undefined | Better HN

0 pointsameminator4y ago0 comments

I think there's difference in what "reasonable" means here, regardless of what the issue is and who is doing it. My argument is that there must be some form of protest that is always legal (even if not sanctioned by the government) and that minimal form of protest must be public. That no restrictions can be reasonable on this minimal form of protest.

All the people who are cheering this emergency powers move, have not made clear to me why this particular protest has surpassed that point outside of noise issues in private (and non-public) areas (which I do understand are difficult).

0 comments

AnimalMuppet4y ago

"Minimal" and "block important roads for weeks" don't intersect, in my view.

Nobody said they can't protest. Nobody invoked the Emergencies Act when they initially blocked the roads. When they remained blocked for a week, still nobody invoked the Emergencies Act.

Minimal protest? Sure, absolutely that should be allowed. Nobody's making it not allowed. But "minimal" isn't where these protest are, and they haven't been for a while.

dane-pgp4y ago

It's nice that the government gave them permission to protest for a week, sure. For comparison, though, the Tiananmen Square protests lasted over a month before Beijing invoked their equivalent of the Emergencies Act. According to the Wikipedia article:

> The protests started on 15 April and were forcibly suppressed on 4 June when the government declared martial law and sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing.

mmastrac4y ago

The protests have been going on longer than that. The judicial injunctions have been violated for more than a week, however, and the protesters continue to violate them and the police continue not enforcing them. That is the reason we have escalated to the next step (for which Trudeau will pay at least some political price for).

Why bring up Tiananmen Square when this is Canada? We have plenty of comparable protests.

1 more reply

mmastrac4y ago

The inability or unwillingness of the Ottawa police force to enforce the court-ordered injunction, and the additional inability or unwillingness of other provinces - like Alberta - from re-opening the border is the reason for this.

If the protests were in-person, not causing major, disproportionate interference with the Canadian economy and all injunctions were being both obeyed and enforced, there would be no need for this act.

The rule of law is breaking down and this is required to ensure that the fabric of Canadian society does not deteriorate.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsameminator4y ago0 comments

0 comments

AnimalMuppet4y ago

"Minimal" and "block important roads for weeks" don't intersect, in my view.

Nobody said they can't protest. Nobody invoked the Emergencies Act when they initially blocked the roads. When they remained blocked for a week, still nobody invoked the Emergencies Act.

Minimal protest? Sure, absolutely that should be allowed. Nobody's making it not allowed. But "minimal" isn't where these protest are, and they haven't been for a while.

dane-pgp4y ago

> The protests started on 15 April and were forcibly suppressed on 4 June when the government declared martial law and sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing.

mmastrac4y ago

Why bring up Tiananmen Square when this is Canada? We have plenty of comparable protests.

1 more reply

mmastrac4y ago

The rule of law is breaking down and this is required to ensure that the fabric of Canadian society does not deteriorate.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse