Some of the stuff I’ve read about with this protest crosses a line where I don’t care who they are. They could be pro-pedophilia protestors and it wouldn’t matter. Arbitrarily depriving people of core services like banking without due process is not okay, especially since fighting it costs money. This is why abolishing debtors prison was a huge issue in the American revolution and public defenders are a required part of a fair judicial system.
The author obviously has their biases and compares it to social network deplatforming. I don’t think those are comparable at all. Being “debanked” is a whole different level. That’s something I consider a line. It has nothing to do with who is being targeted. Today it might be right wingers but tomorrow it could be black activists or people trying to unionize.
We have had stuff like this in the US applied piecemeal in the area of civil asset forfeiture, usually related to suspicion of drug crimes. That’s been a civil liberties tire fire for decades. Now imagine it being done on a mass scale. That is truly scary.
Could someone help me to understand why these moves are justified, but similar moves were not justified during the protests of 2020/2021? Because it really kind of seems like blatant political bias, like I'm allowed to protest but you aren't. I'm not too familiar with the details of these Canada protests so maybe there's some major catalyst that I'm overlooking here.
First, you need a permit. To get that permit, you need to arrange for policing and cleanup if it is on public property or property not owned by the protest members. You can protest at your place of employment where it is all covered under yours and your work's insurance. There are other situations taken into account like that.
None of this was done. Instead the convoy was harassing citizens by excessive loud noise (horns and yelling, etc) starting at 6 AM every day, and goading them on just for wearing masks etc, and had no intention of leaving until Trudeau left office and the mandates were lifted. Neither of those were ever going to happen, so this endless illegal protest would be going on until the mandates are lifted as already scheduled. They were also blocking the border bridges, which is illegal regardless of the protest. And telling people to drive their trucks to block the traffic is also illegal (counseling to commit a crime). Laws were being ignored left right and centre.
This is all very different than what a legal protest looks like.
Sure, I’d like to disagree with you on your main point and get your thoughts on whether legal protest can be effective and applicable in all reasonable cases. Like this one.
But instead of doing that, I’ll ask a question: were the BLM protests in 20/21 in the USA/Canada legally sanctioned? And if they were, did they not widely violate those sanctions?
This was a peaceful protest at the end of the day. It wasn’t legal, but when you’re protesting the removal of freedoms due to a lockdown that is itself the object of your grievance, I’m not sure they could secure the means to legally protest at scale.
> neither of those were going to happen?
I believe 6 provinces have lightened or removed their COVID mandates as a consequence of the Freedom Convoy, is this not so?
> I believe 6 provinces have lightened or removed their COVID mandates as a consequence of the Freedom Convoy, is this not so?
It's not so. I saw that Fox has been saying that, but Ontario had it already planned well before the convoy. Same with the other provinces, each to differing degrees.
Seeing the system in France, never ending protests, hostage of public services for ever-growing unjustified demands, yellow jackets malaise, general socioeconomic dysfunction, etc I am convinced Trudeau is doing the right thing.
Blocking the streets or vandalizing the public is not the right way to make a point, if you have any.
What did these protestors do that qualifies as "vandalizing the public"? Also, would you support outlawing BLM, since they've blocked the streets on multiple occasions?
They did a lot more than block the streets. A full year of constant riots, looting, burning down buildings and just this week in Louisville they paid 100k bail to release "activist" who walked into the office of a Jewish mayoral candidate and tried to shoot him point blank.
No they aren’t. Personal interaction at local scale is entirely different from an algorithm classifying you as untouchable because you match a filter. These are not the same thing at all.
The article does not describe a digital social credit system though?...
They are complaining about bank account freezes.
This has nothing to do about a social credit system. It has to do with the perverse relationship between the government, the bank, and the individual. We already know the solution to this problem.
I won't continue further because it's all very socially delicate, and I would prefer the discussion happen over something more ephemeral.
Take this comment as not an opinion, but an observation. I could be incredibly wrong.
Historically, wouldn't society just use visuals to identify if you're in a broad class such as the peasant or slave class? And all individuality would be subsumed under that.
The author obviously has their biases and compares it to social network deplatforming. I don’t think those are comparable at all. Being “debanked” is a whole different level. That’s something I consider a line. It has nothing to do with who is being targeted. Today it might be right wingers but tomorrow it could be black activists or people trying to unionize.
We have had stuff like this in the US applied piecemeal in the area of civil asset forfeiture, usually related to suspicion of drug crimes. That’s been a civil liberties tire fire for decades. Now imagine it being done on a mass scale. That is truly scary.