Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are you doing something illegal in the act of your protest? That's an illegal protest. There were no shortage of illegal acts taking place in Ottawa and at our borders. They were given plenty of leeway. So much so that the police backed themselves into a corner they couldn't get out of.

I think... I hope... you would agree that this is always a fine line in a free and democratic society.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sigh, OK LEGAL protest.

This is a meaningless statement. The protests in China that are the subject of this discussion are "illegal" because the government of that country has made them so. It's not about legality and illegality, it's about where a society should draw the line. There's no obvious answer to that question in the abstract, and even in real world situations it's pretty debatable.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think... I hope... you would agree that this is always a fine line in a free and democratic society.

Absolutely. But after a few days of non stop horn honking, you've made your point. EVERYONE heard you.

I mean, even in Calgary people put up with those muppets marching down 17th ave every Saturday. Nobody liked it, but for the first few months they put up with it, being a protest and all. But after months and months the city finally had to step in and restrict where they could go, for the sanity of everyone else. It's a balance. Your right to protest doesn't squash everyone else's rights.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is a meaningless statement. The protests in China that are the subject of this discussion are "illegal" because the government of that country has made them so. It's not about legality and illegality, it's about where a society should draw the line. There's no obvious answer to that question in the abstract, and even in real world situations it's pretty debatable.

I think it's a bit different in authoritarian countries that don't have other methods of redress. These people are literally putting their lives on the line for their rights, which was not the case in Canada. We just had an election that re-affirmed the Liberals as the government, and these clowns showed up to alter that election result. We have other means of redress in Canada, other routes to take. They don't in China.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Absolutely. But after a few days of non stop horn honking, you've made your point. EVERYONE heard you.

I mean, even in Calgary people put up with those muppets marching down 17th ave every Saturday. Nobody liked it, but for the first few months they put up with it, being a protest and all. But after months and months the city finally had to step in and restrict where they could go, for the sanity of everyone else. It's a balance. Your right to protest doesn't squash everyone else's rights.

It kind of does. It’s a balance between section 2 and section 7 of the charter and which one supersedes which in which situation. And the interpretation of “peaceful” in “peaceful assembly”

[FlamesAddiction]

The convoy wasn't really a protest. The was a fringe group representing a minority of people whose stated goal was to make life painful for people until they could reverse the public health policy of a democratically elected government.

Protesting or demonstrating to show your discontent is fine, and they were allowed to do that for several weeks. A minority trying to impose dictatorial control over the government is not OK however.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think it's a bit different in authoritarian countries that don't have other methods of redress. These people are literally putting their lives on the line for their rights, which was not the case in Canada. We just had an election that re-affirmed the Liberals as the government, and these clowns showed up to alter that election result. We have other means of redress in Canada, other routes to take. They don't in China.

They have other means in China, too - there is in fact a legal system there. It's simply not like ours - doesn't adhere to the same principles. But that's true the world over; if you go to France, which obviously isn't an authoritarian country, the line for what protest activity is going to get you thrown in prison is very different from here. Same for Brazil - say what you will about the outgoing Bolsonaro regime, but it's a very different country from China, and again, totally different standards.

We do not necessarily have the line right in the perfect spot in this country any more than anywhere else does and it's silly to say "well we're not an authoritarian country so any illegal protest here is clearly wrong". This isn't a discussion with obvious answers... And that's coming from someone who was largely okay with breaking up all the convoy protests and throwing certain individuals involved in them in jail, erring on the side of certainty and predictability and the rule of law. Your whole approach to this just seems way too simplistic.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The convoy wasn't really a protest. The was a fringe group representing a minority of people whose stated goal was to make life painful for people until they could reverse the public health policy of a democratically elected government.

This is hilarious because the second sentence perfectly describes.... a protest.

[Monahammer]

CHL is right, both are/were indeed protests, I am not sure how you could define the convoy as otherwise.

Now, what it did do was the opposite of what it intended IMO, and so you can say it was an abject failure. It just caused the majority of Canadians who previously were largely apathetic about the issue to turn violently acerbic against the protestors because their methods were stupidly obtuse. It was not a successful protest because they forgot that the first rule to sustaining any campaign of influence is to build allies. They sucked at building allies and always intended on widening the gulf. Foolish!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It just caused the majority of Canadians who previously were largely apathetic about the issue to turn violently acerbic against the protestors because their methods were stupidly obtuse.

That's the case for a lot of protests... remember Occupy Wall Street?

Although, in this case, I'm not sure it really turned anyone against them - I think most of the country was against them before they even started, especially in the cities. I'm not even sure if you'd asked most of the convoy people "do you actually think doing this will convince anyone you're right" that they would have said "yes". Although I'm sure there were some who were actually that stupid and delusional given that the level of rationality and intellect among those people was, I assume, pretty low.

[belsarius]

So what I have gleaned from the last few pages is that anything against the government is a protest. Wiebo Ludwig for example was a protestor who happened to break a law, but his right to express himself by blowing up pipelines is protected under 2(b). If I want to go beat the #### out of PP, I may break some laws, but really I should be reported on as a protestor.



Ohhhhh, but then when I actually look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I see that 2(b) is not protected if the method of expression includes violence, or the threat of violence. So really, burning down parliament, or torturing people for weeks by depriving them of sleep both aren't protected under 2(b) at all.. Plus all this defining what a "protest" is, is entirely useless because no one in Canada has the "right to protest" they have the right to express themselves non-violently 2(b) and peacefully assemble 2(c).

So sure, we can call the Convoy a "Protest" all day long, but regardless of what it is called, it was not a protected right once it started harming others (Ottawa) or threatening to harm others (Coutts). Peace Bridge looks good though, no different from when ER blocks bridges - except the police actually deal with them.

[Locke]

What happened in here? Jesus guys...

[Fuzz]

I think we are having a reasonable discussion about protests and the rights and challenges involved with balancing them. Is that bad?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

So what I have gleaned from the last few pages is that anything against the government is a protest. Wiebo Ludwig for example was a protestor who happened to break a law, but his right to express himself by blowing up pipelines is protected under 2(b). If I want to go beat the #### out of PP, I may break some laws, but really I should be reported on as a protestor.



Ohhhhh, but then when I actually look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I see that 2(b) is not protected if the method of expression includes violence, or the threat of violence. So really, burning down parliament, or torturing people for weeks by depriving them of sleep both aren't protected under 2(b) at all.. Plus all this defining what a "protest" is, is entirely useless because no one in Canada has the "right to protest" they have the right to express themselves non-violently 2(b) and peacefully assemble 2(c).

So sure, we can call the Convoy a "Protest" all day long, but regardless of what it is called, it was not a protected right once it started harming others (Ottawa) or threatening to harm others (Coutts). Peace Bridge looks good though, no different from when ER blocks bridges - except the police actually deal with them.

What harming others are we talking about in Ottawa? Is this still about horns honking?

[Yamer]

I have difficulty recognizing the convoy as a protest for a few reasons, but most importantly is that a not insignificant portion of the movement made it clear they weren't going to leave until the democratically elected federal government were usurped in favor of some kind of frankensteined coalition of the stupid. They were pretty open that they intended it to be an occupation from the start.

Now, of course not every participant supported or perhaps were even aware of Canada Unity's MOU, but it existed well before the event regardless. Pat King and his ilk were advocating violence on the road to Ottawa and others were spouting nonsense about Nuremberg 2.0.

Anyone who didn't think they were going to be there for the long haul was naïve or lying to cover their asses after the fact. They told us what they were going to do and, essentially, they did it.

[Monahammer]

There was definitely material harm caused to the sanity of Ottawa's population, but if you're looking for economic pain as an example you just have to go visit downtown Ottawa. Place is a total ghost town/ ####show still. It was definitely damaged by this protest (not physically necessarily, but visit and you will understand.)

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I have difficulty recognizing the convoy as a protest for a few reasons, but most importantly is that a not insignificant portion of the movement made it clear they weren't going to leave until the democratically elected federal government were usurped in favor of some kind of frankensteined coalition of the stupid. They were pretty open that they intended it to be an occupation from the start.

Now, of course not every participant supported or perhaps were even aware of Canada Unity's MOU, but it existed well before the event regardless. Pat King and his ilk were advocating violence on the road to Ottawa and others were spouting nonsense about Nuremberg 2.0.

Anyone who didn't think they were going to be there for the long haul was naïve or lying to cover their asses after the fact. They told us what they were going to do and, essentially, they did it.

An occupation is just a form of protest. Everyone was piling on CHL for being pedantic but this is pedantry. They were protesting. Agree or disagree with their methods, level of success, intentions, whatever. But it was a protest.

Now, I think that many of them deserve large fines or potentially belong in Prison (Dildo for example) but they were protesting.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm actually not sure if there was a court ruling that blowing up pipelines wouldn't be protected by 2(b). As long as no one was around to get hurt, it wouldn't seem to be the violence / threats of violence standard from Irwin Toy / Dolphin Delivery. I'm not sure if there's a ruling to the contrary - just because I haven't seen it obviously doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course.

The attempt to exclude people you don't like from protection by the constitution is an awful instinct and it's not at all surprising to see Belisarius be one of the people who's engaged in that sort of behaviour - there's a reason I have him on ignore. There are a lot of people who do a lot worse things than those convoy people who are afforded 2(b) protection for their expression. Everyone has to play by the same rules - if you want to legally sanction the convoy participants, organizers, whoever, you need to be onside section 1. And in my view, that's a bar that shouldn't be that tough to clear here.

Originally Posted by Yamer

I have difficulty recognizing the convoy as a protest for a few reasons, but most importantly is that a not insignificant portion of the movement made it clear they weren't going to leave until the democratically elected federal government were usurped in favor of some kind of frankensteined coalition of the stupid. They were pretty open that they intended it to be an occupation from the start.

Removing a democratically elected government - provided you're doing it by demanding the government step down and not by running in there with weapons - is a perfectly valid aim of a political protest. It's politically motivated by definition. It's very obviously stupid - they were trying to accomplish something idiotic by means that would never work for reasons that make no sense - but a stupid political protest is still a political protest.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

An occupation is just a form of protest. Everyone was piling on CHL for being pedantic but this is pedantry. They were protesting. Agree or disagree with their methods, level of success, intentions, whatever. But it was a protest.

Now, I think that many of them deserve large fines or potentially belong in Prison (Dildo for example) but they were protesting.

Call it pedantry if you want, but I distinguish sedition from protest.

EDIT: I should clarify a bit - sedition that attempts to undermine a stable democracy. Asking for leadership resignation is certainly a form of protest, but demanding a disregard and ultimate dismantling of the democratic process puts me off my feed.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Slava

What harming others are we talking about in Ottawa? Is this still about horns honking?

1. The right to the quiet enjoyment of one's property, in the case of nearby residents?

2. The negative affect on nearby businesses

3. The potential threat of crowd violence, fires, explosions etc.

4. The impeding of normal traffic

5. The wasting of the public's time, money and effort, that could be used for more productive means

6. Etc.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Call it pedantry if you want, but I distinguish sedition from protest.

Suppose someone wanted to stand outside Calgary city hall holding a sign that says "Sean Chu must resign", and accosting everyone who enters the building repeatedly yelling, "Sean Chu must resign" at them. Would that not be protected political expression to you? I mean they're trying to get a democratically elected government official removed from their post. I don't see the difference in principle.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

1. The right to the quiet enjoyment of one's property, in the case of nearby residents?

2. The negative affect on nearby businesses

3. The potential threat of crowd violence, fires, explosions etc.

4. The impeding of normal traffic

5. The wasting of the public's time, money and effort, that could be used for more productive means

6. Etc.

Again, unless the explosions are actually happening / threatening to happen and have the potential to hurt people, none of these would fall within what was being referenced as far as "threats of violence or acts of violence" by the SCC in Irwin Toy. All the rest of it you can do to your heart's content and still be engaged in protected expression. To reiterate: being engaged in protected expression does not mean you cannot be arrested.

People really need to have a better understanding of how far their civil rights actually go in this country.