As one of the donors included in this hack, I am not entirely sure what they're out to accomplish.
Despite eye-rolling media mischaracterizations of these truckers as you-know-whats, it's a run of the mill workers strike. It has also been extremely peaceful and frankly comical at times. (We can contrast this with the "fiery yet mostly peaceful protests" of 2020 that negatively affected working class neighborhoods and how that was endorsed as an exercise in contrast. CHAZ, CHOP, etc.)
These workers and people who have to work in meatspace have had their lives impeded for two years now, but because white collar, work-at-home employees are mildly inconvenienced for a week, they're advocating police action against them and calling it an insurrection.
I'm proud to endorse this honkery, and I do not mind if it inconveniences some bureaucrats, as my neighborhood in Austin had police helicopters circling overhead for a week, cars set on fire, many buildings along 6th entirely destroyed, all while employees at my company enjoyed and supported the carnage financially.
If you're going to attack "media mischaracterizations" let's be truthful.
> but because white collar, work-at-home employees are mildly inconvenienced for a week, they're advocating police action against them and calling it an insurrection.
"Mildly inconvenienced" is an interesting term for shutting down a border crossing that handles $350 million in trade per day.
"Mildly inconvenienced" is an interesting term for residents having to put up with medically unsafe volumes of horn honking all throughout the nights. Some had brought train horns and were blaring those.
We're "calling it an insurrection" because that is a stated objective of the organizers, to overthrow the elected government of Canada. The fact that this is being encouraged and funded in large part by Americans is frankly, while unsurprising, an overtly hostile act being done to an ally.
The definition of an insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Where is the violence? I'm seeing people dancing and enjoying themselves. So much joy. It's like a big festival. People are helping each other and coming together. I see families and food banks being filled, trash cleaned up. Please post videos of all the violence. Btw, you can see an endless feed of the types of events I've described on Youtube. The only violent act I saw was a confirmed antifa member running over civilians.
Exactly! The media portrayal of the events is so incongruous when you actually watch the videos and see the pictures of the protestors. The headlines do not match what these people are actually doing at all. They are playing hockey in the streets, walking around waving flags with "freedom" on them. Yes they're noisy, but that's what protests are all about right? Making noise to be heard.
Because the majority of media in Canada is funded by the government under the guise of protecting home grown talent and such. It’s heavily subsidized and has all sorts of benefits at taxpayers largesse in order to survive the competition from the US.
Without that regulatory backing, it would be dead under a year.
What do you mean? You realize even private media receives massive subsidies in Canada? And that those subsidies are usually promised at election time meaning there is a clear incentive to not cross the party that promises the most money (vs let's say a party that promises to slash support for the media). Even provincial government are starting to provide massive amount of cash to "support our journalism"
Just about every man, woman, child, dog, or organization in the country receives government subsidies for one thing or another.
What percentage of their budget is 'massive', and what conditions do they have to meet to receive them? Is shilling for the whigs one of them? Who determines that they've shilled enough? Do you have a source? One that's not a tabloid op-ed?
I don't think your take on what 'media ran by the government' matches what media in countries where it is actually ran by the government looks like.
I don't believe there has been a level of violence that has been concerning or comparable to other protests. There has been the usual behaviour you see in these protests, including harassment of people wearing masks, healthcare workers, businesses, etc. A small amount of riot-associated behaviour like breaking windows of businesses. It has largely been peaceful.
Overt violence isn't necessary to the definition of insurrection. Here are some other definitions I found:
- "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government"
- "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government"
2. if violence isn't necessary for an "insurrection", and "revolting against civil authority or an established government" suffices, does that mean rosa parks or MLK are insurrectionists?
Insurrection (?), n.:
1. A rising against civil or political authority, or the established government; open and active opposition to the execution of law in a city or state.
“It is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein.”
Ezra iv. 19.
2. A rising in mass to oppose an enemy. [Obs.]
Syn. -- Insurrection, Sedition, Revolt, Rebellion, Mutiny. Sedition is the raising of commotion in a state, as by conspiracy, without aiming at open violence against the laws. Insurrection is a rising of individuals to prevent the execution of law by force of arms. Revolt is a casting off the authority of a government, with a view to put it down by force, or to substitute one ruler for another. Rebellion is an extended insurrection and revolt. Mutiny is an insurrection on a small scale, as a mutiny of a regiment, or of a ship's crew.
Requiring an acknowledgement of a government's legitimacy seems like a bad thing. Ultimately I think "insurrection" is just being thrown around far too freely.
> We're "calling it an insurrection" because that is a stated objective of the organizers, to overthrow the elected government of Canada.
I'm liberal, but the far left jumping to call protests an act of "insurrection" makes me want to warn you that this is an extreme characterization that will only further polarize us. We have to stop this nonsense.
It's like when those on the far left call for an end of free speech. The pendulum has swung completely for these folks. It's not a good idea to perpetuate or associate with these leanings.
Protests on both sides, while kept nonviolent, are a good and healthy mechanism to diffuse pent up anger, air grievances, and open new channels of dialogue.
Because that's not reality. No democracy is going to be overthrown. It's an extreme characterization, and it's wearing down our ability to fight the actual important battles [1].
You can say that there are radical elements within the protest that are anti-Canadian, white supremacist, etc., but to throw around the term insurrection so lightly and characterize the whole movement that way draws very harsh lines that are hard to walk back. I guarantee that you'll find friends and allies on both sides of most issues, yet we're worked up to the point that we're ready to start jailing one another.
The far left are crying wolf way too loudly and often, and it's going to bite come election time. The moderates are not going to listen anymore.
[1] Surveillance and freedom of speech, EARN IT Act, algorithmic manipulation, etc.
"Far left"? I'm a conservative. Most normal conservatives are vigorously against these protests, for exactly the same reason that we were against railway blockades, and against violence and mayhem that occurred under the umbrella of BLM protests. I am simply in awe that so many of the same people that were viciously against BLM protests are supporters of this protest.
Regardless, the literal stated goal of the organizers of this convoy was that the convoy would not leave until the government resign en masse and that the governor general basically decree this protest group the government. That is a textbook insurrection. This memorandum was replaced on February 8th because it was so fantastically treasonous that as it gained wider attention it became unpalatable.
So yes, when people say insurrection, they are absolutely correct. It isn't the "far left" pointing out that fact.
Just as it isn't the "far left" who point out that two of the primary organizers are a long time white supremacist, and the other is a literal separatist who has long petitioned that Western Canada should join the US.
My point is you can't call this an insurrection without shifting the Overton window.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any appreciable number of people are actually trying to overthrow Canada.
We're polarizing everything to the point we can't focus on the topics that matter. We'll forget about this in a matter of years, yet our ears and minds will be deafened.
I see it as wanton hyperbole. Demanding members of the government resign does not an insurrection make. Especially if you sincerely think they have abused their powers and have infringed on human rights.
Me and my brother watched the Super Bowl last night, me rooting for he Rams and him for the Bengals. We saw the same play happen live, resulting in the Bengals getting a penalty for holding and the Rams being awarded free yards.
He saw it as "fucked up" and I saw it as "just".
When the Rams were called for a penalty, the roles were reversed and I felt like the refs were in the pocket of the Bengals for calling such a stupid penalty.
---
All that to say: when _my_ team does stuff, it's okay. When _their_ team does stuff, it's bad. This is the same line of reasoning that is being played out with the above hypocrisy.
The logical case against the legitimacy of BLM protests is primarily predicated on evidence. Specifically, that while police brutality is definitely a problem in the US, there's no evidence that it disproportionately impacts people of color. When you look at the actual data, it seems that police like to brutalize and kill innocent suspects in a relatively colorblind manner. There are even a few outlier studies that suggest police actually show greater restraint with black suspects, although those studies do have some methodological issues.
It's effectively one of those "reals before feels" situations for those of us who prefer to view politics through a lens of actual data rather than baseless emotion.
Nobody batted an eye when Daniel Shaver's murderer was cleared. The protests should have been explicitly anti-police-brutality, not race-baiting nonsense.
It arises when supporting a group is all that matters, and one's "values" morph and twist into whatever is optimal to support the tribe at any given moment. It yields a lot of meaningless words.
This happens all over the political spectrum. It happens in technology discussions. It happens in, as another post said, sports commentary.
Because many on the right (and center and left) are naive enough to think that left-leaning groups/entity protests getting "mostly peaceful" positive coverage during the height of lockdowns in 2020 was actually an unbiased shift of norms, and not just media partisanship.
You're ignoring what I wrote entirely. We're not calling it an insurrection because it's a protest. We're calling it an insurrection because it's a protest with the express stated goal of overthrowing the democratically elected government.
The Wikipedia article is probably your best bet for a summary of factual information at this point.
> One of the main organizers behind the convoy, Canada Unity (CU), acknowledged that they had planned to submit their signed "memorandum of understanding" (MoU) to the Senate of Canada and Governor General Mary Simon, described in the MoU as the "SCGGC". The MoU which was signed by James and Sandra Bauder and Martin Brodmann, was posted on the Canada Unity website in mid-December 2021 and publicly available until its February 8 retraction. (...) CTV cited Bauder saying that he hoped the signed MoU would convince Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not constitutionally possible. In this pseudolegal document, CU called on the "SCGGC" to cease all vaccine mandates, reemploy all employees terminated due to vaccination status, and rescind all fines imposed for non-compliance with public health orders. If this failed, the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government, and name members of the CU to form a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC), which is beyond the constitutional powers of either the Governor General or the Senate.
It is indeed stated, I did not know that, thanks for the reference. I don't think it's serious though. By the same measure Extinction Rebellion would be considered an insurrection. I kinda remember BLM stating demands that included a separatist black country in the south. Hardly constitutional.
I think the threat would have to be serious to count as an insurrection, as in an actual credible plan to carry it out to fruition.
Otherwise every crackpot would be guilty of insurrection.
So in other words, overthrowing the government isn't their goal. Their goal is:
"CU called on the SCGGC to cease all vaccine mandates, reemploy all employees terminated due to vaccination status, and rescind all fines imposed for non-compliance with public health orders"
The stuff about dissolving the government is what they want if those other things aren't done.
They were calling on the "SCGGC" to do those things, i.e. they were calling on unelected bodies to bypass the elected House (which, by the way, is currently a minority government and therefore is being held up with opposition support).
Prove to me this effort is centralized and not some loon with zero say-so that a broadcast company quoted in a video to incense people and increase engagement. This is a protest with loads of people, and however much you want to distillate them into a caricature, they're ultimately acting independently and can withdraw their support. That is to say, because some few individuals may have said some extreme thing, doesn't mean that the whole condone that message or the intention.
Just like not everyone in a protest is black block.
Canada Unity is one of the co-organizers of this event.[1]
This is what their "Memorandum of Understanding" stated one month ago[2] (January 13):
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE of ACCORD
Canada Unity (CU) offers this “Memorandum” to the Senate of Canada and the Governor General of Canada, the highest authorities representing the Federal Government (SCGGC) as “The Government of Canada”. Acceptance by endorsement of this “Memorandum” and its valuable considerations, will solidify our mutual accord as further detailed in the understanding.
ARTICLE 2. OBLIGATION and COOPERATION
The appointed “Entities” agree to work together in the true spirit of partnership to ensure there is a united, visible, and responsive leadership of the “Initiative” and to demonstrate fair practice according to the Canadian Constitution, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Privacy Act and as further described in Article 3.d. of this “Memorandum” administrative and managerial commitment to the
“Initiative”.
ARTICLE 3. MANDATE
a. CU & SCGGC agree to form a committee, called the Citizens of Canada Committee (CCC).
b. SCGGC undertakes and appoints authorized (CCC) representatives.
c. CU undertakes and appoints authorized (CCC) representatives.
d. CU & SCGGC adopts and adheres to The Government of Canada’s agreements on transparency in matters related to the Canadian Federal Referendum Act, Canadian Constitution, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Bill of Rights, National Security Act 2017, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, Tri Council Policy Statement, National and International Human Rights Declarations and such Regulations et al, the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki all as provided by law, and not only limited to latest additions, addendums and revisions; and to be precise including laws, regulations and declarations prior to SARS-CoV-2, and any subsequent variations of SARS-CoV-2.
e. SCGGC will effective as of midnight on this ___, day of ___________, 2021 instruct all levels of the Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal governments to immediately cease and desist all unconstitutional human rights, discriminatory and segregated actions, and not limited to, immediately instruct all levels of the Federal, Provincial, Territorial and Municipal governments to not only stop, but furthermore waive all SARS-CoV-2 (and not limited to SARS-CoV-2 subsequent variations) fines that have been issued and imposed upon its citizens, institutions, and private enterprises.
f. SCGGC will effective as of midnight on this ___, day of ___________, 2021, instruct all levels of the Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal governments to re-instate all employees in all branches of governments and, not limited to promote the same to the private industry and
institutional sectors employees with full lawful employment rights prior to the wrongful and unlawful dismissals that stem from the SARS-CoV-2 (and not limited to SARS-CoV-2 subsequent variations) vaccine passport mandates.
g. SCGGC will effective as of midnight on this ___, day of ___________, 2021, issue a cease-and-desist order abolishing all Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal Vaccine Passport requirements, Vaccine discriminatory regulations, initiatives, and mandates in regard to SARS-CoV-2 (and not limited to SARS-CoV-2 subsequent variations).
h. Further, SCGGC will effective as of midnight on this ___, day of ___________, 2021, issue a cease-and-desist order to the respected Honorable Members of the Government of Canada with the consequent instructions to further instruct the Premiers of the Provinces and Territories, the
Mayors of the respected Municipalities and, the respected Federal, Provincial, Territorial, and Municipal Medical Officers to stop all such unlawful activities pursuant to ARTICLE 3. MANDATE section d. of this “Memorandum.”
i. Canada is a lawful member of the Helsinki Declaration to name one but not limited to additional Canadian and International Human Rights Laws and Regulations et al and therefore enacts its duty and responsibility to make any and all laws and regulations available to its citizens; further, to enforce and uphold such laws, regulations, and declaration(s) on behalf of its Citizens of Canada.
j. By signing this “Memorandum”, CU will immediately stop “Operation Bear Hug Ottawa”, demonstration / convoy and Federal Referendum activities and will strive to work with all groups and entities et al to bring this country together in unity.
k. CU & SCGGC agree to have the CCC committee formed within 10 days of acceptance and signing of this “Memorandum”.
l. CU & SCGGC agree to have a final “signed” and publicly released agreement in place within “no later than 90 days” of acceptance and signing of this “Memorandum”.
m. CU & SCGGC agree to only release jointly approved media / press statements on a daily basis during the time schedule specified in ARTICLE 3. MANDATE section paragraph k. and l.
n. SCGGC will immediately make available all schedules as described in ARTICLE 3. MANDATE section paragraph d. available to the CCC committee.
(Document continues)
Effectively they want to appoint a governing body to this committee and usurp the governance of the duly elected MPs of the government, effectively dissolving it, and then end all federal and provincially-imposed imposed mandates. The problem is, the Federal government cannot force provinces to end mandates.
They have since withdrawn this memorandum specifically because they found out their movement was not as popular as they believed.[3]
This is not convincing, source 1 reads like a hit piece, and ultimately only lists 12 people with zero authority out of thousands of other participants. Organizers have questionable sway in any case. Everything else is an aside, except for source 3, which indicates to me that it was probably a product of internal pressure. I came to that conclusion independently, and upon looking:
"It has come to the attention of Canada Unity that the Memorandum Of Understanding (herein referred to as MOU) does not reflect the spirit and intent of the Freedom Convoy Movement 2022"
I'm not sure how familiar you are with HackerNews but this sort of trite dismissive reply is usually considered in exceptionally poor taste around here.
If you are rejecting those sources, please provide any sourcing of your own to demonstrate the information I've provided is wrong in some way.
You might be unconvinced but your return argument lacks substantiation beyond handwaving.
Every political compass direction has these elements. They're fringe.
This issue is about dialogue with constituents. Meanwhile there are dozens of more pressing matters that actually deserve serious attention. Ukraine, EARN IT (US for now, but it'll go global), etc.
>"Mildly inconvenienced" is an interesting term for shutting down a border crossing that handles $350 million in trade per day.
One lane of the bridge was open and the Detroit tunnel had absolutely no blockade. This is a mild inconvenience. Protests are inconvenient to be sure. If the media you consume portrayed this as if there was no traffic at all between detroit and windsor... time for you to look to new media. I am curious where you have gotten this idea? CBC? Some other 'government accredited media'?
>"Mildly inconvenienced" is an interesting term for residents having to put up with medically unsafe volumes of horn honking all throughout the nights. Some had brought train horns and were blaring those.
Ottawa has a population of 1 million and their downtown area will always have honking. Like you know... every other downtown area of a large capital city. Calling this 'medically unsafe' is quite a stretch. Our homes are quite insulated here in Canada given the cold. The same insulation reduces road noise a lot. If you cant sleep because of road noise downtown... move because that happens year round.
>We're "calling it an insurrection" because that is a stated objective of the organizers, to overthrow the elected government of Canada. The fact that this is being encouraged and funded in large part by Americans is frankly, while unsurprising, an overtly hostile act being done to an ally.
No, that's just not in touch with reality at all. Parking large trucks on roads and having a peaceful protest is not an insurrection. There was absolutely no 'otherthrow the elected government of canada' that's a complete fantasy. They haven't once entered buildings or drawn weapons against anyone or anything.
I highly recommend you consume different media because you are not even in the ballpark here.
Since you donated money to them, you probably would like to know that the manifesto of the organizers who setup the GoFundMe and started the convoy explicitly wanted the Governor General and Senate to meet with the organizers and form a committee to replace the federal government. [1] They only recently stepped back from the manifesto a few days ago. [2]
>Since you donated money to them, you probably would like to know that the manifesto of the organizers who setup the GoFundMe and started the convoy explicitly wanted the Governor General and Senate to meet with the organizers and form a committee to replace the federal government. [1] They only recently stepped back from the manifesto a few days ago. [2]
I never donated to them for the record. I wouldn't even join some solidarity thing.
The first link doesnt load any audio for some reason. So i dunno there.
The second link being from a 'government accredited media' org basically just says this MOU was withdrawn. Never provides a sentence of the MOU of what it says. Though they say:
>The group had been accused by some of using the document to try to legitimize an attempt to seize power from the federal government.
Yes well, the group was also called white supremacists, so lets just look at the real deal.
>By having the Senateof Canadaand theGovernorGeneralof Canadasign this MOU into action, they agree to immediately cease anddesist all unconstitutional, discriminatoryand segregating actionsand human rightsviolations.It calls for animmediate instruction toall levels of the Federal, Provincial, Territorialand Municipal governments to not only stop but furthermore waive all SARS-CoV-2 (and not limited to SARS-CoV-2 subsequent variations)fines that have been issued and imposed upon its citizens, institutions, and private enterprises.Further, to immediately re-instate all employees in all branches ofall levels ofgovernments and not limited to promote the same to the private industry and institutional sectors employees with full lawful employment rights prior to wrongful and unlawful dismissals.Lastly it instructsall levels of government and private Sector that the Illegal use of a Vaccine Passportto cease anddesistimmediately
OK, I can certainly see where some people are coming from, but absolutely don't agree with the conclusion they are trying to seize power. In fact no reading or interpretation of that has them asking for power. They are asking for the GG to simply restore our rights. Which is absolutely something we have in Canada that may seem abnormal to say the USA.
No doubt why the national post doesn't actually copy and paste any of this. This is entirely what the Monarch and GG is supposed to be for. Hurts me to say because I think we should cut all ties to the British monarchy and move toward a republic. Coming back to context of my comments. The use of our monarchy being used as if to be an insurrection is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Our monarchy is still our monarchy. If our monarch decides something, we must abide and that's not insurrection.
> Ottawa has a population of 1 million and their downtown area will always have honking. Like you know... every other downtown area of a large capital city. Calling this 'medically unsafe' is quite a stretch. Our homes are quite insulated here in Canada given the cold. The same insulation reduces road noise a lot. If you cant sleep because of road noise downtown... move because that happens year round.
I've had honking in Downtown Vancouver from a group supporting the convoy and it certainly does not resemble the usual city noise. If it was horrible for the couple hours I experienced then it must have been hell for those Ottawa citizens when it went on for days.
>I've had honking in Downtown Vancouver from a group supporting the convoy and it certainly does not resemble the usual city noise. If it was horrible for the couple hours I experienced then it must have been hell for those Ottawa citizens when it went on for days.
Would you say this honking in vancouver was 'medically unsafe'?
am Ottawan, live about 6 blocks from 2 of the main blocked roads (parliament and kent street) noise is not bad for me, headphones block it out completely. Theyve stopped honking for the last 5 days too fwiw.
"hell" is an overstatement for something that can easily be ignored with earplugs/headphones.
construction work is certainly worse when its nearby as. it penetrates buildings better and often produces noise for longer periods of time. Though for people living less then 1 block the first 2 weekend days were probably irritating.
>"Mildly inconvenienced" is an interesting term for residents having to put up with medically unsafe volumes of horn honking all throughout the nights. Some had brought train horns and were blaring those.
I think "loud but mostly peaceful protests" is an apt description.
This is a serious claim, and one that I have not seen coming from the protesters (they want an end to the Covid mandates, from what I can tell) . Can you please provide the source for your allegation?
> One of the main organizers behind the convoy, Canada Unity (CU), acknowledged that they had planned to submit their signed "memorandum of understanding" (MoU) to the Senate of Canada and Governor General Mary Simon, described in the MoU as the "SCGGC". The MoU which was signed by James and Sandra Bauder and Martin Brodmann, was posted on the Canada Unity website in mid-December 2021 and publicly available until its February 8 retraction. Bauder, whose name is at the top of a CTV News' list of "major players" in the convoy, is the founder of Canada Unity. CTV cited Bauder saying that he hoped the signed MoU would convince Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not constitutionally possible. In this pseudolegal document, CU called on the "SCGGC" to cease all vaccine mandates, reemploy all employees terminated due to vaccination status, and rescind all fines imposed for non-compliance with public health orders. If this failed, the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government, and name members of the CU to form a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC), which is beyond the constitutional powers of either the Governor General or the Senate.
Well it's a matter of interpretation. You can call it just fundamental misunderstanding of the Canadian constitution, or an attempt to overthrow the government, but either way having the GG, Senate, or Elections Canada force an election while the government enjoys the confidence of the house would be a coup. I'm fine with giving the protesters the benefit of the doubt and just agreeing that they don't understand how the electoral process works in Canada.
It depends whom you petition. If you petition the House to call an early election, that's part of our normal democracy. If you petition the army to remove the government, that's attempting a coup.
In this case the MoU was not petitioning the House to call an early election, it was petitioning the Senate and Governor General to call an early election, who do not have the legal authority to call an election while the government has the confidence of the House.
And whether it's conditional on your demands being met is irrelevant. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to do something, and then say "well I was only going to fire if they didn't do it". The problem is in the threat, not the ask.
I just read the MoU (https://web.archive.org/web/20220122173201/https://canada-un...). It is a ridiculous document, suggesting that CU and the central government will form a joint committee to set Covid policy together. But nowhere in the document do I see anything about calling an election, dissolving the government, or being beyond any constitutional powers. The Wikipedia quote upthread does not seem like an accurate summary of the MoU.
Obviously it takes some suspension of disbelief to take anything in that document seriously, but it suggests that the Senate and Governor General (both unelected) make up the new "Government of Canada", with no mention of the House (elected). It's pretty clear that the intention of the "offer" is to remove the duly elected government from the picture in the mistaken belief that the Senate and GG are of higher authority to the House.
As far as the petition for an early election goes, I agree I can't find it in the MoU. Perhaps it was reading between the lines and combining statements made outside the MoU with what was found within.
No idea why this is being downvoted. This is the PROBLEM, people. Many Canadians support removing mandates but very few of us support removing the government through extra-legal mumbo-jumbo. We just had an election in Canada a few months ago and mandates were very much an issue that was debated and discussed.
Not an insurrection. Not trying to overthrow the government. Not illegal to send money to people you like or across borders. Not an overtly hostile act. Truckers have rights too.
If these people are an 'insurrection' then BLM protests during which 25++ people died, was 'seditions rebellion'. [1]
The 'truckers convoy' is completely within the normal framework or populist protest, this is not new, it's common. Farmers used to bring in their tractors to do this.
The people at the border were moved. The people in Ottawa are concentrated downtown, mostly not near housing, and I believe the honking has ben curtailed.
They are now camping out and dancing to The Macarena.
In Portland, an entire section of the city was taken over by armed bandits threatening violence, not letting Police or emergency services in, two people died, people's rights were very seriously curtailed. Now that was a hard problem to solve.
At this point we just have a bunch of angry people in trucks downtown, that's mostly it.
It will eventually peter out and they will go home ...
Some of us remember the “mostly peaceful” characterization by CNN of the protests in Kenosha.
We also remember the blockade of the rail in Canada.
We’re also not impressed by the pleas by inconvenienced government bureaucrats who couldn't be bothered to investigate the arson of 40 places of worship in Canada.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. You can't post like this here. Moreover, it's not in your interests to post like this here, because all it does is discredit the position you're arguing for—a bad trade for a little momentary venting.
Medically unsafe volumes claim has not been substantiated with any real evidence, and quite frankly absolutely false at first glance because the driver located right next to the horn would have permanently ringing ears by now.
There is however evidence of many false claims, later walked back, just like the assault at the shelter, which as it turns out, was: 1) verbal assault 2) did not involve anyone from the convoy. Conveniently that claim
was spread by a charity mostly funded by the City of Ottawa (10mil), of which 9 mil goes to salaries and only 450k to groceries and 850k to programs.
Disgusting.
As for the residents of ottawa, living in the nation capital, and not expecting boisterous protests is plain privledge and entitlement. That’s what you see in the mirror every morning: privilege and entitlement.
Calling a strike an insurrection is an insult to millions in Canada who have fled actual wars. It’s also an insult to every socialist that supports the right of workers to organize and strike, that you want to now shutdown with martial law.
Disgusting.
Oh, truckers can find another job if they don’t like the jab? So you can move to another city too.
Just like the jab, nobody forces you to live in Ottawa, it was YOUR. CHOICE.
Please don't cross into the flamewar style like this. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. You can make your substantive points without that.
Edit: you've been doing this in other threads too (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30333616). Could you please not? Here's an old line from PG, which I love, that expresses what we actually want here: Comments should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side.
BLM protestors were routinely arrested, beaten and teargassed on live TV for everyone to watch.
Donating directly to a mob causing havoc thousands of miles away from you because you're annoyed that your coworkers did the same is why this country and frankly the western world is so entirely broken. This is a wonderful example of the politics of spite in action. Making the world a better place has gone out the window, it's simply about making the world a worse place for people you don't like
Harassing people wearing masks and minding their own business and stealing from foodbanks because restaurants refuse to serve protestors isn't exactly peaceful.
Where does this end? Is it ok for me to pay homeless people to stand outside your house with a rifle and scream at your house all night?
I don't want to get political here, that's not my intention but this even was 100% peaceful protestors who just happened to be somewhere the President wanted to go were gassed for no reason.
I'm a class traitor frankly. My whole family works in jobs like this that have been impacted. One of my old co-founders was a 24 big-rig truck mechanic and his dad is being put out of business by the California CARB restrictions.
But aside from the specifics, I find it odd that people are decrying cross-national donations of money to causes. Were similar complaints made about CA->US donations in 2020? How about national disasters? I don't need a reason to give charitably to causes I care about in the world, and a supposedly cosmopolitan populace wondering about transnational giving seems contradictory to me.
These protests are a disruption specific to the internal affairs of Canada. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the continent. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
Agreed. The xinjiang intern- uhh... vocational education and training centers are an issue that that's specific to the internal affairs of China. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the world. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Chinese people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
1. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I implied china was located in the americans. My comment was specifically worded to not imply that.
2. Does america's influence on the world not exist? Why does your original claim of "Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people" only apply if it's on the same continent? Is it better to impose your views on people half way across the world?
America has long had a unique influence over the rest of the Americas while it did not on the rest of the world until very relatively in the postwar period. It also has not had a hegemonic influence on nations such as China, unlike it has had over Canada and most of the American continent. Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there. Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
>America has long had a unique influence over the rest of the Americas while it did not on the rest of the world until very relatively in the postwar period.
So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
>Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there.
Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
>Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
> So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
The U.S. didn't even influence China until the normalization of relations under Nixon, in 1972. Furthermore, the relation was always less unequal between the two, than it was and is between the U.S. and other countries in the Americas.
> Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
European powers have historically been very bad at handling African genocides. Even as recently as the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, France initially supported the government of the Génocidaires, and did not aid the victimized Tutsis. Given Europe's awful track record in this area, it is impossible to say how constructive intervention could be.
> You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
I apologize for underrating your grasp of geography.
BLM is based in the United States, so that reference would not make sense unless you are talking about funding crossing state lines.
> It's a Canada policy, but is specific to crossing the border from the US.
Up until the blockade of the border, it was an internal matter entirely, but you are correct here. If the border situation escalates, then the OAS needs to get involved to mediate a ceasefire and ensure that free and fair elections can take place.
It's a matter of sovereignty who you let in and under what conditions. There are some treaty specifics, but as far as Americans are involved, it's those treaties, and you're free to renegotiate them
if we're gonna start playing by the "if it has nothing to do with your country then keep out of it" rule then it's a great idea to establish this now before the 2024 US elections, ideally before the upcoming midterms as well.
I'm fine with this development as long as we all agree to play by the same rules and remain consistent.
If these protests become an issue for American national security and strategic geopolitical interest then yes NATO should make preparations as in other flashpoints but for now the situation has not yet escalated to such a degree. The U.S. did not intervene during the coup attempt against Erdogan in Turkey in 2016 either.
my post had nothing to do with official government actions or interventions but with the rights of citizens of different countries to sympathize with and donate money to causes outside of their own country. we allowed our cities to burn and lives to be lost to violent summer protests that were funded in part by citizens of other countries. if the general sentiment is that we should not allow this any more, that would be fine with me, but only if such actions are applied equally and unilaterally.
as far as I am aware, no lives have been lost nor businesses destroyed during the current events in Canada.
Your comment evoked the current Ukraine crisis. What do the midterm or general elections in the United States have to do with American citizens sympathizing with and donating money to causes in other countries? That is not an issue that is on the ballot. At least foreign policy is something that is germane to those elections. This is a complete non sequitur.
> At least foreign policy is something that is germane to those elections.
> What do the midterm or general elections in the United States have to do with American citizens sympathizing with and donating money to causes in other countries? That is not an issue that is on the ballot.
why are you quoting yourself to explain how "[my] comment evoked the current Ukraine crisis"? I think we're talking past each other, you really want to connect things to Ukraine and I don't, so I apologize for taking your time.
No apologies necessary, thank you. My point is that you bringing up upcoming elections in the U.S. in the context of discussing the appropriateness of American citizens funding campaigns abroad is a total non sequitur, as it is not a campaign issue. Something such as the Ukraine crisis, in contrast, might actually be a campaign issue, in keeping with your '"if it has nothing to do with your country then keep out of it" rule' reference.
"Ninety percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US" I think in many ways, geographically and culturally, they're closer to Americans than they are to each other. Not that Canadians see it that way.
Not OP (and this shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views), but it's similar to how someone in Nantucket might've donated to groups protesting police in Minneapolis in summer 2020. It's a cause you believe in and you want those fighting for it to keep going, and you may also want that fight to influence others local to you to get more vocal.
So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? Would you feel the same way about oligarchs in Russia or China funding political organizations in the US?
>So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries? Would you feel the same way about oligarchs in Russia or China funding political organizations in the US?
Please don't be so quick to put words into other's mouths and then go after them for something they never said.
Someone asked why another user might want to donate to political causes in another country. I responded, clarified I wasn't OP, then - and this is key - further clarified that my post "shouldn't be considered an endorsement of their donation/views", and then simply posited why someone might want to. See how I said that you shouldn't see my comment as an endorsement of their donation?
Discussing why someone might want to do something is different from arguing whether or not it is right to do so. At no point have I engaged in the latter. They can be lumped into the same conversation, but I haven't done that in this comment chain.
I didn't say you endorsed OPs views. You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
OP is a citizen in one country who donated to a political movement in another country. In discussing the "why" of that, you asked me:
>So you think it's acceptable for citizens in one country to fund political movements in other countries?
That's exactly what OP did. The manner in which you phrase your question, along with your follow up question that assumed my answer to the former would be, "Yes", strongly implies I have endorsed OP's views.
>You said that this was the same as someone in one part of the US funding political action in another part of the US. Apocryphon noted that Canada is a sovereign country and not part of the US. You replied that this didn't change the point of your original post. This implied that you don't see a distinction between funding political activity within your own country and funding political activity in another country and is independent of the OPs political stance.
One part of the US funding political action in another US state; someone in Brazil funding political action in India; someone on the moon funding political action on Venus. The point is that $PERSON1 from $REGION1 may feel that $POLITICALMOVEMENT in $REGION2 holds a lot of views that $PERSON1 strongly believes in, and as such they want to donate to them. This is backed up by OP's response confirming shared views. That's what was asked - why donate to another country? - and all I did was given a reason why, named locales be damned.
Now, I can grant that state-to-state and country-to-country are different things. That said, for the sake of a quick example pulled out of my ass, it worked; you're just unable to see the forest for the trees.
A blockade of the border is a matter of international concern, the occupation of Ottawa is not unless the stability of the regime is in question, which would be of interest to the State Department.
This is normal. The Greek and Spanish civil wars received support from other nations and individuals, up to and including volunteers to fight. Orwell, a Brit, fought in the Spanish Civil War. Homage to Catalonia, good book.
Come on. None other than Justin Trudeau vocally supported the middlemen blocking highways in India against the farming reforms that Indian government passed in parliament. Some self introspection please.
Yeah I found it to be tone deaf when my supposedly progressive software eng colleagues would share videos of lockdown protestors on IG saying F you idiots, as they work their cushy job. A lot of these people were protesting because they want to work, and not be dependent on government handouts.
The truckers were given TWO YEARS to get the jab and they refused to. They only need the jab if they are going into the United States and returning. They can do trucking within Canada without a jab. Also, the United States has imposed a similar mandate on truckers entering the US but I don't see the convoy protest that. 90% of truckers are vaccinated BTW.
What to fear? Some lunatic calling an employer and citing Trudeau to say the donor supports homophobe racists. Its happened with other leaked lists.
Another problem is that, if the Canadian government tightens the screws, the donation might be deemed material support for crime. BS, but I wouldn't trust the Canadian judiciary.
It's not just a run of the mill worker's strike, though, it's tactically ingenious- they were able to put huge pressure on people very quickly without ever needing to get violent or aggressive. Good for them.
Yeah they failed massively at that. There were a few hundred trucks out of around 300,000, and they got denounced by their own unions. Basically the only thing they will do is inconvenience the government who doesn't want to look bad by removing them forcefully.
I thought these protests were negatively affecting working class neighborhoods as well by honking horns during the night? I’m not holding a strong opinion on the subject but it’s kind of silly bias to compare this to blm with your phrasing.
Blacks have been through much much worse for hundreds of years, so the truckers going through troubling times for 2 years doesn’t really justify the comparison.
No person protesting during the BLM riots had "gone through much worse for hundreds of years." The truckers had personally experienced the thing they are protesting against (or would be affected by it going forward).
I can’t tell if this comment is implying African Americans have not experienced racism or negative systemic impacts in their own lifetime.
Or is this just pedantry that an individual can’t live for hundreds of years, and ignoring the actual point of if your parents are uneducated dirt poor then you will likely be uneducated dirt poor. Which is what I’m talking about.
Pedantically, are you suggesting that the people protesting were part of the clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines? If not, then they were given—at most—a year and, more likely, 9–10 months. I also covered that they "would be affected by it going forward."
(I'm not even going to broach the subject of "innocuous jab" at this date. A year ago, that may have been uncontroversial.)
> I thought these protests were negatively affecting working class neighborhoods as well by honking horns during the night?
Truckers aren't burning down neighborhoods or looting small business right now. Yet a good chunk of Americans had no problem with all that US 2 years ago, in the middle of a freaking pandemic. But honking is now where people draw the line?
> Blacks have been through much much worse for hundreds of years, so the truckers going through troubling times for 2 years doesn’t really justify the comparison.
How is truckers struggles any less valid than any other? cause the people demonstrating are white or something?
> How is truckers struggles any less valid than any other?
Far be it from me to downplay the plight of others but it's a vaccine. Literally takes 10 minutes. Every baby in Canada receives a bunch of vaccines on a regular schedule. Many (all?) provinces have laws that state children must be vaccinated before attending school. This is nothing new. Transportation employees that cannot be vaccinated for COVID due to medical contraindication can have a medical exemption.
The truckers see vaccine passports as an oppressive government action, and people getting killed by police officers as no big deal. The BLM protesters see police killings as an oppressive government action, and vaccine passports as no big deal. See the issue here? We as a society need standards for behavior that don't just boil down to "if you think it's justified then you can do whatever you want".
Er, you don't know truckers think people getting killed by police officers is "no big deal". That appears to be something you just made up right now, as there's no obvious way you could possibly know that for sure. Or do you have some specific evidence, like a poll of the truckers on what they thought of BLM last year?
>Er, you don't know truckers think people getting killed by police officers is "no big deal".
I agree that "no big deal" was an overstep, but the argument works fine with "is justified"/"is not justified".
>Or do you have some specific evidence, like a poll of the truckers on what they thought of BLM last year?
Unfortunately not, but based on this poll[1] and demographic factors of truckers (ie. less likely to be college educated, more likely to be republican), it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that most truckers oppose BLM.
If you wanna bring up race, the US and CA black populations have lower rates of vaccination. The truckers want mandates withdrawn. Regardless of their intentions, they're doing a public good which will lend itself to the black population.
> Blacks have been through much much worse for hundreds of years, so the truckers going through troubling times for 2 years doesn’t really justify the comparison.
There’s no way you can objectively back this up. Not to mention you’re saying because some dead people had worse conditions it’s ok to make conditions for the living bad. That type of logic only applies to groups you dislike.
Umm objectively there was slavery and segregation from before the us existed until <70 years ago, which is hundreds of years
I couldn’t follow the logic on the second point, but current generation African Americans were negatively impacted by their great grandparents being slaves - it’s like generational wealth but the opposite.
And where is that lost millions in donations that was supposed to go towards their causes, exactly?
I'm mean first we have those defending hundreds of millions of damage to businesses including black-owned ones and now we have ones defending fraudsters unable to file their financial reports and instead go off with millions worth of donations unaccounted for.
Sounds like a very successful scam executed by the founders to fool lots of people driven by emotion and outrage.
Considering that you live in Austin how do you know the exact nature of the protests? Have you visited? Or is this what you read/saw in media?
It's also interesting how you contrast this to the BLM protests. I'm not sure how long a BLM protest would have been allowed to block a major traffic artery worth the 100s of million $ per day?
>arson, vandalism, and looting between May 26 and June 8 were tabulated to have caused $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally—the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, surpassing the record set during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
"$1-2 billion" from the George Floyd protests is between $70 million and $140 million a day, for 14 days. So that data might help you triangulate an answer to your question of "how long."
I don't mind if it inconvenience the government, but they have severely impacted residential neighbourhoods as well. Others in the movement have blocked commercial traffic across the border, putting people jobs at risk.
Ironically, I think these higher pressure activities will back fire. They could probably find a lot of support for easing restrictions, but destroying people's homes and jobs is not going to make or keep friends.
As you are from Austin, you clearly have no idea that this is just more than bureaucrats but actual people live there. Many and have had to move out of their house as they couldn't sleep. This is honking all nights but also intimidating business owners, people walking by with a mask, verbal harassment, etc. This is all documented.
The people in those protests are also anti-vaxers, while 90% of the population is vaccinated, so they don't represent the working class. The Qanon "Queen of Canada" and all their crazies are there, harassing health care workers. This is very much the 1% of crazies, the working class is extremely irritated by having their health care workers being harassed.
Yeah, well the establishment journalists are doing everything they can to cover for Trudeau. Meanwhile if you really want to be informed you can find tons of livestreams on Youtube from every angle of the protest in Ottawa, 1988 Watchman is good. I've been watching for over a week now and I've seen people helping and feeding each other. Filling the food banks, food banks are declining food donations now. Cleaning the streets. People dancing and singing, kids playing hockey in the streets. It's a big festival and a lot of people are showing up to celebrate and come together. It's inspiring in a time when people are so divided to see joyful people having fun.
By spending much of your comment denigrating other protests (presumably on issues that you care less about), you are doing exactly what you claim to be condemning. Try advocating for the specific laudable goals of your own cause rather than putting others down.
Considering that donations to the truckers were being turned down because the truckers were forming an "occupation", while individuals in the previous occupations (including the aforementioned CHOP and CHAZ) had received funds off the same platform... The composition seems relevant. Especially with all the name calling (that the truckers are forming an insurrection) being done by the same people who either stayed silent on, or actively supported Antifa as they shot explosives into occupied government buildings.
The truckers are on strike. Not really any different than any other worker strike, which socialists would normally fall over themselves supporting. The thing is, it seems, they cannot abide people going on strike against what they view as unjust government action.
GiveSendGo appears to be a Christian crowdfunding platform. Maybe it's nuanced but I am unable to see a Christian connection to the mask mandates or whatever the truckers are protesting.
Might be a good idea to learn what they are protesting, before trying to draw connections between what they are protesting and other things like religion.
It's more about vaccine mandates, but yeah mask mandate (all mandates) in general.
Including specifically for the truckers recent laws that effectively boil down to: either you get vaccinated, and show proof of it, or you lose your job.
It's especially ironic when they argue "their body their choice" w.r.t. vaccines. Then when asked about abortion only the most rational ones will see the parallel.
- Health care workers in Ottawa had to be advised not too wear work wear in the streets to avoid harassment and assault.
- The Canadian Trucking Alliance have stated that between 85 and 90 per cent of truckers are already vaccinated.
- 65% of Canadians think the Freedom Convoy represents a small minority of selfish Canadians. (Leger poll)
- Hate groups spotted among the protesters include the Soldiers of Odin, Three Percenters and followers of the Soltrean hypothesis. I'm sure there are some very fine people among them as well.
- Prominent among the organizers are advocates of the "white genocide" theory.
What do they want? Do we know? Is there a document we can point to, that we know expresses the grievances of the protesters? Of a majority of protesters? Of their supporters?
>As one of the donors included in this hack, I am not entirely sure what they're out to accomplish.
No different than any other cancel culture etc.
>Despite eye-rolling media mischaracterizations of these truckers as you-know-whats, it's a run of the mill workers strike.
This is very important I learnt this weekend. Not to be glossed over.
Trudeau himself attacked the convoy as fringe minority, racists, sexists, and white supremacists. The 'government accredited' media was very fast to show the nazi flag and confederate flags. Conveniently very expensive professional camera gear right there to take pictures.
So what gives? Well what happened? Antivaxxers are unemployed? But who are the antivaxxers? ~50% of black canadians are unwilling to get vaccinated. ~25% of arabic and indian canadians are unwilling. When the average is ~85%. It means whites are above 85%. I didn't know this.
It means Trudeau and the 'government accredited' media who rushed out this narrative that they are white supremacists in fact knew they were disproportionally harming not-whites. That to label this convoy as white supremacist might discourage not-whites from joining. This 1 nazi flag has to be a journalist because the convoy is certainly not white supremacist.
At what point does the 'government accredited' media who pushed this white supremacist narrative get labelled government propaganda?
Despite eye-rolling media mischaracterizations of these truckers as you-know-whats, it's a run of the mill workers strike. It has also been extremely peaceful and frankly comical at times. (We can contrast this with the "fiery yet mostly peaceful protests" of 2020 that negatively affected working class neighborhoods and how that was endorsed as an exercise in contrast. CHAZ, CHOP, etc.)
These workers and people who have to work in meatspace have had their lives impeded for two years now, but because white collar, work-at-home employees are mildly inconvenienced for a week, they're advocating police action against them and calling it an insurrection.
I'm proud to endorse this honkery, and I do not mind if it inconveniences some bureaucrats, as my neighborhood in Austin had police helicopters circling overhead for a week, cars set on fire, many buildings along 6th entirely destroyed, all while employees at my company enjoyed and supported the carnage financially.