They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals?
They were protestors until they started living on the streets, at which point they became occupiers (CC §63(1)):
* https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/protesters-build-wooden-structure-...
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-truck-convoy-pr...
* https://pressprogress.ca/photos-show-young-child-with-a-gas-...
When ordered to disperse they did not, which now goes into disobeying lawful police orders.
And if I was a resident of Ottawa, I doubt I would have considered 24/7 honking and the generation of noise "peaceful" (CC §31).
* https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/angela-hewitt-play...
If you want your movement to succeed and goals achieve your goals you need to get the public on your side, not piss them off and consider you inconsiderate jackasses.
Also: is shutting an international border crossing (bridge), which affects the commutes and livelihood (via supply chains) of thousands of people every day, "peaceful"?
* https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Know-Your-Rights...
Was Occupy Wallstreet illegit?
Obviously there is a fine line between legitimate, legal protest and it should be taken very seriously. IMO that particular protest pushed that line too hard.
Calling downtown near the Parliament buildings "the most affluent areas around the nation's capital" is pretty hilarious.
The Glebe, Sandy Hill, Rockliffe, Island Park, etc.. All those parts of Ottawa's core have always been more afluent than the downtown by the Parliament.
The rise of new condos in that area has probably improved it somewhat in the last 10 years but it's still far from "afluent".
- "Oh my point was proven wrong but I'm going to stick to it anyways? Because fact shmacts?"
Your whole argument was that the convoy was shut down because it inconvenienced the wealthy locals.. Which is completely not what happened.
It's ok to say you were wrong.
>The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.
The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war:
* §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or, (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
* https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html
Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)?
The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commiss...
War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime.
>The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified:
The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly:
* I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1]
In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act:
* §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act.
Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time:
* Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2]
And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3]
>Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)?
The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold.
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc...
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-...
[3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...
The right to protest and speech does not include a right to break the law.
The fundamental problem with the Canadian bank response is that it was not proportional, broke convention, and did not fit the crime.
If someone is trespassing, you arrest and remove them.
Government have incredible power they can wield, but convention is that they do not use it to force compliance in every circumstance.
The city of Ottawa's law enforcement officers were ordered to remove the protesters weeks before the federal government stepped in. The cops basically just didn't do their job. The emergency act was not invoked lightly.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
The other commenter was breaking the site guidelines too, but in a different way, and I've responded to them also.
I can tell you're already very convinced of who was right and wrong in this and you're trying to make this a left vs right thing, but there are limits to how many problems you can cause when you protest - no matter the cause - before civil society (via it's police force and/or government) says "ok, that's enough".
Either that, or civil society sides with you, and then major change happens.
And I guess no one wanted to side with the COVID-denying racists.
Can you elaborate why it is "and/or government". Why is it acceptable that the government by-pass the normal legal system in dealing with protestors?
I'm not going to debate whether it was legal or not with you because (I'm assuming) neither of us are lawyers.
I'll say that I don't particularly agree with the bank account shenanigans they pulled, but they only did that because the Ottawa police force completely failed to do their job in dealing with the blockade.
I definitely don't like the precedent that was set, but having seen the blockade first hand (it was not a "peaceful protest", it was an aggressive encampment that was regularly threatening to passerbys and locals) and the impact it had on the area - my parents live nearby - they had to do something.
I support the rights of citizens to protest but as I said, there's a limit.
The question I was after is if the concept is ever moral or reasonable to deal with protestors with methods outside the legal system. Common methods are the military, but also martial law, suspending bank accounts (without a court decision), and other methods.
Current in Sweden we had recent several demonstrations that lead to riots, and historically we had major ones including one that lead to several demonstrators getting shot. Every single time, researchers and government investigations has found that using anything other than the regular legal system is counter productive, and in some cases very deadly. If the police don't do their job you get more police from other regions. In a event just a few months ago, they even got police from nearby countries to help (despite massive demonstrations and influx of tourists, crime went significant down during that period).
In general, the problem of police not doing their job seems to stem from when they are afraid. Either because of being extremely outnumbered, or in combination with poor instruction (with can lead to being afraid of doing mistakes in a political hot situation). Both are problems that can be solved by politicians without going outside the framework of the legal system.
Why didn't the government shut down these protestors bank accounts?
I will say that First Nations issues in Canada are pretty complicated, particularly when it comes to unceded territories and the rights around those.
It's also worth mentioning that those rail line blockades in Ontario were done in support of other protests in BC where the government eventually sent cops in riot gear to dismantle the blockades by violence.
Something that didn't happen in Ottawa, and I'll let you figure out why.
The Ottawa police did the exact same thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/19/world/canada/canada-truck...
Have you seen videos or pictures of the protestors? They were all different races, there wasn't an ounce of "racism" anywhere in there.
I don't need to see "videos or pictures" I saw it with my own eyes, repeatedly.
I saw first hand the confederate flags, the screamed slurs at passerbys, the aggressive racist-coded chants and associated violent rhetoric..
One night my mom got screamed at by a drunken asshole waving a big confederate flag, she was shaking so badly she didn't sleep that night..
So your hearsay "there wasn't an ounce of racism anywhere in there" can take a hike.
You don't get to do that to other people. Not in my idea of a civil society.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...
Truckers take over the city and make life a living hell for thousands of innocent residents? Lock their bank accounts and starve them out, and (ideally) prosecute the perpetrators alongside anyone who donated to them.
Soldiers raping and killing civilians? Blow them to kingdom come if possible (it's a war, after all). Otherwise, identify them, convene a tribunal after the war, and hang those found guilty.
FA, FO.
If someone is non-violent protesting in a location they arent allowed to be, the appropriate response it to arrest and move them, not lock their bank accounts and starve their families.
Locking someone in a cell and keeping them awake for the purpose if inflicting suffering is torture. Making noise so that someone in the freedom of their own home has to put ear plugs in is not.
conflating them ignores the clear differences and stretches the meaning of the word. You might as well say an ice cream display in the super market is torture.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Yes, the other commenter was also breaking the site guidelines and I've responded to them elsewhere.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Yes, the other commenter was also breaking the site guidelines and I've responded to them elsewhere.)
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
and this one:
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."