Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Going against my better judgment here, but there is a troubling element about the government using the emergency measures to quell the protests. They could've tried other avenues, and sure didn't seem to. When you have had other protests (for example the rail blockades), the government negotiated and tried to resolve those matters. Why did they jump right to restricting peoples rights here?
For the record, I didn't love the truckers convoy, but I do have concerns about how this was handled. It's kind of a "I might disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" scenario for me.
And as far as characterizing their protests as "illegal occupations", that is what civil disobedience is. It's non-violent protest. Again, their particular message here wasn't mine, but non-violent protest is a big deal. And to be clear, part of that civil disobedience is people getting arrested and detained for those actions. It's basically how things should be functioning in a democracy in my view, but the restriction of rights is something that has to be examined.
|
Bottom line, pretty obvious that regardless of the location of these "protests" numerous laws were broken. From the top down the cops failed to do their jobs. If they had acted to enforce laws within certain time periods we would not be having this discussion. They did not, lost control, blamed others.