could result in their bank account being frozen?” Conservative MP Philip Lawrence asked Department of Finance Assistant Deputy Minister Isabelle Jacques.

> “Yes,” she replied.

> “They didn’t have to actively be involved in the protest, they didn’t have to be here in Ottawa at one of the blockades?” Lawrence asked.

> “No, not themselves,” she replied.

> “It could be indirectly.”

View on HN

This was my first thought as well, still can't believe how everyone in my social circle was just okay with that oppression because it was "deplorables" doing it

I spent the duration of the trucker's protest sitting at home, fully vaccinated, and wearing a mask to go to the grocery store.

My sibling worked daily at the vaccination clinic.

I 180º disagreed with the content of the trucker's argument (less so these days). But I fully supported their right to protest, loudly and irritatingly, because someday I'll need to protest loudly and irritatingly for something I care about.

But of course now I won't protest, because I don't want my bank account arbitrarily frozen with no legal basis "voluntarily" by my bank.

And that's just my bank account, not the basic income I rely on for food.

Can I come camp outside your house and set off a 120dB train horn at 3AM?

Is my house around Parliament Hill?

Obviously in the interest of protest you can do something annoying, even at 3am, but you can't do something criminal.

A train horn goes up to 110dB.

If you do something illegal, like blast a train horn enough to potentially cause damage of one kind or another, then you can be arrested.

You have to be careful about the actual charge though, because arresting someone vaguely "for public disturbance on Parliament Hill" eventually gets you arresting people for holding up blank pieces of paper while standing in silence too.

Freezing the bank account of people who hold signs on parliament hill or people who donate to people who hold signs on parliament hill isn't a part of arresting them for doing something illegal.

Things are arguably worse in the USA. 35 states have laws on the books preventing personal boycott of Israeli products. In some states employees can and are fired for choosing not buy products in their personal life.

It is really disgusting. Imagine laws requiring the firing teachers because they choose not buy Israeli shampoo or whatever at home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Anti-BDS_laws_in...

I agree that the laws are over-reaching, but not to the extent that you suggest. The Wikipedia article that you cite notes that these laws take one of two forms:

> (1) contract-focused laws that condition the receipt of government contracts on an entity certifying that it is not boycotting and will not boycott Israel; and (2) investment-focused laws that mandate public investment funds to divest from entities involved in boycotts of Israel.

Neither of these are bans on "personal boycotts". They are penalizing corporations which boycott Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#cite_note-6

look at the case law section. There are plenty of real people, mostly teachers, fired from their jobs because they refuse to certify.

> Imagine laws requiring the firing teachers because they choose not buy Israeli shampoo or whatever at home.

By all means, do not imagine laws in this case.

Read about a law, a lawsuit, and an amended law that have already been recorded in our history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Koontz_v._Watson

yeah, it truly is disgusting. especially Koontz v. watson.

Kansas lawmakers amended the law so that it no longer applied to individuals like the plaintiff, rendering the case moot, but leaving the underlying constitutional issues unresolved.

Months before the federal government did the same thing to the wetsuweten anti-oil blockades.

Politics or deplorable status isn't the problem, it's that out government turned tyrannical.

Great, more political flame bait that has nothing to do with the article. Just what HN needs.

If you steel-man what I said, you'll see it's a direct concern about how UBI can be used as a boot on the face of Canadians.

I don’t see it. You’ve pointed to a thing the government did before a UBI and say now it’ll be a thing they’ll do after a UBI but don’t really connect the dots in a way that seems reasonable. Just my 2 cents.

Before UBI the government used its power to get banks to freeze private funds in order to quell protests.

After UBI the funds are coming from the government. The government can use its power to withhold those funds at the source to quell protests.

How is this not a direct 1:1 connection?

My point is that if the government wants to, it will - regardless of UBI. There’s no reason to believe that it will be used more if there is a UBI (it doesn’t seem anything stopped them other than their own restraint in the past).

But UBI helps a large portion of the population and streamlines a number of social payment programs to reduce overhead.

So I see obvious benefits, but no reason to believe from your comment that this potential drawback would be increased if UBI existed.

You don't see the reasonable conclusion here? They're going to stop punishing dissent from now on or what?

"You're reliant to pay your bills on a check we send you. We have the leverage to make you homeless if you dissent." This is not s reasonable connection of the dots?

See my response to a sibling thread.

Implementation details are a pretty important part of policy.

> protesting truckers

Keep in mind that trucking protest was funded by interests in the US [1]. I heavily suspect the recent anti- LGBTQ+ protests were too.

I don't believe they have much to do with Canada, or the interests of regular Canadians.

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-american-right-wing-f...

When discussing the government's overreach in quelling a protest, it doesn't matter to me if the protest was funded by the Estate of Adolph Hitler, Philip Morris Tobacco and the Society for the Preservation of Crying Babies on Airplanes.

It's the fact of the government's action that's in question. If they could do what they did with impunity, imagine what they will do with impunity when if you protest they can turn off the faucet that feeds your family.

> When discussing the government's overreach in quelling a protest, it doesn't matter to me if the protest was funded by the Estate of Adolph Hitler

I feel exactly the opposite.

The estate of Adolph Hitler could fun a protest against the law limiting hate speech, or the law against murder. If some foreign group pays them, millions will show up, and probably commit crimes and be violent and destroy property while they're at it.

In that case, I want the government to quell such a stupid protest that frankly would make our society worse if the protesters got what they wanted (or, more accurately, got what they were paid to say they wanted, but in fact have no care in the world about).

What the protest is about, and if it is really the view of the general population absolutely makes a difference in how the government should react.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com