Hacker News Reader

Comment by verisimi | Hacker News Reader

Apparently it also includes people who donated to their cause. A peaceful, non-violent cause. Wow.

North Korea, look out!

Or, be careful when you take sides in a global geopolitical conflict dating back to before the Cold War and recently flaring up into open informational warfare so intense it swung elections and dragged in whole Silicon Valley unicorns as collaborators. When people figure out what happened you don't get treated as an innocent bystander. Do your due diligence.

Except it’s really not that anymore. Constant noise disruptions, gridlocking the city…it’s causing harm and the protests have damaged property, businesses and even gone as far to dance on the war memorials. These are not our best people.

You could describe MLK’s protests as disruptive, causing gridlock, damaging to businesses, etc.

BLM protestors danced on and destroyed statues as well.

The whole point of protest is to be disruptive. Being anti-vax is super stupid but protesting government mandates (or systemic racism, or anything) should be allowed.

The whole point of an escalated protest is being willing to accept the consequences. If you park illegally, you expect to get a parking ticket, protest or no. You expect your vehicle to get towed. If you defy a court injunction, you expect to spend the night in jail.

The people chaining themselves to trees expect to get arrested and spend time in jail. They also expect that their time in jail will help their cause.

Being part of a protest is not a "get out of jail free" card. Rather the opposite, spending some time in jail is part of the point.

What if they make up new laws?

A government? Making up laws? I think that’s literally called “a day ending in ‘y’”.

You may or may not have a higher power to defend you against bad laws, depending on your constitution and/or your government being e.g. treaty bound to an institution equivalent to the European Court of Human Rights.

Create new, targeted laws quickly.

per guidelines:

  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

Even though your new caveat reduces the frequency by which governments do it, this is still absolutely how they operate. I’ve had to delay a meeting with my local MP back before I left the UK because they had an “emergency” debate (IIRC due to a court ruling that one of their laws was bad).

I genuinely, sincerely, can’t see how your new version is supposed to strengthen your comment — there just isn’t enough in it for my mind to see a different hill to climb: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/arguments-h...

Emergency powers allow the overruling of safe-guards, grace/response-periods and due process. It is not "how they operate", it is explicitly outside the norm, and the emergency powers invoked by Trudeau had never been used before, let alone against non-violent civilians.

> because they had an “emergency” debate

Was it about (seldom used) emergency powers, and what was it in response to? A terror attack?

An "emergency" debate about bad laws isn't the same as "emergency" powers.

> a different hill to climb

The missing context is the context of the thread - that we are talking about the actions of Trudeau actions against the protestors.

Uh no. The point is to get what you’re demanding.

Why do you think protesters get defense attorneys? Why do you think all but the most extreme cry “first offense”? Why do you think college students are the most prolific protesters? To avoid punishment.

The point is to signal that you're willing to get arrested. That shows you're committed. If you're not willing to get arrested for your cause, some can accuse you of virtue signalling.

They don't actually want to get arrested, but they do want to signal that they won't stop protesting just because they risk getting arrested.

You could for sure. I would argue that in all cases there reaches a point where you either accept you’re breaking the law to invoke change or you’re simply going to have to keep trying to invoke change while accepting others don’t yet agree with you. These folks seem to be dealing in the bucket of issues where they have mixed support, they’ve said their piece, it’s time to change tactic if they believe in their causes, or they risk losing any sympathizers.

Frankly I’m not one of them, but I’m sure there are people in Ottawa that might have supported them that now won’t.

There’s also the issue that they were protesting provincial issues to the federal government. For weeks. After being told this constantly, some packed up and moved to the provincial legislator in toronto. They’re just not very well organized and it’s suggesting they might not be the issue anyone wants to hitch onto.

We weren't allowed out for a year, remember?!

If you lose the ability to protest, what barrier remains for crooked politicians to draw up whatever legislation they like? What the Nazi's did was legal you know - they wrote the laws!

Except it is[1] when you want to appease your Sikh community.

Tactics used during the protests that Trudeau supported and described as peaceful[2]: Gherao (encirclement), dharna (sit-in), raasta roko (traffic obstruction), demonstration, suicide, counter legislation.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0h48p7JspA

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Indian_farme...

Watch a lot of CBC, do you? I would recommend visiting the protest to see for yourself rather than relying on media narratives to form your opinion. Keep an open mind and judge for yourself. If you're not able to physically visit, there are large numbers of streamers who do nothing but walk around the area. The more neutral ones provide little to no commentary and try not to interact with anyone so you can better form your own opinion (almost sounds like actual journalism). At least give it a try.

Dancing!? Traffic? Loudness? Those savages. Meanwhile literally firebombing a church gets the thumbs up from trudeau.

The majority of the money was foreign. edit: and is not being funneled to the actual protestors. The people recently arrested tried to get some to use for legal fees. No bueno. yeah, yeah, no citation. Pretty hard to cite facebook posts that were removed because of subject matter.

This is false.

Check the article sent by the guy refuting me, that shows that 39% of donators were Canadian. 61% were foreign.

Check the article in another comment which said 51% came from Canada.

There isn't any remotely reputable data, just assertions. Which was my point with a tongue-in-cheek counter-assertion.

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/canada/2022/2/14/1_5780989....

Says here that 51% came from Canadians. I think 51% constitutes a majority.

Some 36,000 Canadian donors — about 39 per cent — are listed in the partial leak, apparently taken from U.S.-based platform GiveSendGo and posted online by a website devoted to disseminating leaked data.

But that number is dwarfed by the number of American donors — some 51,000 or about 55 per cent.

-- The 39% of the donors were local, and donated 51% of the money. 61% of donors were foreign, including the largest donor.

Right, but you said “the majority of the money is foreign”, now you just reiterated that “51% of the money is local”.

Here's some money to go f--k with another country's capital.

This is not a good look.

Is the money being foreign necessarily an inditement of the crowd funding campaign? The money came from 93,000 donations according to the article. Really that just says that it had global traction.

The foreign money isn't great, but it's not really an inditement.

The money coming in from all over, going to unknown persons, not being distributed to protestors who requested funding for gas/food/legal fees associated with the protest, the $1m withdrawal earlier with no (publically, at least) known trail... all that together is kind of a problem for anyone involved.

The funds were frozen in their TD bank account before they could be distributed - that smaller portion of the total that was released. Likewise, the organizers had a lawyer and accountant hired before GoFundMe would release any money.

Firstly, there is more money flowing to the peaceful protestors from other sources/channels than either the GoFundMe or GiveSendGo - which this myopic propaganda news piece (to go along with the hack/leak of personal data from GiveSendGo's database) of course that doesn't include critical thinking or discuss the broader context - and then people parrot the shallow narrative because they're not thinking for themselves, but just repeat what they see in mainstream - or upvoted to the top of Reddit, etc.

Likewise, we only have the demographic data for GiveSendGo. I'd bet that if the GoFundMe donations weren't attempted to be stolen that the demographics of the original GoFundMe donors has a high probability of being mostly from Canadians - and that it was the news of those funds being stolen; The funds blocked and attempted to be stolen via collusion with the government; a war crime under the Geneva convention by the way, to prevent resources/support from getting to protestors, which Canada is a signatory to - which the police officers who stole fuel, gas and firewood, from the protestors will be held accountable for this, eventually; the Ottawa police who might I add aren't mandated to be vaccinated or lose their job, the hypocrisy is quite shocking but telling here.

GoFundMe also broke their own standard protocol of not automatically refunding the funds to the donors - but instead saying they'd donate it their "pre-approved charities". This action very well could have outraged the world and many Americans who then may have felt the need to support these more and more clear tyrannical behaviours.

The world is far more complex than most are willing to invest the adequate, necessary time to understand, but then are happy to feel righteous that their arguably shallow view must be right - making it easy to toe the line feeling like you're part of the crowd/mob, and therefore "safe in numbers;" Jordan Peterson would likely classify these people as intelligent ideologues, who he says are the most dangerous because they've really convinced themselves that they're right - just provide them enough of a framework for shallow understanding and it feels plausible enough to be truth, when it's only a half truth; justice dictates we look for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Trudeau is sounding and acting more and more like Hitler as time goes by [no, I am not comparing him to the full atrocities of the Nazis exterminating as many Jews as he could), and I'm not the only seeing the similarities between Trudeau and Hitler: "World-famous liberal commentator Bill Maher calls out Trudeau." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i72czkSUsM - posted to Pierre Poilievre's YouTube account, Pierre who is now running for the Conservative party leadership after O'Toole was recently kicked out [he was incompetent the whole pandemic and why Trudeau had basically no opposition] - and he is likely to win. He's been calling out Trudeau's bullshit for years now in very clearly logical and articulate, grounded manner.

For those who aren't aware of the dire situation with how badly our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been unreasonably infringed upon by our government the last 2 years, including not even doing the due process required if they wanted to reasonably infringe upon it - which there is a method to doing so but which then requires public debate which Trudeau loves avoiding as part of his controlling the narrative, please watch Jordan Peterson and Brian Peckford discussing our constitutional crisis, as well as Peckford's filing a lawsuit against the Federal government a few weeks ago: "Canadian Constitutional Crisis | Brian Peckford | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast S4: E78" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdhFuMDLBDM (1+ million views since it was recorded/published Jan. 26th)

Likewise, you can also go to https://FreeNorthDeclaration.ca - where ~600 Canadian lawyers have signed, including law professors from our top universities including Queen's University - in hopes of educating Canadians that laws are being broken and due process not followed. If Canadian, please read it and ideally sign it if you care about the law.

Everyone blames foreign influence when it comes to protests:

Belarus:

https://www.wionews.com/world/belarusian-president-lukashenk...

> The leader on Wednesday said that "foreign influence" is causing the protests across the country. Roughly translated by Reuters, his words implied "There is no any unrest in the country. And you know, without the external force - there would have not been even that."

China:

> China Blames Foreigners for Trying to Foment Unrest

https://www.voanews.com/a/tehran-blames-foreign-influence-in...

> Tehran Blames Foreign Influence in Deadly Protests Over Gas Price Hike

Hong Kong:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/carrie-lam-suggests-foreign-...

> Carrie Lam suggests foreign influence in Hong Kong protests: ‘Perhaps there is something at work’

Kazakhstan:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-is-kazakhstan-claim...

> The government narrative changed, too. Nazarbayev’s handpicked president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, began pointing the finger at domestic and foreign “bandits and terrorists” and an internal plot to foment chaos.

Solomon Islands:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/26/solomon-island...

> Solomon Islands prime minister Manasseh Sogavare has blamed foreign interference over his government’s decision to switch alliances from Taiwan to Beijing for anti-government protests, arson and looting that have ravaged the capital Honiara for the past three days.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/world/asia/09china.html

Turkey:

https://atalayar.com/en/content/erdogan-calls-fight-against-...

> Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey, urged all state agencies in a decree published in the Turkish Official Gazette to act urgently to counter "foreign influence and corruption of national culture" as well as to safeguard "moral and national values" in media and film productions.

> However, critics of the Turkish government believe that this could be for the purpose of increasing censorship.

Why would ostensibly "nonviolent protesters" need an arsenal of illegal weapons?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-protest-blocka...

FYI, the word “illegal” doesn’t appear in the article.

I’m not super familiar with all the intricacies of firearms law in Canada, but nothing there looks like it would be illegal to own there. A few are “restricted”.

The fact that the firearms seized by the RCMP is a pretty good indicator that they were not possessed legally.

I know nothing about this specific instance beyond that article, but there are tons of situations where law enforcement seizes property without a crime being committed.

A former RCMP sniper, who was also present in other freedom convoy press conferences, says the weapons are being planted by an unknown group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXi8ZkJ9qM

CBC will not report this.

Four people associated with the “Diaganon” movement are being prosecuted for conspiracy to murder RCMP. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-rcmp-...

Your homeboy is referring to the Ottawa protest, and makes his claim based on an “anonymous” tipster, e.g. he’s making shit up. Little wonder the media isn’t reporting his claim: it has no basis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com