Federal Government & Politics II

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The sad part of it all is a lot of it could have been avoided if, instead of calling the people a fringe minority and went off in hiding cause he conveniently came down with COVID, the leader of the country could have had dialogue and make it at least seem like he gave a F… but, the convoy is what we got cause we had complete lack of true leadership…. A bunch of horns and persistent exhaust from semi-trucks? Yuppppp… better implement the War Measures Act… lol. Go Libs Go!!

It was a measure enforced by the United States, which has sovereignty over its borders. The initial convoy movement was created to protest vaccine mandates for crossing the United States border, but later evolved into a protest about COVID-19 mandates in general. Of the 120,000 Canadian licensed truck drivers who regularly serve cross-border routes, approximately 85 per cent were vaccinated against COVID-19 by January, leaving up to 16,000 Canadian truckers potentially affected by the restriction (why didn't they just roll up their sleeves and take the shot, like the rest of us had too? pussies?).

Interestingly enough, the convoy was condemned by trucking industry and labour groups. The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that most protesters had no connection to trucking.

the karen konvoy was a convenient way for anti-government types, and people pissed off about the pandemic and its associated restrictions (join the f*cking club, everyone was sick and tired of the pandemic and its associated restrictions) to vent their rage, and the movement appealed especially to people who didn't want to do their part (not to mention, more than a few far-right wingnuts and white nationalists).

Next time, why not invite the Konvoy to completely surround your neighbourhood for weeks on end, with their BBQs and bouncy castles, blasting their horns 24-7 and filling your lungs with pipeline odour.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by thewave46

One can disagree with the Convoy's tactics and goals and still think government had overreached with respect to its response to COVID in 2022.

....

Great post in it's entirety and summed up a lot of my feelings on the issue. It's not as black and white as has been portrayed many times in this thread (on both sides of the equation).

Originally Posted by kool maudit

The thing about civil disobedience is that it's disobedient. It's outside the law. Obviously it's friend/enemy all the way down and you ideally want the state's response to corrode its image and legitimacy (you also want as much lenience as you can get to go as far as you can), but there's no point trying to crowd the middle and be like "actually we were very orderly so this is allowed".

Also a very important point. And a big part of the reason I was hesitant to cast too much shade on the convoy types despite any personal feelings towards them. Very few movements have achieved material goals through middle of the road "consensus" making. We're probably a bit lazy in this respect in Canada since some of our recent social movements (gay rights for example) were reached in a fairly boring manner. In the broader sense this is pretty ahistorical though.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

He was angry and militant about a lot of things. Some of which was not touched even by the extremely light media coverage

I've seen a fair bit of media coverage (mostly Alberta based), but you are absolutely correct that it was on the lighter side considering his actions.

I suspect this is because his ideologies were pretty incoherent and all over the place rather than fitting any one narrative. One of the articles I read referred to "salad bar extremism" - which I admit is a new one to me. Seems like someone who had a mental breakdown for any number of reasons and picked and chose various grievances from a broad array of issues.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

It was a measure enforced by the United States, which has sovereignty over its borders. The initial convoy movement was created to protest vaccine mandates for crossing the United States border, but later evolved into a protest about COVID-19 mandates in general. Of the 120,000 Canadian licensed truck drivers who regularly serve cross-border routes, approximately 85 per cent were vaccinated against COVID-19 by January, leaving up to 16,000 Canadian truckers potentially affected by the restriction (why didn't they just roll up their sleeves and take the shot, like the rest of us had too? pussies?).

Interestingly enough, the convoy was condemned by trucking industry and labour groups. The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that most protesters had no connection to trucking.

the karen konvoy was a convenient way for anti-government types, and people pissed off about the pandemic and its associated restrictions (join the f*cking club, everyone was sick and tired of the pandemic and its associated restrictions) to vent their rage, and the movement appealed especially to people who didn't want to do their part (not to mention, more than a few far-right wingnuts and white nationalists).

Next time, why not invite the Konvoy to completely surround your neighbourhood for weeks on end, with their BBQs and bouncy castles, blasting their horns 24-7 and filling your lungs with pipeline odour.

Same crowd as "United we roll". And they tried several times before COVID to get traction with their anti-government message. It wasn't until COVID that they found sympathy. Lots of retconning going on about their history.

Originally Posted by niwell

Great post in it's entirety and summed up a lot of my feelings on the issue. It's not as black and white as has been portrayed many times in this thread (on both sides of the equation).




Also a very important point. And a big part of the reason I was hesitant to cast too much shade on the convoy types despite any personal feelings towards them. Very few movements have achieved material goals through middle of the road "consensus" making. We're probably a bit lazy in this respect in Canada since some of our recent social movements (gay rights for example) were reached in a fairly boring manner. In the broader sense this is pretty ahistorical though.

It's very romantic to say that protests have to be allowed to inconvenience people. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Or are we going to allow every group with a grievance to shut down the capital and block border crossings? Just imagine if this weekend, a bunch of Palestine sympathizers decide to do exactly what the Convoy did. I wonder how many Convoy apologists would be arguing that it's perfectly acceptable. Your right to protest should end at the basic functioning of society and safe enjoyment of one's residence.

I still remember when the Tamil protests shut down the Transitway in Ottawa and the Gardiner in Toronto. I had the same opinion on their tactics as I do the Convoy.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by casper

If you compare the response between environment or indigenous rights protests with the convoy it is night and day. The convoy protestors were given far more latitude to infringe the rights of others than they should have.

Yes it is sad. The convoy organizers could have delivered there message without any of that disruption.

The double standard is false. This was a larger protest than most others but we have had hands off to many protests. Indigenous have made small protests that made life just as difficult for small groups of Canadians for decades. Environmental activists have blocked legal activity with multiple court orders needed. Frankly had thousands of them every been committed to blocking something it would have been just as intractable.

It was a very peaceful protest and the manual on that says let it fizzle out. We have learned our lesson on that and I think we are better for it. Post 2025 election when we see large changes in government policy on many issues the idea that Climate change protesters will be able to stop that by shutting down X highway or city etc. is off the table. Of course we will see double hypocrisy when this happens. We see it a bit with the Palestinian protestors though they have been the most part very lawful and respectful though still disruptful if you live downtown where they shut things down every weekend for months.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's very romantic to say that protests have to be allowed to inconvenience people. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Or are we going to allow every group with a grievance to shut down the capital and block border crossings? Just imagine if this weekend, a bunch of Palestine sympathizers decide to do exactly what the Convoy did. I wonder how many Convoy apologists would be arguing that its perfectly acceptable. Your right to protest should end at the basic functioning of society and safe enjoyment of one's residence.

To be clear I think it was handled quite badly and should have been broken up much earlier than it was.

As to your point above, a friend of ours is a cop in Ottawa and actually lives in Westboro which he's pointed out makes him in the minority of coworkers. He'd been promoted to the Homicide Unit shortly before the convoy and has said he's extremely lucky to not have been involved. Many of his coworkers were supportive and he didn't want to have to deal with that. And has just become disillusioned with that type of policing.

Related - an extremely sketchy bar (with potential organized crime ties) near us in Parkdale blacked out it's windows during COVID and TPS officers were frequent after-hours patrons during lockdowns. I know this because friends own the bar next door (followed the rules even if they didn't like it) and had to deal with a lot of shit during this time.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Same crowd as "United we roll". And they tried several times before COVID to get traction with their anti-government message. It wasn't until COVID that they found sympathy. Lots of retconning going on about their history.



It's very romantic to say that protests have to be allowed to inconvenience people. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Or are we going to allow every group with a grievance to shut down the capital and block border crossings? Just imagine if this weekend, a bunch of Palestine sympathizers decide to do exactly what the Convoy did. I wonder how many Convoy apologists would be arguing that it's perfectly acceptable. Your right to protest should end at the basic functioning of society and safe enjoyment of one's residence.

I still remember when the Tamil protests shut down the Transitway in Ottawa and the Gardiner in Toronto. I had the same opinion on their tactics as I do the Convoy.

I admittedly don't have the answer to any of this and am torn on the issue but one legitimate question is of course what is the use of protesting if it's not going to be disruptive?

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

It was a measure enforced by the United States, which has sovereignty over its borders. The initial convoy movement was created to protest vaccine mandates for crossing the United States border, but later evolved into a protest about COVID-19 mandates in general. Of the 120,000 Canadian licensed truck drivers who regularly serve cross-border routes, approximately 85 per cent were vaccinated against COVID-19 by January, leaving up to 16,000 Canadian truckers potentially affected by the restriction (why didn't they just roll up their sleeves and take the shot, like the rest of us had too? pussies?).

Interestingly enough, the convoy was condemned by trucking industry and labour groups. The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that most protesters had no connection to trucking.

the karen konvoy was a convenient way for anti-government types, and people pissed off about the pandemic and its associated restrictions (join the f*cking club, everyone was sick and tired of the pandemic and its associated restrictions) to vent their rage, and the movement appealed especially to people who didn't want to do their part (not to mention, more than a few far-right wingnuts and white nationalists).

Next time, why not invite the Konvoy to completely surround your neighbourhood for weeks on end, with their BBQs and bouncy castles, blasting their horns 24-7 and filling your lungs with pipeline odour.

Just to be clear, I’m not a supporter of the convoy. But if that were in my neighbourhood and on such a national scale, I’d fuckin expect the leader of my country to show some sort of leadership in some way rather than calling the group a bunch of fringe minorities, which further stoked the already out of control flames, then went into hiding like a little fuckin coward. Talk about weak weak weak f’n leadership.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I admittedly don't have the answer to any of this and am torn on the issue but one legitimate question is of course what is the use of protesting if it's not going to be disruptive?

A protest can be disruptive without depriving enjoyment of personal property or substantially shutting down parts of a city. For example, we see striking employees do this all the time by holding each car for 15s. Honestly, I think the Convoy crossed the line when they kept the honking up to purposely push sleep deprivation. I'm not even exaggerating when I say this is a technique that we are exposed to on our "Conduct after capture" and interrogation courses in the military. I don't consider it acceptable at all to allow thousands of residents of a city to be subjected to this. There's a lot I would have let slide. But when people feel they have to leave their homes, for the sake of their sanity, that's the line.

A broader point that bothers me are the double standards people have where their cause justifies all kinds of behaviour that they would never accept from a cause they disagree with. Think of a cause you absolutely disagree with. Think of what you'd tolerate from them. That should be the bar you hold your team to.

[Hawrylyshyn]

I think it's important to acknowledge that there were almost two different "parts" of the protest -- the first part, which I consider as the initial, had significant more of the general population who were not extremists by any measure and were truly there with good intentions.

The majority of issues that are used to argue against the protest stem from their over-extended stay when more of the moderate/regular folk left. I think it's important not to conflate these two "parts".

If it had only lasted a 2-3 days (that initial weekend) I don't think anyone would be talking about it right now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

I think it's important to acknowledge that there were almost two different "parts" of the protest -- the first part, which I consider as the initial, had significant more of the general population who were not extremists by any measure and were truly there with good intentions.

The majority of issues that are used to argue against the protest stem from their over-extended stay when more of the moderate/regular folk left. I think it's important not to conflate these two "parts".

If it had only lasted a 2-3 days (that initial weekend) I don't think anyone would be talking about it right now.

Viewed from across the river from Ottawa, this is not how I saw it.

The initial convoy was an angry almost subversive thing with illusory designs of replacing Justin Trudeau's government with another. Probably the CPC I suppose.

This was the core.

As it gained steam these people were joined by the average joes, many of whom were in fact "partiers" tired of being cooped up for two years.

Then this part of the protest fizzled out and you were left with core of truckers again, and this is when it got broken up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The sad part of it all is a lot of it could have been avoided if, instead of calling the people a fringe minority and went off in hiding cause he conveniently came down with COVID, the leader of the country could have had dialogue and make it at least seem like he gave a F… but, the convoy is what we got cause we had complete lack of true leadership…. A bunch of horns and persistent exhaust from semi-trucks? Yuppppp… better implement the War Measures Act… lol. Go Libs Go!!

The PM shouldn't meet with protest leaders. What a terrible precedent.

And you're dreaming in technicolor if you think they'd leave peacefully after a brief chat.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The PM shouldn't meet with protest leaders. What a terrible precedent.

And you're dreaming in technicolor if you think they'd leave peacefully after a brief chat.

What was the benefit of forcing cross-border truckers to get vaccinated?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

What was the benefit of forcing cross-border truckers to get vaccinated?

Ask the United States.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The PM shouldn't meet with protest leaders. What a terrible precedent.

And you're dreaming in technicolor if you think they'd leave peacefully after a brief chat.

I agree with you that the PM himself should not have met with them, but have you ever heard of the term "backchannel"? Apparently none of this took place with the convoy whereas you'd expect it to be standard operating procedures in such situations.

Does anyone seriously think that no one representing government is talking to the farmers in Germany and France right now?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Ask the United States.

We had the same rule. Answer the question.

What was the benefit of forcing cross-border truckers to get vaccinated?

[lio45]

My top lasting memory of this whole Convoy business is that the Ottawa Police Chief acted way too sloly

I’ll leave it to the Courts to figure out the rest

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I agree with you that the PM himself should not have met with them, but have you ever heard of the term "backchannel"? Apparently none of this took place with the convoy whereas you'd expect it to be standard operating procedures in such situations.

Does anyone seriously think that no one representing government is talking to the farmers in Germany and France right now?

I would imagine the convoy organizers and leaders to be far too ignorant to understand how this works. They were quoting the US Constitution among other foolishness.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Build.It

We had the same rule. Answer the question.

What was the benefit of forcing cross-border truckers to get vaccinated?

That was not the restriction. It was a restriction on all non-vaccinated foreigners entering the US. The intention was to slow the spread of new variants. Did it achieve that goal? Perhaps.

Canada had a similar restriction and our government dropped it much earlier than the US as most of the population had been vaccinated, and the demands on our hospital system had become less critical.

Should truckers have been a special case and treated differently? Perhaps. However the trucker associations and the major transport companies were not asking for that.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Build.It

We had the same rule. Answer the question.

What was the benefit of forcing cross-border truckers to get vaccinated?

Maybe ask yourself what the point of vaccination in general is?