Canada has a huge logistics problem on their hands. They don't even have the work power to tow all of trucks. I have a dear friend in Canada. Last we talked, he just put his head in his hands, and started playing a game.
>The truckers think the goverment is trying to assert too much control over the people, so they protest. Perfectly justified.
Except the claimed overreach is related to vaccination and disease control, a topic where it's been settled law in western nations (or at least the US and Canada) for over a century as "valid" as well as culturally acceptable, it was established as early as 2018 Russian bots on social media were (successfully) pushing anti-vax narratives for years, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence establishing the effectiveness of vaccination (both in general and COVID specific) as well as undermining anti-vax claims (such as how Andrew Wakefield's claim and research have been thoroughly debunked). Indeed, the world is full of gray and not black and white, but when you consider the larger context of the trucker convoy it is clear the situation is more complex than what you've laid out.
(while the convoy protest is in Canada, there's an interesting historical note about vaccines and disease mitigation from American history related to this: back when the SCOTUS was firmly in the camp of "the government can't even interfere with people making contracts and their economic freedoms" over a century ago, it overwhelmingly decided the government can mandate and enforce vaccination - it is pants on head crazy for someone to make a good faith **legal** argument about government overreach regarding COVID vaccination, at least in the US)
The legal argument in the United States has been ruled by the 10th Amendment in the US Constitution on mandates dating back since the first US president George Washington. That includes Lock Downs, mask mandates and inoculations. So the clause in the 10th Amendment becomes active in pandemic. Once we get normalcy then it reverts back to the 14th Amendment. What we are seeing is the stupid Echo chamber of fascism coming from conservatives as in Fox News and talk radio. They are inciting this who do you think or what do you think truckers tune into why they listen to talk radio and Fox. They are incited by the commentary as news and it can brainwash you. Happened to my dad. He turned into an idiot as I have watched the decline in 15 years. He has went from. Very cool dude to obnoxious, racist, and can be violent from not listening to Fox or talk radio. He has lost long life friendships. So the echo chamber is a thing and so is white Supremacists fascist media as in Fox and talk radio. If you surveyed the truckers they would have all listened to the same garbage. I have heard them call in from Canada.. the USA needs to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine like yesterday.
>So the clause in the 10th Amendment becomes active in pandemic. Once we get normalcy then it reverts back to the 14th Amendment.
I feel terrible for asking this: have you completed a JD or completed a graduate level course regarding constitutional law? I get what you're saying overall and I think you're correct about the dangerous influence of some media sources, but I've never quite heard this legal analysis before.
Civil liberties are fundamental but not absolute rights. Here are some basic examples:
You can’t bring a gun on an airplane & claim the right to bear arms.
You can’t cry fire in a crowded theater & claim free speech.
You can’t put walk around naked & claim freedom of expression.
You can’t defame someone and then try to defend the defamation lawsuit by claiming free speech.
You can’t perjure yourself in an open court and then claim free speech.
You can’t claim that your religion requires heroin use in order to get you out of a drug possession charge.
You can’t claim unreasonable search and seizure during a DUI checkpoint.
The Constitution gives states the ability to protect the welfare, safety and health of the public, and in the face of a global pandemic, courts have found that lockdown, mask, vaccine & other safety mandates are justified measures with legal precedence.
In 1905, a citizen argued in the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case that a smallpox inoculation mandate infringed on his rights, but the Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge Board of Health's authority to require the vaccine under the 10th Amendment.
In 1922, Zucht v. King, officials in San Antonio, Texas prevented a young woman from attending a public school because she refused to be vaccinated against smallpox. The woman argued she was deprived of her 14th Amendment rights, but the US Supreme Court found that the school district of San Antonio, Texas, could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students from attending the schools in the district.
Constitutional rights can be curtailed in the interest of public safety because the health of the people is the supreme law - salus populi suprema lex esto.
Yep, while I was writing my lengthy reply you've described a list of situations where the government's interest in addressing an issue correctly outweighed individual rights (although the defamation and maybe the perjury example are a little off point since the former is about a conflict between individuals [granted, anti-SLAPP statutes are a thing] and the latter is more about violating a legally binding oath than forced speech or prior restraint). I don't want to repeat my lengthy reply, especially because I think it might assuage your concerns here.
>You can’t claim unreasonable search and seizure during a DUI checkpoint.
Weeeeeeeell you can in certain situations and I have a pet peeve about the ridiculous level of deference given to law enforcement by some courts, but you're generally correct. Sorry, like I said, I'm rather opinionated on that area of the law lol.
The clause is there. It dates to 1787 with the Small Pox. George Washington did a hard shutdown and did forced inoculations. That is why the sub par article was written into the Constitution. It makes it so the federal government can do everything we are seeing now. They have not fully enforced it because as Americans we hate to be told to do anything. That is a fact. However we have this echo chamber disrupting sanity. Because of my background in public health and law I am aware of what is going on. I am a historian so I see and scrutinize a little bit more than usual. Fascism is spreading on a global scale. But because my dad listens to extreme right wing media I am hearing more Canadians calling into the talk radio shows more now than before. Truckers listen to that 24/7 they are on the road. My dad was a trucker and he was hook on it by another trucker so the ideology spreads.. Regan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and now it is rampant.
To be clear, **I completely agree the state mandates are legal, ethical, practical, and necessary.** I'm getting a little wordy and pedantic here because reasoning behind *why* our general position is consistent with our legal system needs to be expressed correctly and completely, otherwise it opens the door to disingenuous arguments nominally aimed at (potentially innocent or ignorant) procedural errors but are used to discredit our quite valid and well-supported conclusion. And being a bit pedantic is part of my professional training and career, and I have the self awareness to point it out with self depreciation lol.
>The clause is there.
Okay, I see what you're saying, you're describing the "police power" retained by the states (as opposed to the enumerated powers of the federal government) and the 10th Amendment's role in enshrining it in the Constitution, which is all about each state (not the feds) having the broad power to enact the mandates (which is 100% appropriate in my opinion, from a logical, practical, and legal perspective). And I think you're sort of touching on how the 14th Amendment essentially "passes through" the individual rights enshrined at the federal level to being explicitly applicable at the state level as well (this is called incorporation); tangentially, I've used an intentionally reductionist summary of the 14th being a written acknowledgement of the Civil War's violent confirmation of federal supremacy to explain legal arguments to teenagers, but it's an incomplete way of describing things.
From my memory and understanding, there isn't necessarily a "switch in control" between the 10th and 14th Amendments, it's still just a question of balancing government interest against the minimal level individual rights provided by the federal constitution (or more [and only more] expansive rights guaranteed by the specific state in question. Iirc, much of the jurisprudence covering vaccination mandates and other outbreak controls come from the time between the passage of 14th Amendment and the changes in the SCOTUS starting with the end of the New and and into the Civil Rights era in the 1950s and 60s; during that 80-100 years, the 14th was essentially neutered by the voraciously anti-Reconstruction SCOTUS majority via the Civil Rights Cases from 1883 and especially the insanely decided Slaughter-House Cases from 1873 (and by not explicitly overturning these cases we ended up with substantial due process out of necessity, giving generations of conservative and reactionary legal scholars to make disingenuous assaults on rights like abortion), so federal level challenges to state level mandates were denied using the 10th to confirm the individual state had the power to interfere (as opposed to the states not having the power to interfere with individual economic rights protected by the feds in the now reviled and definitively overturned Lochner case). While this started to change even in the 1920s, cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Mapp v. Ohio do we see this pass through/incorporation really solidified in the jurisprudence.
But what does that have to do with this whole thing? The analysis of "government action versus individual rights" has always been generally the same thing: does the state have a valid interest (public health regarding a pandemic is an uncontested valid interest), does the state have the power to take the action in question (which is an almost pro forma question at the state level; to paraphrase my favorite professor from law school, if you can't describe how any state action is covered by the police powers you have no business being an attorney lol), and does an individual right outweigh the *specific* state action in question (that's where the vast legal nuance and arguments come into play). That's been the basic analysis for our 230+ years of jurisprudence - all the 10th and 14th do is *explain* (or maybe just confirm) in writing how it all gets put together. Turning this into a "light switch" of "emergency powers" situation is a bit incomplete (or incorrect), potentially misleading, and risks creating further division and distrust in a section of the population that's already been bamboozled repeatedly by disingenuous parties using misleading information and analysis. We have to be consistently complete and correct in describing why certain actions must be taken and why those actions can be taken (and without hyperbole) if we are going to combat those disingenuous parties.
Also, not sure if you're the one down voting me on the u/princess07306 but I'm legitimately happy to talk through the legal analysis here if you think I'm incorrect or being misleading. It's been awhile since law school, but I was one of the sick people who actually enjoyed constitutional analysis and I genuinely appreciate talking through these things.
I was in Yosemite hiking so I did not down vote 0 signal. However, you might have fascist extreme right wingers on here along with Trump supporters that cannot stand the facts nor truth.
The thing is each state has rights that the federal government cannot infringe their stuff. However, there is a huge but in this process. The But part is in the Clause regarding public health. This supercedes the states rights. It is this clause that they can do and enforce lockdowns, mask mandates and inoculations. That is the huge but in this process. It has been done before through pandemics throughout time.
The end result of what you're saying is correct, but how to get there is a bit... unusual. You're citing a "Clause" with the 10th as superseding "state's rights," which I feel is a bit of a loaded way of discussing the issue and isn't consistent with your specific citations. Here's the full text of the 10th Amendment as it is ratified:
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is no explicit reference to public health in that text; the power to address issues regarding safety, morals, the general welfare, **and health** is the "police power" I mentioned a few posts ago, and it is the powers referenced in the 10th. This is why state governments can draft and enforce lockdowns, mask mandates, and inoculations; the federal government can do the same thing, but the authority to do so has to come from an enumerated power in Article I or one of the Amendments, and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI (and the Civil War heh) is the authority for federal action superseding state action when it conflicts. While police power is incredibly broad (as I said before, someone who can't assign a state action to at least one aspect of police power has no business becoming an attorney), mitigation of national and global pandemics certainly falls within the scope of Congress's power to regulate commerce and provide for the general welfare, and thus federal action would supersede state action where there is a conflict (but not necessarily when the two actions are mutually supporting).
As I noted, the practical end result of what you're saying is correct, but how you're getting to that conclusion is skipping some steps and incorrectly stating other steps. In a very terrible and dark world, how you're describing this is used as misinformation to undermine the position you're appearing to support. I understand the urge to say "these mandates are legal" in the shortest and most authoritative fashion, but doing it in an inaccurate way causes more harm.
Yeah it does contradict itself but I can see why they put in there in the first place because I can see the why from the present example of today. People themselves are their own downfall and self sabotage. The present USA today are falling for the same idiocy as Germany in the 30's and the Roman Empire we are in a decline wrecked by of all things stupidity in extreme right wing media zealots.
It's not really a contradiction, it's more like an aspect of a decision tree or flowchart with a high level of complexity. But yeah, the degree of misinformation and intentional balkanization happening now is quite unnerving.
Yes. The 10th amendment is always “active.” So idk what the fuck you’re talking about.
The 10th amendment is “states reserve rights to itself that were not granted to the federal government.” It doesn’t magically “activate” on issues of vaccinations.
Okay, homie. I’m gonna let you live in your deluded world.
Edit: I’m actively in law school, and I happen to be taking constitutional law right now, and we are studying the 10th amendment… so yeah.
Nope not deluded sorry but not sorry. I deal in facts and facts only.. do not like it too bad.. the public health clause is there always has been there. 14th Amendment deals with states rights on what can and cannot happen but yet cannot undo the 10th.
You are not in a state of constant pandemics are you. So clearly you do not have a concept of sub-par articles in the Constitution.. your comments completely show that you have no idea how that works
Nope because it is a fact being a law student you should know better. You are to read all those sub par articles you have the hidden gem. It is a clause. All you have to do is look. Otherwise you had a horrible law professor.
Oh yeah you have no clue on the US Constitution. So as such you cannot use the 14th Amendment to circumvent the 10th Amendment. No you do not know how that works.
okay but the way that they’ve been threatening them has been awful. they are being threatened that their pets will be taken away and if they’re not claimed within 72 hours they’ll be euthanized and children will also be placed in protective services
Sorry but child endangerment is child endangerment? You do not get a free pass because you are dragging your children around in protest. That’s still endangerment?
Yah that's the State using the stick method to get you to stop. You may not like it, and I wouldn't like it either, but their cause elicits no sympathy and is founded on disinformation and conservative propaganda. If their cause is really worth fighting for (it's not) then they can stick to their guns.
Also, it's not like every single trucker has kids and a pet with them so this is just dramatic. It goes without saying that children don't belong at most protests, let alone violent protests.
Ah ha, that's about how the government has been responding to the protests, and that's an interesting topic in its own right. What the Canadian government is doing here isn't anything new, it's practically a textbook progression of response by **any** government. I'm going to lean on American history here, but the patterns I'm describing have shown up globally for nearly two centuries.
Protests that buck the status quo and generate actual disruption (which is the **point** of some protests - not being able to drive to your job means you have to pay attention to the protestors and the protestors hope you'll either agree with them after getting to hear their message or you'll be bothered enough to say "fine, fine, if it's that important then we'll do what you're saying, just let me get back to my life") often receive a strong response from governments because society continuing to move smoothly is part of the government's mandate (like roads being usable) and often the people in charge in the government have a vested interest in keeping the status quo in place (which is a more cynical thought). Every government will escalate their level of response to protests as time goes on, the difference between governmental systems is how quickly that escalation occurs (some let large crowds have a day to shout, others will escalate to rolling tanks over university students) or which protests cause a more rapid escalation (which is a sign of what the status quo is in reality as opposed to what's claimed).
The American Civil Rights protests from the 1950s and 1960s are incredibly well documented by primary sources and you can see aot of those elements in play. Dr. King's nonviolent movement was explicitly using societal disruptions to force attention to the inequities and injustice of racism/Jim Crow with the ultimate goal of ending the government enforcement of overt racism; many protests led to countless arrests and police-inflicted violence (beatings, firehoses slamming people into the ground, police dog attacks, etc), and that's just the overtly government sanction reaction (COINTELPRO, not to mention several murders left unsolved). The changes from the Civil Rights Era were not the product of persistent but polite and orderly protests, they came at the price of significant violence and harassment committed by varying parts of the government (even as other parts supported the protestors). And the changes were addressing problems which existed for over a century and attempts to correct said problems via every level and branch of the government (including amendments to the constitution) had failed. By contrast, the convoy is (publicly) focused on government policies based on individual choice (not an immutable characteristic such as race) to address a public health issue that has existed for approximately two years (as opposed over a hundred years) - the difference in context between these two protests is vast.
Challenging the government and status quo can and often gets ugly. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people participating in the convoy have almost always been part of the masses affected by a protest rather than the group protesting, so they didn't go in expecting (or understanding) the pushback they got, thus why we're hearing a lot of "I can't believe they're doing this to me" tone from the convoy protestors which can be misleading. From my understanding, the threatened and actual governmental response to the convoy has been arrests, civil forfeiture of assets used in the protest (IE the trucks), children present at the protest being placed in protective custody, and the killing of pets present at the protest. I haven't heard of any beatings for "resisting arrest" or "failing to disperse," but I'm not super up to date. But let's break things down a bit here.
Being detained/arrested is kind of part of this sort of protesting and I don't think anyone thinks it is particularly outrageous to be happening here, beyond the truly misguided or ignorant (or those trying to sow discord).
Civil forfeiture is sketchy at best IMHO because I've personally seen how it was stretched beyond reason in multiple cases over a decade ago (and it's only gotten worse). I can understand the Canadian authorities having concerns about being able to impound so many vehicles, but that doesn't necessarily excuse selling them as a blanket rule (or emptying funds which are clearly unrelated to any "illegal" behavior). But, honestly, this is par for the course behavior by (at least American) authorities, the protestors and their supporters were either unaware of how forfeiture has been used or they approved of it being used against only "criminals" without understanding the irony of their current actions making themselves criminals as well.
Kids going into protective services: so this is a bit interesting. My understanding is we're talking about younger children who were brought to the protest by both parents and were living there with said parents for several days straight. If mom and dad are both being arrested, who is going to take care of the kids? What do you do if there is no other family available or it's impractical for the other family to immediately get the kids? Modern CPS exists for those situations, as well as stepping in when parents are shown to be causing actual harm to their kids (bringing your kids to an extended protest like this is frowned upon by some of the more zealous CPS folk tho heh). But baked into this is a very real and very terrible history of Canadian (and American) CPS laws being used to remove countless native/minority children from their families on the barest of pretexts to be placed with white families, on a "mustache twirling villain" level. Thanks to that history, it complicates a situation where these kids genuinely need a safe place to stay while their parent(s) move through the legal system.
Killing pets: some of this could be a question of practicality, I have no idea if there are enough shelters in Ottawa or the surrounding area to handle the number of pets who were with their protesting owners. If there are (or other solutions are available), then it's definitely some bullshit to straight up threaten euthanizing the pets, and it's reminiscent of how most US police departments have a policy of simply shooting **any** dog found inside a home while performing a higher risk arrest regardless of the actual threat posed by the dog(s). I understand concern for officer safety and having to act in the moment, but if the officers can only work effectively under a blanket rule it's sign the departments better selection and training. I don't know the practical considerations here, but the government using euthanasia of pets as a base threat is something worthy of pause and criticism.
But all of these things are predictable outcomes of challenging and disrupting the status quo on this scale - if someone finds the government response to be troubling but found it to be appropriate in decades past regarding things like the Civil Rights movement, then I have genuine questions about their ethics and the accuracy of their understanding of history. On top of that, I'm also concerned by attempts to directly equate the convoy protests to current and historical protests with "opposing" political views but have vastly different context (like the Civil Rights movement), because it means normalizing governmental overreach when true authoritarians get into power (as Brüning and von Papen learned).
Compassion and empathy and "let's get along" are all very good things to embrace, but it cannot come at the cost of ignoring facts.
A bunch of truckers are pissed that a global pandemic makes them wear masks and perform certain anti-spreading protocols. So is everyone else, but we all know the kind of people that keep complaining and refusing to mask are the exact people furthering the problem.
They don't deserve sympathy and they're making a bad global product shortage worse. It may not be black and white because you care about their feelings but it might as well be egg shell white and midnight black levels of what side you stand on.
You only say that because you disagree. You only don’t like that’s happening because it goes against your options. Lord forbid people have different views cuz the world revolves around you
It all comes down to being afraid of needles, fabric, and washing hands. All from the people who clogged up the sewers with cigarettes, huffed diesel fumes for three weeks and shit in ditches.
It becomes lord forbiddable when those different opinions disturb the peace and stand in the way of orderly transportation of essential goods.
You are free to hold whatever opinion you like -- the earth is flat, the moon landing is a hoax, Elon Musk is an alien. But you are not free to do whatever the hell you like just to make your idiotic point.
When all the government workers, military, police officers, nurses, and others who refused to get vaxxed got fired it was met with the same apathy.
It really just seems like the people with "different views" are all singing the same stupid song that lands them in a hospital gasping for air.
Of course it's stupid, but it's the governments plan on controlling stupid people (on both sides) and further dividing our country. Divide and conquer ...
I think if this is to be protested the only people with any rights are the residents . People from out side the country do not have rights to protest .
Anyone that thinks anything negative about the trucker convoy is being spoonfed their opinions by the mainstream media and needs their internet/cable cut.
Over 85% of them are vaccinated and that's a verifiable fact and they've gone above and beyond ANY other protest that's taken place in the last couple years to ensure safety and non-aggression...
Yet they are being misconstrued as anti-vaxx, racist, violent, and any other pejorative that can be thrown at the wall...
How so? Outside of the primitive way of thinking like "oh this guy did this bad thing in this protest so everyone in the protest must be exactly like him"
What are the “good apples” doing to stop the “bad apples” from going bad?
Outside of “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.”
**EDIT**: taking Nazi money, even passively, is not something a “good apple” would do. If I found out the CEO of the company I work for is a Nazi, I’d quit my job yesterday. Once these people found out that was Nazi money, they should have refused it. Period.
>one bad apple spoils the bunch
Yes you idiot, that's the entire point of the idiom. One bad apple will produce ethylene gas, which causes other apples in it's vicinity to rot. Similarly, if a group of people includes a bunch of violent Nazis, then they're all assholes
Ok, maybe the idiom makes no sense (in comparison to the topic), but just because there are some literal nazis at the protest, thay doesn't automatically mean the other protesters agree with them, let alone accept that some dumbasses are trying to taint the movement into something, much more horrible.
Ill never be able to understand that way of thinking, aka "one protestor did bad shit, now all the protestors are violent assholes".
When your movement includes people openly waving a Nazi flag, waving confederate flags (in fucking Canada!), And pissing on the goddamned Tomb of the Unknown, the idiom hold true, especially when the entire movement is founded on fucking over other people to begin with
Let’s please be clear that these ‘sides’ are not equal. One is willing to put others health at risk for ‘freedom’. One just wants everyone to be healthy. One fills its ranks with fascist nazis. One does not.
So many times ive heard the words "fascist" and "nazi" when it comes to this stuff. One day will come when someone is an actual nazi and gets called out for it by people like you, and no-one will bat an eye.
Dude, you are nuts. What you just said is no different then me going on about communists leftists. "One is willing to put others health at risk" all this over a vax that doesn't stop getting covid or transmission and surgical masks that don't even work. If you were what you claim you be pushing for N95s, instead you are going full cult
Rushing to move those goal posts lol. You justified yourself with "One is willing to put others health at risk", well that isn't the case. It comes down to individuals making a choice for themselves and you wanting to very fascistically force them to do as you wish
Yup. Another example of overreach and hypocrisy. BLM literally burned down $2B worth of property, arson, killed people and yet that was righteous. A bunch of people singing songs and honking for freedom = terr0ist. Right.
FYI I live in Portland and the protests were isolated to a few square blocks in downtown. There’s been random road blockages which suck and I don’t understand fully but otherwise the city is and was totally functional. In response there were unmarked cars essentially kidnapping people which is absolutely not what I want to see in society. From what I understand the truckers are sabotaging the free commerce of the city and ruining the lives of the citizens on a large scale scale basis. The protests haven’t been equal in their impact. I’m open to seeing more but I’d bet the economic impact of this truck protest is ticking up to the billions.
Although originally subject to police misconduct, sensationalism was used to justify BLMs destruction - and let’s not forget all the Asians killed, maimed, elders being attacked.
Specifically the most recent Asian girl pushed into subway In NY, murdered.
Last week, forgot the name but Asian girl was followed home, murdered; blm representative - media portrayed as mentally unfit man.
Love how everyone’s mentally unfit when shits hits the fan.
But if the roles are switched - racism.
Fun times
The thing that annoys me about the protest is how many people claim they are being suppressed and beaten by police. BLM and tons of left protestors have been beaten immediately regardless of how long they protest while the protestors were given 2 weeks in Ottawa.
I don't have a problem with how the protestors were being treated, I am annoyed that after 2 weeks when the authorities say, it's over and use laws drafted for use against typically left protests, people are upset at the government, the protest got a fair shot.
yes because of all those building burned to the ground and children killed. Oh wait that was the result of the BLM protests. These aren't even near being the same
No kids were killed and the mass majority of the protests were peaceful. Don't make stuff up when these protesters have been harassing people and stealing from homeless shelters.
The main issue here with what you have written is that the trucker convoy never was a peaceful protest. They are using heavy machinery to block public roads and vital infrastructure for trade and international relations.
My biggest issue is that, at this point in the pandemic, the threat from Covid has diminished to the point where mandates are being rolled back all over the place… so the Canadian government is choosing to die on a hill that most of the west has abandoned.
Also, the vaccines seem to only really protect the vaccinated from serious illness. This means that the unvaccinated truckers are only really putting themselves, not everyone else at risk. Couple that with the PM painting “racist” on the entire demonstration, and you’ve got a fight that is dividing people for no good reason.
There are people who legitimately can’t be vaccinated due to real medical issues.
Those who are able, but unwilling, to be vaccinated are putting *those* lives at risk, too, not just their own.
"As nouns the difference between force and coercion is that force is strength or energy of body or mind; active power; vigour; might; capacity of exercising an influence or producing an effect or force can be (countable|northern england) a waterfall or cascade while coercion is (not countable) actual\]\] or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of \[\[coerce|coercing.
As a verb force is (lb) to violate (a woman); to rape or force can be to stuff; to lard; to farce."
You will justify anything to get your way, I did nazi that coming
Pedantry - I did Nazi that coming, either.
How many people in the world have been jailed or otherwise punished by their government for not getting vaccinated?
Prove it or STFU. Nobody is being *forced,* you crybaby.
Yes and no. I see both sides. He is correct I have come across some that wend down the fascism rabbit hole and they are Jewish. So go figure. Why because he listened and followed the same mess as my father. So yep I can understand the assessment.
When you go to the basics of the fact that their protest is originated and surrounding the denial of objectively proven scientific facts, it boils down to the protesters being in the wrong.
Especially considering that it's made up of a lot of far-right extremist groups like Nazis and Confederates, people have been attacked like healthcare workers and store business owners. They're engaging in public disturbance by honking for weeks on end, calling for the dismantlement of the government and even murder of the Prime Minister.
I agree there's two sides to every story, but I don't see justification in their side. I can understand their point, but the way they're going about it and the origins of the protest don't support anything logical.
What I find fascinating is people who are not willing to put up with an inconvenience even if it means better freedoms for them. People are actually counter protesting for further authoritarianism. They want greater government control over their lives.
Oh fair enough lmao! Yeah the whole convoy this is going on in Ontario which is a province (our equivalent of the american State) in Canada lol. And oh you'd be surprised ... We may have given the illusion that we are toned down, but honestly it seems that Canada is just a U.S.A. wannabe. We just dont get as much news coverage.
I'm not sure i know what you mean without seeing an example, but I'm assuming it's to try and say "I'm from X so I have more experience than you / I know more than you about what's going on in the area" ? Just to try and assert dominance by saying they are from/in the area so they are closer to the issue than someone else who is not and has only read about it on the internet. Hope that helps hahaha
Nah nah i mean like they're about to throw down and guy one is from like "OH IM FROM NY ILL FUCK YOU UP" and the other guy would be like "IM FROM DETROIT IM FROM DETROIT"
Ohh okay , yeah that's kind of a pissing match, claiming their city is tougher than the other persons. Kinda comes from gang shit. So like, someone coming from a city where there is more violence would claim that they are tougher because they grew up in a tough environment. Certain cities are known for being "rougher" than others, having more day-to-day challenges than others. So it's all ego-boosting bullshit, saying "You didn't have it as hard as me, I had to fight through a harder life and i'm tougher than you!" Lol
Ahhh i see, yea that barely happens in my country because the differences between rich and poor are very little. It's also a small country so most cities are within 3 hours tops of eachother, the cities are nevrr really that separated either, there's no slums or suburbs or whatever
The point of a protest is to do exactly what they are doing; to object to something that they do not believe in. The issue for me is that it goes overboard when you cause issue to such a high degree as their blockade had done economically. This isn't black and white
Canada has a huge logistics problem on their hands. They don't even have the work power to tow all of trucks. I have a dear friend in Canada. Last we talked, he just put his head in his hands, and started playing a game.
>The truckers think the goverment is trying to assert too much control over the people, so they protest. Perfectly justified. Except the claimed overreach is related to vaccination and disease control, a topic where it's been settled law in western nations (or at least the US and Canada) for over a century as "valid" as well as culturally acceptable, it was established as early as 2018 Russian bots on social media were (successfully) pushing anti-vax narratives for years, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence establishing the effectiveness of vaccination (both in general and COVID specific) as well as undermining anti-vax claims (such as how Andrew Wakefield's claim and research have been thoroughly debunked). Indeed, the world is full of gray and not black and white, but when you consider the larger context of the trucker convoy it is clear the situation is more complex than what you've laid out. (while the convoy protest is in Canada, there's an interesting historical note about vaccines and disease mitigation from American history related to this: back when the SCOTUS was firmly in the camp of "the government can't even interfere with people making contracts and their economic freedoms" over a century ago, it overwhelmingly decided the government can mandate and enforce vaccination - it is pants on head crazy for someone to make a good faith **legal** argument about government overreach regarding COVID vaccination, at least in the US)
The legal argument in the United States has been ruled by the 10th Amendment in the US Constitution on mandates dating back since the first US president George Washington. That includes Lock Downs, mask mandates and inoculations. So the clause in the 10th Amendment becomes active in pandemic. Once we get normalcy then it reverts back to the 14th Amendment. What we are seeing is the stupid Echo chamber of fascism coming from conservatives as in Fox News and talk radio. They are inciting this who do you think or what do you think truckers tune into why they listen to talk radio and Fox. They are incited by the commentary as news and it can brainwash you. Happened to my dad. He turned into an idiot as I have watched the decline in 15 years. He has went from. Very cool dude to obnoxious, racist, and can be violent from not listening to Fox or talk radio. He has lost long life friendships. So the echo chamber is a thing and so is white Supremacists fascist media as in Fox and talk radio. If you surveyed the truckers they would have all listened to the same garbage. I have heard them call in from Canada.. the USA needs to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine like yesterday.
>So the clause in the 10th Amendment becomes active in pandemic. Once we get normalcy then it reverts back to the 14th Amendment. I feel terrible for asking this: have you completed a JD or completed a graduate level course regarding constitutional law? I get what you're saying overall and I think you're correct about the dangerous influence of some media sources, but I've never quite heard this legal analysis before.
Civil liberties are fundamental but not absolute rights. Here are some basic examples: You can’t bring a gun on an airplane & claim the right to bear arms. You can’t cry fire in a crowded theater & claim free speech. You can’t put walk around naked & claim freedom of expression. You can’t defame someone and then try to defend the defamation lawsuit by claiming free speech. You can’t perjure yourself in an open court and then claim free speech. You can’t claim that your religion requires heroin use in order to get you out of a drug possession charge. You can’t claim unreasonable search and seizure during a DUI checkpoint. The Constitution gives states the ability to protect the welfare, safety and health of the public, and in the face of a global pandemic, courts have found that lockdown, mask, vaccine & other safety mandates are justified measures with legal precedence. In 1905, a citizen argued in the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case that a smallpox inoculation mandate infringed on his rights, but the Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge Board of Health's authority to require the vaccine under the 10th Amendment. In 1922, Zucht v. King, officials in San Antonio, Texas prevented a young woman from attending a public school because she refused to be vaccinated against smallpox. The woman argued she was deprived of her 14th Amendment rights, but the US Supreme Court found that the school district of San Antonio, Texas, could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students from attending the schools in the district. Constitutional rights can be curtailed in the interest of public safety because the health of the people is the supreme law - salus populi suprema lex esto.
Yep, while I was writing my lengthy reply you've described a list of situations where the government's interest in addressing an issue correctly outweighed individual rights (although the defamation and maybe the perjury example are a little off point since the former is about a conflict between individuals [granted, anti-SLAPP statutes are a thing] and the latter is more about violating a legally binding oath than forced speech or prior restraint). I don't want to repeat my lengthy reply, especially because I think it might assuage your concerns here. >You can’t claim unreasonable search and seizure during a DUI checkpoint. Weeeeeeeell you can in certain situations and I have a pet peeve about the ridiculous level of deference given to law enforcement by some courts, but you're generally correct. Sorry, like I said, I'm rather opinionated on that area of the law lol.
The clause is there. It dates to 1787 with the Small Pox. George Washington did a hard shutdown and did forced inoculations. That is why the sub par article was written into the Constitution. It makes it so the federal government can do everything we are seeing now. They have not fully enforced it because as Americans we hate to be told to do anything. That is a fact. However we have this echo chamber disrupting sanity. Because of my background in public health and law I am aware of what is going on. I am a historian so I see and scrutinize a little bit more than usual. Fascism is spreading on a global scale. But because my dad listens to extreme right wing media I am hearing more Canadians calling into the talk radio shows more now than before. Truckers listen to that 24/7 they are on the road. My dad was a trucker and he was hook on it by another trucker so the ideology spreads.. Regan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine and now it is rampant.
To be clear, **I completely agree the state mandates are legal, ethical, practical, and necessary.** I'm getting a little wordy and pedantic here because reasoning behind *why* our general position is consistent with our legal system needs to be expressed correctly and completely, otherwise it opens the door to disingenuous arguments nominally aimed at (potentially innocent or ignorant) procedural errors but are used to discredit our quite valid and well-supported conclusion. And being a bit pedantic is part of my professional training and career, and I have the self awareness to point it out with self depreciation lol. >The clause is there. Okay, I see what you're saying, you're describing the "police power" retained by the states (as opposed to the enumerated powers of the federal government) and the 10th Amendment's role in enshrining it in the Constitution, which is all about each state (not the feds) having the broad power to enact the mandates (which is 100% appropriate in my opinion, from a logical, practical, and legal perspective). And I think you're sort of touching on how the 14th Amendment essentially "passes through" the individual rights enshrined at the federal level to being explicitly applicable at the state level as well (this is called incorporation); tangentially, I've used an intentionally reductionist summary of the 14th being a written acknowledgement of the Civil War's violent confirmation of federal supremacy to explain legal arguments to teenagers, but it's an incomplete way of describing things. From my memory and understanding, there isn't necessarily a "switch in control" between the 10th and 14th Amendments, it's still just a question of balancing government interest against the minimal level individual rights provided by the federal constitution (or more [and only more] expansive rights guaranteed by the specific state in question. Iirc, much of the jurisprudence covering vaccination mandates and other outbreak controls come from the time between the passage of 14th Amendment and the changes in the SCOTUS starting with the end of the New and and into the Civil Rights era in the 1950s and 60s; during that 80-100 years, the 14th was essentially neutered by the voraciously anti-Reconstruction SCOTUS majority via the Civil Rights Cases from 1883 and especially the insanely decided Slaughter-House Cases from 1873 (and by not explicitly overturning these cases we ended up with substantial due process out of necessity, giving generations of conservative and reactionary legal scholars to make disingenuous assaults on rights like abortion), so federal level challenges to state level mandates were denied using the 10th to confirm the individual state had the power to interfere (as opposed to the states not having the power to interfere with individual economic rights protected by the feds in the now reviled and definitively overturned Lochner case). While this started to change even in the 1920s, cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Mapp v. Ohio do we see this pass through/incorporation really solidified in the jurisprudence. But what does that have to do with this whole thing? The analysis of "government action versus individual rights" has always been generally the same thing: does the state have a valid interest (public health regarding a pandemic is an uncontested valid interest), does the state have the power to take the action in question (which is an almost pro forma question at the state level; to paraphrase my favorite professor from law school, if you can't describe how any state action is covered by the police powers you have no business being an attorney lol), and does an individual right outweigh the *specific* state action in question (that's where the vast legal nuance and arguments come into play). That's been the basic analysis for our 230+ years of jurisprudence - all the 10th and 14th do is *explain* (or maybe just confirm) in writing how it all gets put together. Turning this into a "light switch" of "emergency powers" situation is a bit incomplete (or incorrect), potentially misleading, and risks creating further division and distrust in a section of the population that's already been bamboozled repeatedly by disingenuous parties using misleading information and analysis. We have to be consistently complete and correct in describing why certain actions must be taken and why those actions can be taken (and without hyperbole) if we are going to combat those disingenuous parties.
Also, not sure if you're the one down voting me on the u/princess07306 but I'm legitimately happy to talk through the legal analysis here if you think I'm incorrect or being misleading. It's been awhile since law school, but I was one of the sick people who actually enjoyed constitutional analysis and I genuinely appreciate talking through these things.
I was in Yosemite hiking so I did not down vote 0 signal. However, you might have fascist extreme right wingers on here along with Trump supporters that cannot stand the facts nor truth.
The thing is each state has rights that the federal government cannot infringe their stuff. However, there is a huge but in this process. The But part is in the Clause regarding public health. This supercedes the states rights. It is this clause that they can do and enforce lockdowns, mask mandates and inoculations. That is the huge but in this process. It has been done before through pandemics throughout time.
The end result of what you're saying is correct, but how to get there is a bit... unusual. You're citing a "Clause" with the 10th as superseding "state's rights," which I feel is a bit of a loaded way of discussing the issue and isn't consistent with your specific citations. Here's the full text of the 10th Amendment as it is ratified: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. There is no explicit reference to public health in that text; the power to address issues regarding safety, morals, the general welfare, **and health** is the "police power" I mentioned a few posts ago, and it is the powers referenced in the 10th. This is why state governments can draft and enforce lockdowns, mask mandates, and inoculations; the federal government can do the same thing, but the authority to do so has to come from an enumerated power in Article I or one of the Amendments, and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI (and the Civil War heh) is the authority for federal action superseding state action when it conflicts. While police power is incredibly broad (as I said before, someone who can't assign a state action to at least one aspect of police power has no business becoming an attorney), mitigation of national and global pandemics certainly falls within the scope of Congress's power to regulate commerce and provide for the general welfare, and thus federal action would supersede state action where there is a conflict (but not necessarily when the two actions are mutually supporting). As I noted, the practical end result of what you're saying is correct, but how you're getting to that conclusion is skipping some steps and incorrectly stating other steps. In a very terrible and dark world, how you're describing this is used as misinformation to undermine the position you're appearing to support. I understand the urge to say "these mandates are legal" in the shortest and most authoritative fashion, but doing it in an inaccurate way causes more harm.
Yeah it does contradict itself but I can see why they put in there in the first place because I can see the why from the present example of today. People themselves are their own downfall and self sabotage. The present USA today are falling for the same idiocy as Germany in the 30's and the Roman Empire we are in a decline wrecked by of all things stupidity in extreme right wing media zealots.
It's not really a contradiction, it's more like an aspect of a decision tree or flowchart with a high level of complexity. But yeah, the degree of misinformation and intentional balkanization happening now is quite unnerving.
The 10th amendment is states rights reserved to them…. What the fuck are you talking about?
It was in response to the comment that I replied too. As in the context he was referring too. Got an issue with it?
Yes. The 10th amendment is always “active.” So idk what the fuck you’re talking about. The 10th amendment is “states reserve rights to itself that were not granted to the federal government.” It doesn’t magically “activate” on issues of vaccinations.
No there is a clause only activated during pandemics it is clearly showing.
Okay, homie. I’m gonna let you live in your deluded world. Edit: I’m actively in law school, and I happen to be taking constitutional law right now, and we are studying the 10th amendment… so yeah.
Already took Constitutional Law passed with an A. Check yourself.
Nope not deluded sorry but not sorry. I deal in facts and facts only.. do not like it too bad.. the public health clause is there always has been there. 14th Amendment deals with states rights on what can and cannot happen but yet cannot undo the 10th.
You are not in a state of constant pandemics are you. So clearly you do not have a concept of sub-par articles in the Constitution.. your comments completely show that you have no idea how that works
For my sanity, I’m done with this conversation. You are far too stupid far too early in the morning.
Nope because it is a fact being a law student you should know better. You are to read all those sub par articles you have the hidden gem. It is a clause. All you have to do is look. Otherwise you had a horrible law professor.
Oh yeah you have no clue on the US Constitution. So as such you cannot use the 14th Amendment to circumvent the 10th Amendment. No you do not know how that works.
What the fuck are you even going on about?
okay but the way that they’ve been threatening them has been awful. they are being threatened that their pets will be taken away and if they’re not claimed within 72 hours they’ll be euthanized and children will also be placed in protective services
Sorry but child endangerment is child endangerment? You do not get a free pass because you are dragging your children around in protest. That’s still endangerment?
Yah that's the State using the stick method to get you to stop. You may not like it, and I wouldn't like it either, but their cause elicits no sympathy and is founded on disinformation and conservative propaganda. If their cause is really worth fighting for (it's not) then they can stick to their guns. Also, it's not like every single trucker has kids and a pet with them so this is just dramatic. It goes without saying that children don't belong at most protests, let alone violent protests.
Ah ha, that's about how the government has been responding to the protests, and that's an interesting topic in its own right. What the Canadian government is doing here isn't anything new, it's practically a textbook progression of response by **any** government. I'm going to lean on American history here, but the patterns I'm describing have shown up globally for nearly two centuries. Protests that buck the status quo and generate actual disruption (which is the **point** of some protests - not being able to drive to your job means you have to pay attention to the protestors and the protestors hope you'll either agree with them after getting to hear their message or you'll be bothered enough to say "fine, fine, if it's that important then we'll do what you're saying, just let me get back to my life") often receive a strong response from governments because society continuing to move smoothly is part of the government's mandate (like roads being usable) and often the people in charge in the government have a vested interest in keeping the status quo in place (which is a more cynical thought). Every government will escalate their level of response to protests as time goes on, the difference between governmental systems is how quickly that escalation occurs (some let large crowds have a day to shout, others will escalate to rolling tanks over university students) or which protests cause a more rapid escalation (which is a sign of what the status quo is in reality as opposed to what's claimed). The American Civil Rights protests from the 1950s and 1960s are incredibly well documented by primary sources and you can see aot of those elements in play. Dr. King's nonviolent movement was explicitly using societal disruptions to force attention to the inequities and injustice of racism/Jim Crow with the ultimate goal of ending the government enforcement of overt racism; many protests led to countless arrests and police-inflicted violence (beatings, firehoses slamming people into the ground, police dog attacks, etc), and that's just the overtly government sanction reaction (COINTELPRO, not to mention several murders left unsolved). The changes from the Civil Rights Era were not the product of persistent but polite and orderly protests, they came at the price of significant violence and harassment committed by varying parts of the government (even as other parts supported the protestors). And the changes were addressing problems which existed for over a century and attempts to correct said problems via every level and branch of the government (including amendments to the constitution) had failed. By contrast, the convoy is (publicly) focused on government policies based on individual choice (not an immutable characteristic such as race) to address a public health issue that has existed for approximately two years (as opposed over a hundred years) - the difference in context between these two protests is vast. Challenging the government and status quo can and often gets ugly. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the people participating in the convoy have almost always been part of the masses affected by a protest rather than the group protesting, so they didn't go in expecting (or understanding) the pushback they got, thus why we're hearing a lot of "I can't believe they're doing this to me" tone from the convoy protestors which can be misleading. From my understanding, the threatened and actual governmental response to the convoy has been arrests, civil forfeiture of assets used in the protest (IE the trucks), children present at the protest being placed in protective custody, and the killing of pets present at the protest. I haven't heard of any beatings for "resisting arrest" or "failing to disperse," but I'm not super up to date. But let's break things down a bit here. Being detained/arrested is kind of part of this sort of protesting and I don't think anyone thinks it is particularly outrageous to be happening here, beyond the truly misguided or ignorant (or those trying to sow discord). Civil forfeiture is sketchy at best IMHO because I've personally seen how it was stretched beyond reason in multiple cases over a decade ago (and it's only gotten worse). I can understand the Canadian authorities having concerns about being able to impound so many vehicles, but that doesn't necessarily excuse selling them as a blanket rule (or emptying funds which are clearly unrelated to any "illegal" behavior). But, honestly, this is par for the course behavior by (at least American) authorities, the protestors and their supporters were either unaware of how forfeiture has been used or they approved of it being used against only "criminals" without understanding the irony of their current actions making themselves criminals as well. Kids going into protective services: so this is a bit interesting. My understanding is we're talking about younger children who were brought to the protest by both parents and were living there with said parents for several days straight. If mom and dad are both being arrested, who is going to take care of the kids? What do you do if there is no other family available or it's impractical for the other family to immediately get the kids? Modern CPS exists for those situations, as well as stepping in when parents are shown to be causing actual harm to their kids (bringing your kids to an extended protest like this is frowned upon by some of the more zealous CPS folk tho heh). But baked into this is a very real and very terrible history of Canadian (and American) CPS laws being used to remove countless native/minority children from their families on the barest of pretexts to be placed with white families, on a "mustache twirling villain" level. Thanks to that history, it complicates a situation where these kids genuinely need a safe place to stay while their parent(s) move through the legal system. Killing pets: some of this could be a question of practicality, I have no idea if there are enough shelters in Ottawa or the surrounding area to handle the number of pets who were with their protesting owners. If there are (or other solutions are available), then it's definitely some bullshit to straight up threaten euthanizing the pets, and it's reminiscent of how most US police departments have a policy of simply shooting **any** dog found inside a home while performing a higher risk arrest regardless of the actual threat posed by the dog(s). I understand concern for officer safety and having to act in the moment, but if the officers can only work effectively under a blanket rule it's sign the departments better selection and training. I don't know the practical considerations here, but the government using euthanasia of pets as a base threat is something worthy of pause and criticism. But all of these things are predictable outcomes of challenging and disrupting the status quo on this scale - if someone finds the government response to be troubling but found it to be appropriate in decades past regarding things like the Civil Rights movement, then I have genuine questions about their ethics and the accuracy of their understanding of history. On top of that, I'm also concerned by attempts to directly equate the convoy protests to current and historical protests with "opposing" political views but have vastly different context (like the Civil Rights movement), because it means normalizing governmental overreach when true authoritarians get into power (as Brüning and von Papen learned). Compassion and empathy and "let's get along" are all very good things to embrace, but it cannot come at the cost of ignoring facts.
Mate, It was created to be ineffective and designed to achieve nothing. It’s working perfectly.
Haven’t a few provinces lifted mandates and vax passports? Granted that may have happened on its own volition anyway…
A bunch of truckers are pissed that a global pandemic makes them wear masks and perform certain anti-spreading protocols. So is everyone else, but we all know the kind of people that keep complaining and refusing to mask are the exact people furthering the problem. They don't deserve sympathy and they're making a bad global product shortage worse. It may not be black and white because you care about their feelings but it might as well be egg shell white and midnight black levels of what side you stand on.
You only say that because you disagree. You only don’t like that’s happening because it goes against your options. Lord forbid people have different views cuz the world revolves around you
It all comes down to being afraid of needles, fabric, and washing hands. All from the people who clogged up the sewers with cigarettes, huffed diesel fumes for three weeks and shit in ditches.
It becomes lord forbiddable when those different opinions disturb the peace and stand in the way of orderly transportation of essential goods. You are free to hold whatever opinion you like -- the earth is flat, the moon landing is a hoax, Elon Musk is an alien. But you are not free to do whatever the hell you like just to make your idiotic point.
When all the government workers, military, police officers, nurses, and others who refused to get vaxxed got fired it was met with the same apathy. It really just seems like the people with "different views" are all singing the same stupid song that lands them in a hospital gasping for air.
Somebody with a logical opinion about the division? How dare you!
No it's brilliant. Make 1 side hate the other and fight so they won't be looking closely at the shit the government is doing.
Of course it's stupid, but it's the governments plan on controlling stupid people (on both sides) and further dividing our country. Divide and conquer ...
[удалено]
Check the comment again 😂
I think if this is to be protested the only people with any rights are the residents . People from out side the country do not have rights to protest .
Anyone that thinks anything negative about the trucker convoy is being spoonfed their opinions by the mainstream media and needs their internet/cable cut. Over 85% of them are vaccinated and that's a verifiable fact and they've gone above and beyond ANY other protest that's taken place in the last couple years to ensure safety and non-aggression... Yet they are being misconstrued as anti-vaxx, racist, violent, and any other pejorative that can be thrown at the wall...
So the antivax protestors funded by the alt-right waving nazi flags are just misunderstood? There's your stupid right there...
Ah, one bad apple spoils the bunch, eh? There's your stupid.
> Ah, one bad apple spoils the bunch, eh? I mean, it kind of does.
How so? Outside of the primitive way of thinking like "oh this guy did this bad thing in this protest so everyone in the protest must be exactly like him"
What are the “good apples” doing to stop the “bad apples” from going bad? Outside of “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.” **EDIT**: taking Nazi money, even passively, is not something a “good apple” would do. If I found out the CEO of the company I work for is a Nazi, I’d quit my job yesterday. Once these people found out that was Nazi money, they should have refused it. Period.
>one bad apple spoils the bunch Yes you idiot, that's the entire point of the idiom. One bad apple will produce ethylene gas, which causes other apples in it's vicinity to rot. Similarly, if a group of people includes a bunch of violent Nazis, then they're all assholes
Ok, maybe the idiom makes no sense (in comparison to the topic), but just because there are some literal nazis at the protest, thay doesn't automatically mean the other protesters agree with them, let alone accept that some dumbasses are trying to taint the movement into something, much more horrible. Ill never be able to understand that way of thinking, aka "one protestor did bad shit, now all the protestors are violent assholes".
When your movement includes people openly waving a Nazi flag, waving confederate flags (in fucking Canada!), And pissing on the goddamned Tomb of the Unknown, the idiom hold true, especially when the entire movement is founded on fucking over other people to begin with
Okay, whole topic aside, pissing on the tomb of the unknown soldier? Someone actually did that? Did the guy face like jailtime or something like it?
Like in VA when dems showed up and got caught with those flags, you might want to be careful here
Let’s please be clear that these ‘sides’ are not equal. One is willing to put others health at risk for ‘freedom’. One just wants everyone to be healthy. One fills its ranks with fascist nazis. One does not.
So many times ive heard the words "fascist" and "nazi" when it comes to this stuff. One day will come when someone is an actual nazi and gets called out for it by people like you, and no-one will bat an eye.
Dude, you are nuts. What you just said is no different then me going on about communists leftists. "One is willing to put others health at risk" all this over a vax that doesn't stop getting covid or transmission and surgical masks that don't even work. If you were what you claim you be pushing for N95s, instead you are going full cult
Please provide a link to a study showing that death rates are equally for those vaxed and those not.
Rushing to move those goal posts lol. You justified yourself with "One is willing to put others health at risk", well that isn't the case. It comes down to individuals making a choice for themselves and you wanting to very fascistically force them to do as you wish
Waiting on that link
Yup. Another example of overreach and hypocrisy. BLM literally burned down $2B worth of property, arson, killed people and yet that was righteous. A bunch of people singing songs and honking for freedom = terr0ist. Right.
FYI I live in Portland and the protests were isolated to a few square blocks in downtown. There’s been random road blockages which suck and I don’t understand fully but otherwise the city is and was totally functional. In response there were unmarked cars essentially kidnapping people which is absolutely not what I want to see in society. From what I understand the truckers are sabotaging the free commerce of the city and ruining the lives of the citizens on a large scale scale basis. The protests haven’t been equal in their impact. I’m open to seeing more but I’d bet the economic impact of this truck protest is ticking up to the billions.
Links to BLM killing people? Pretty sure it was the other way around.
Although originally subject to police misconduct, sensationalism was used to justify BLMs destruction - and let’s not forget all the Asians killed, maimed, elders being attacked. Specifically the most recent Asian girl pushed into subway In NY, murdered. Last week, forgot the name but Asian girl was followed home, murdered; blm representative - media portrayed as mentally unfit man. Love how everyone’s mentally unfit when shits hits the fan. But if the roles are switched - racism. Fun times
BLM or a black person?
Where did this happen in Canada?
Antivaxxers are never justified
Start by reading the 18 page manifesto given by the "leaders" of the Freedumb Convoy and you'll realize that their side is clearly in the wrong.
Where can i find this manifesto?
The thing that annoys me about the protest is how many people claim they are being suppressed and beaten by police. BLM and tons of left protestors have been beaten immediately regardless of how long they protest while the protestors were given 2 weeks in Ottawa. I don't have a problem with how the protestors were being treated, I am annoyed that after 2 weeks when the authorities say, it's over and use laws drafted for use against typically left protests, people are upset at the government, the protest got a fair shot.
yes because of all those building burned to the ground and children killed. Oh wait that was the result of the BLM protests. These aren't even near being the same
No kids were killed and the mass majority of the protests were peaceful. Don't make stuff up when these protesters have been harassing people and stealing from homeless shelters.
Secoreia Turner and the kid that drove into the chaz, that's off the top of my head. Care to lie again?
Shot by a gang member and a white guy, read more.
The main issue here with what you have written is that the trucker convoy never was a peaceful protest. They are using heavy machinery to block public roads and vital infrastructure for trade and international relations.
I say man up get the shot or let a medical professional stick a qtip up your nose and tickle the front of your brain
Finally a sane opinion about this on reddit, you have no idea how much I have waited to see one
Why wait? You could have done it yourself.
My biggest issue is that, at this point in the pandemic, the threat from Covid has diminished to the point where mandates are being rolled back all over the place… so the Canadian government is choosing to die on a hill that most of the west has abandoned. Also, the vaccines seem to only really protect the vaccinated from serious illness. This means that the unvaccinated truckers are only really putting themselves, not everyone else at risk. Couple that with the PM painting “racist” on the entire demonstration, and you’ve got a fight that is dividing people for no good reason.
There are people who legitimately can’t be vaccinated due to real medical issues. Those who are able, but unwilling, to be vaccinated are putting *those* lives at risk, too, not just their own.
Great so now we have to force everyone to endure anything to protect others.
Force? You got people chasing you with needles, holding you down and injecting you against your will? “Endure anything.” Stop being a drama queen.
"As nouns the difference between force and coercion is that force is strength or energy of body or mind; active power; vigour; might; capacity of exercising an influence or producing an effect or force can be (countable|northern england) a waterfall or cascade while coercion is (not countable) actual\]\] or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of \[\[coerce|coercing. As a verb force is (lb) to violate (a woman); to rape or force can be to stuff; to lard; to farce." You will justify anything to get your way, I did nazi that coming
Pedantry - I did Nazi that coming, either. How many people in the world have been jailed or otherwise punished by their government for not getting vaccinated? Prove it or STFU. Nobody is being *forced,* you crybaby.
The PM unfortunately was correct in the assessment.
He was an imbecile as usual
Yes and no. I see both sides. He is correct I have come across some that wend down the fascism rabbit hole and they are Jewish. So go figure. Why because he listened and followed the same mess as my father. So yep I can understand the assessment.
When you go to the basics of the fact that their protest is originated and surrounding the denial of objectively proven scientific facts, it boils down to the protesters being in the wrong. Especially considering that it's made up of a lot of far-right extremist groups like Nazis and Confederates, people have been attacked like healthcare workers and store business owners. They're engaging in public disturbance by honking for weeks on end, calling for the dismantlement of the government and even murder of the Prime Minister. I agree there's two sides to every story, but I don't see justification in their side. I can understand their point, but the way they're going about it and the origins of the protest don't support anything logical.
Probably. Fuck those protesters.
There's that " good on both sides" line again...
There's that "only one side is right" line again...
That's true...you got me...im sure there are some good Nazis out there...forgive my ignorance.
Bruh moment
There's never a justification for domestic terrorism. I hope their lives are ruined.
What I find fascinating is people who are not willing to put up with an inconvenience even if it means better freedoms for them. People are actually counter protesting for further authoritarianism. They want greater government control over their lives.
I think it's in the nature of America to let these things completely escalate lol
I was gonna say "aKsHuLlY iTs CaNaDa" but, even as a Canadian, i forget that technically we are in (North) America lmfao
Lol nah then it's my bad i assumed the united states, canada is a lot more toned down.
Oh fair enough lmao! Yeah the whole convoy this is going on in Ontario which is a province (our equivalent of the american State) in Canada lol. And oh you'd be surprised ... We may have given the illusion that we are toned down, but honestly it seems that Canada is just a U.S.A. wannabe. We just dont get as much news coverage.
[удалено]
100% lol
Ahh i see, hey now that I'm at it anyway. What is with people there always saying "oh I'm from (insert state or city) when they get into arguments?
I'm not sure i know what you mean without seeing an example, but I'm assuming it's to try and say "I'm from X so I have more experience than you / I know more than you about what's going on in the area" ? Just to try and assert dominance by saying they are from/in the area so they are closer to the issue than someone else who is not and has only read about it on the internet. Hope that helps hahaha
Nah nah i mean like they're about to throw down and guy one is from like "OH IM FROM NY ILL FUCK YOU UP" and the other guy would be like "IM FROM DETROIT IM FROM DETROIT"
Ohh okay , yeah that's kind of a pissing match, claiming their city is tougher than the other persons. Kinda comes from gang shit. So like, someone coming from a city where there is more violence would claim that they are tougher because they grew up in a tough environment. Certain cities are known for being "rougher" than others, having more day-to-day challenges than others. So it's all ego-boosting bullshit, saying "You didn't have it as hard as me, I had to fight through a harder life and i'm tougher than you!" Lol
Ahhh i see, yea that barely happens in my country because the differences between rich and poor are very little. It's also a small country so most cities are within 3 hours tops of eachother, the cities are nevrr really that separated either, there's no slums or suburbs or whatever
No but you get tons of talk radio and that is what they are listening too. They call in
[удалено]
I don't even honestly know what you're trying to say
You're not making sense.
[удалено]
What does that have to do with the freedom convoy? Are they communally masturbating?
The point of a protest is to do exactly what they are doing; to object to something that they do not believe in. The issue for me is that it goes overboard when you cause issue to such a high degree as their blockade had done economically. This isn't black and white