The stupidity of the anti-vaxx nutcases

[ItWillNeverWork]

I see IWillNeverLearn is back to call us all fascists again.

It's like watching frogs slowly boiling in water, refusing to jump out because someone said there were toads out there.

 

[spring-peeper]

Yeah but the state needs to clamp down on those uppity plebs doing such awful things as protesting.

No way these emergency powers might at some point be turned against the left. No-sir-ee.

Do you support the protesters?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Do you support the protesters?

Depends which ones and for what reasons.

I support the right of people to protest, whoever they are. I detest mandates, and want to see them challenged at every turn. And I fear the passing of draconian powers to clamp down on peoples' freedoms - powers that will be used again if the government get away with it.

 

[spring-peeper]

Depends which ones and for what reasons.

I support the right of people to protest, whoever they are. I detest mandates, and want to see them challenged at every turn. And I fear the passing of draconian powers to clamp down on peoples' freedoms - powers that will be used again if the government get away with it.

This is the first time that the Emergency Act has been used. Something had to be done with the occupation of the city. It was a major disturbance for the people living in the city. Businesses were forced to close, and residents were afraid of the protesters. Horns blaring at all hours of the day, in spite of a court order being in place to stop the noise for 10 days.

Instead of calling the situation an Emergency, how do you think that the protesters should be made to leave?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I support the right of people to protest, whoever they are. I detest mandates, and want to see them challenged at every turn. And I fear the passing of draconian powers to clamp down on peoples' freedoms - powers that will be used again if the government get away with it.

Interesting then that you appear to have kept quiet on the actions against the policing bill thread. Would have thought you'd have been all over that one.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

This is the first time that the Emergency Act has been used. Something had to be done with the occupation of the city. It was a major disturbance for the people living in the city. Businesses were forced to close, and residents were afraid of the protesters. Horns blaring at all hours of the day, in spite of a court order being in place to stop the noise for 10 days.

Instead of calling the situation an Emergency, how do you think that the protesters should be made to leave?

The police have powers to move people on if necessary. Of course, the government could have just met with the protestors and considered their demands.

A number of local authorities have dropped mandates as a result already. It's just Trudeau and his merry band of snoots, looking down their nose at the smelly truckers, that are refusing to budge.

A law intended for use in a time of war or terrorist activity being deployed against peaceful protest should be unthinkable. Yet here we are seeing it happen in front of our eyes.

From the BBC:

The Emergencies Act outlines four different types of emergencies: public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies. If the legislation is invoked this week, it will likely be under the 'public order' category. Again, the criteria here is strict - lawful protests do not qualify.

Instead, the situation must be considered a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This law outlines four possible scenarios:

Espionage or sabotage
Foreign-influenced activities
Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives
Covert, unlawful acts intended to undermine or overthrow the constitutionally established government

It is so far unclear which scenario Mr Trudeau would rely on to justify the use of the Emergency Act - none of these four scenarios have been clearly present in Ontario.

 

[hitmouse]

Depends which ones and for what reasons.

I support the right of people to protest, whoever they are. I detest mandates, and want to see them challenged at every turn. And I fear the passing of draconian powers to clamp down on peoples' freedoms - powers that will be used again if the government get away with it.

For what it's worth, these are a few articles with a perspective I'm sympathetic to (not saying they're all putting across identical arguments):

Trip Report: Ottawa on Saturday, February 5 – North Shore Counter-Info

north-shore.info

Punch Up Collective: Organizing Against the Occupation of Ottawa – North Shore Counter-Info

north-shore.info

Ill Winds from Ottawa

The anti-mandate protests in Ottawa and across Canada—the various forces vying for control—the threats and opportunities the situation presents.

crimethinc.com

Even assuming my street was relatively quiet, I imagine I would be a little antagonistic in response to sustained honking and people chanting “FREEEEEE-DOM!” whenever I had to go downtown. I suspect, too, that if I were by myself, I probably wouldn’t feel very safe pushing back. This feeling of impotence would make me feel even angrier.


I’m an anarchist, so I would deal with those feelings the way that an anarchist does, but other people might not. Underslept because the Honkening has kept them up, others might go onto Twitter and coin a new word like “Honkening”; they might say “I want to see the same sort of force that is applied against the Wet’suweten protesters applied against these protesters”; they might begin talking to their friends, neighbors, and “allies”... seeking more direct solutions to the problem. As a resident of noisy downtown Montréal, I’m sympathetic to an anti-noise position...

From the reports I’ve heard, it appears that some anarchists are participating in the counter-protests opposing the occupation. But if they are trying to assert anarchist ideas and priorities in doing so, that is not apparent from afar. The dominant current in the counter-protests is settler NIMBYist, not anti-colonial revolutionary. It’s hard to imagine how that could change.

It seems to me that it might be more productive to distinguish ourselves from the NIMBYists too, because their movement is also reactionary according to the Common Cause definition. They too want to go back to the way things were before. Things like this—in the histrionic terms that some people are using, the “insurrection,” “the siege of Ottawa”—aren’t supposed to happen here. Make them all go away! If the police won’t enforce peace and quiet, the citizens must take over the job of the police! The role of the anarchist in this case is not to show up to protests with better signs than the cop lovers. It’s to create a “third side” that is neither pro-police nor pro-occupation, a side rooted in the concerns of locals who are variously pro-revolutionary (against the Canadian state), anti-colonial (for indigenous sovereignty), and against the police.

It is still funny when people who do not live in a country covered by the US Constitution try to quote the US Constitution in court, though.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Interesting then that you appear to have kept quiet on the actions against the policing bill thread. Would have thought you'd have been all over that one.

Well you're wrong on that one.

Emergency powers are being enacted that may never be repealed. The technological infrastructure neccessary for total control over the population is being built. Legislation such as the online harms bill, and the policing bill are being pushed for that will increase the power of the state over the individual. The general mood on both left an right is one of anti-liberty, with free speech being a derisable concept for many. All of these small things added together make me feel like a frog slowely being boiled. Time to jump out.

 

[hitmouse]

The police have powers to move people on if necessary. Of course, the government could have just met with the protestors and considered their demands.

A number of local authorities have dropped mandates as a result already. It's just Trudeau and his merry band of snoots, looking down their nose at the smelly truckers, that are refusing to budge.

A law intended for use in a time of war or terrorist activity being deployed against peaceful protest should be unthinkable. Yet here we are seeing it happen in front of our eyes.

From the BBC:

How do you think the treatment of the convoy compares to the treatment of anti-pipeline protesters?

 

[gosub]

This is the first time that the Emergency Act has been used. Something had to be done with the occupation of the city. It was a major disturbance for the people living in the city. Businesses were forced to close, and residents were afraid of the protesters. Horns blaring at all hours of the day, in spite of a court order being in place to stop the noise for 10 days.

Instead of calling the situation an Emergency, how do you think that the protesters should be made to leave?

Well I probably would have started with meeting them.

Now the protestors have been removed from around Parliament, will Parliament get back to the debate about the emergency powers granted to Mr Trudeau?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Well you're wrong on that one.

I was talking about the thread.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

How do you think the treatment of the convoy compares to the treatment of anti-pipeline protesters?

I'm not Canadian so this is the first I've heard of those protests. From the link you posted it seems like the Canadian government are even worse than I realised. Indigenous rights are also non-negotiable.

 

[DaveCinzano]

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I was talking about the thread.

With the implication being I don't care about the policing bill. Presumably you were insinuating something about my motivations.

My reply is just to show I do oppose the policing bill, making my position in regards to the truckers entirely consistent.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

With the implication being I don't care about the policing bill. Presumably you were insinuating something about my motivations.

My reply is just to show I do oppose the policing bill, making my position in regards to the truckers entirely consistent.

Yeah, but I would have thought that something closer to home would have been a bit more pressing than somewhere you didn't even live.

 

[spring-peeper]

The police have powers to move people on if necessary. Of course, the government could have just met with the protestors and considered their demands.

A number of local authorities have dropped mandates as a result already. It's just Trudeau and his merry band of snoots, looking down their nose at the smelly truckers, that are refusing to budge.

A law intended for use in a time of war or terrorist activity being deployed against peaceful protest should be unthinkable. Yet here we are seeing it happen in front of our eyes.

From the BBC:

Among other things, the protesters wanted the health mandates dropped. Health mandates are a provincial matter. The protesters should have been pressuring their respective provincial governments. Trudeau is federal and has no power to order the provinces to remove their mandates.

Claiming that local authorities have dropped some of the mandates is true. The hospital numbers are going down, so some restrictions are being dropped. The provinces would have been reducing the mandates regardless whether the protesters were occupying the city or not.

Alberta tried to appease the protesters blocking the Canada/US border crossings, but this had little effect on the protesters. They vowed to stay until ALL mandates through out the country were dropped.

You say that the local police force should have been able to handle it. That is not the case, they do not have enough officers. All the local police could do was to try to keep things peaceful. The combined police forces number over 2000.

You are right about the smelly trucks - the trucks had their engines running night and day. And, it was very smelly. The good people of Ottawa deserve to have cleaner air than what they were being subjected to.

From your BBC link
-
Foreign-influenced activities - over half of the money being fed into the protesters were from the States - mostly republicans. Even Trump was calling on Canadians to overthrow the government.

Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives - yeah, there was many instances of that one too. But this response is getting long, so I shall leave it to you to find examples of when this was happening.

 

[spring-peeper]

Well I probably would have started with meeting them.

Now the protestors have been removed from around Parliament, will Parliament get back to the debate about the emergency powers granted to Mr Trudeau?

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

The debate is still ongoing - even on a Sunday. The vote is to take place on Monday night, but Trudeau has enough votes for it to pass.

They did not debate on Saturday due to the policing activities in front of parliment.

 

[gosub]

Among other things, the protesters wanted the health mandates dropped. Health mandates are a provincial matter. The protesters should have been pressuring their respective provincial governments. Trudeau is federal and has no power to order the provinces to remove their mandates.

Claiming that local authorities have dropped some of the mandates is true. The hospital numbers are going down, so some restrictions are being dropped. The provinces would have been reducing the mandates regardless whether the protesters were occupying the city or not.

Alberta tried to appease the protesters blocking the Canada/US border crossings, but this had little effect on the protesters. They vowed to stay until ALL mandates through out the country were dropped.

You say that the local police force should have been able to handle it. That is not the case, they do not have enough officers. All the local police could do was to try to keep things peaceful. The combined police forces number over 2000.

You are right about the smelly trucks - the trucks had their engines running night and day. And, it was very smelly. The good people of Ottawa deserve to have cleaner air than what they were being subjected to.

From your BBC link
-
Foreign-influenced activities - over half of the money being fed into the protesters were from the States - mostly republicans. Even Trump was calling on Canadians to overthrow the government.

Threats or use of acts of serious violence for political, religious or ideological objectives - yeah, there was many instances of that one too. But this response is getting long, so I shall leave it to you to find examples of when this was happening.

Canada's vaccine mandate for cross-border truckers is now in effect Looks like Federal was involved to me

 

[gosub]

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Far easier to redife terrorism

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Wait... what? Tell me that's a joke. You don't actually consider the protestors terrorists, do you?

 

[spring-peeper]

Canada's vaccine mandate for cross-border truckers is now in effect Looks like Federal was involved to me

It really is a mute point.
The truck drivers can not get into the States without being double vaccinated.

The premiers of both Alberta and Saskatchewan have signed a petition demanding that Biden drop the requirement.

The feds have modified their position on cross border travel - you no longer need a negative test to re-enter the country.

 

[spring-peeper]

Wait... what? Tell me that's a joke. You don't actually consider the protestors terrorists, do you?

Yes, I do.

A terrorist is someone who terrorizes.

And the protesters have been terrorizing the citizens of Ottawa, Coutts, and several other cities.

Read that the division between the people of Coutts may never heal.



All because they do not want people to wear masks.


What is your definition of terrorist?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yes, I do.

A terrorist is someone who terrorizes.

And the protesters have been terrorizing the citizens of Ottawa, Coutts, and several other cities.

Read that the division between the people of Coutts may never heal.



All because they do not want people to wear masks.


What is your definition of terrorist?

The dictionary definition seems reasonable: "A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

So not someone making a nuisance of themself by tooting a horn.

 

[gosub]

Yes, I do.

A terrorist is someone who terrorizes.

And the protesters have been terrorizing the citizens of Ottawa, Coutts, and several other cities.

Read that the division between the people of Coutts may never heal.



All because they do not want people to wear masks.


What is your definition of terrorist?

Those charged, like that one up thread have been charged with mischief, not terrorism. And the Rights and Freedoms of Canadian citizens binned in the process.

Over what ? People protesting the notion of people being vacinated against their will

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Maybe we need a global War on Mischief. "Ready the drones, a drunken student has been spotted stealing a traffic cone! It's TERRORISM!!!"

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Yes, I do.

A terrorist is someone who terrorizes.

And the protesters have been terrorizing the citizens of Ottawa, Coutts, and several other cities.

Read that the division between the people of Coutts may never heal.



All because they do not want people to wear masks.


What is your definition of terrorist?

What's your definition, by the way?

 

[keybored]

What's your definition, by the way?

They already told you, second line of the post you quoted.

 

[Yossarian]

Those far-right shitheads were definitely terrorizing the people of Ottawa - beyond the shutting down of part of the city's downtown and keeping people awake all night with horns, there were a lot of hate crimes recorded - protesters drove around the city in pickups intimidating and harassing anybody who was wearing a mask, paying particular attention to women and minorities.

They were, unsurprisingly, embraced by Tucker Carlson and others at Fox News etc., which spread misinformation like a) this was a movement dominated by ordinary truckers, not extremists and b) it's "fascism" when police enforce the law.

The peacetime emergency law being used had been around for nearly 35 years without being used on other protests, including leftwing ones - if those had been leftwing protesters the cops would probably have been a lot less reluctant to do their fucking jobs in the first place.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

They already told you, second line of the post you quoted.

You can't define a word by reference to itself. That's not a definition, it's a tautology

 

[keybored]

You can't define a word by reference to itself. That's not a definition, it's a tautology

Nonsense.