Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:47 am
NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:37 am
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:42 am
No reason given, but in reality the truckers are basically shutting down the city now for days. The price for civil disobedience has always been the exposure to jail, court, fines, etc.
And it is Canadian law, politics, etc. that make the situation there somewhat different than in the US. The level of support for the protesters is rather small...so there is little pushback in Canada with getting tough and removing the truckers by certain means beyond what you might see in the US.
Not just days, weeks. Affecting peoples' livelihoods, supply chains, and regional economies.
Lots of rights go bye bye when criminals create a state of Emergency.
And don't forget there are actual Nazis with Nazi flags in the convoy.
Today, we are concerned when protests ‘affect people’s livelihoods’. Good to know.
Out of curiosity, is your right to your personal checking account gone if you happen to contribute to a fund that supports demonstrators, whereby the state can simply seize your funds without presenting any evidence to a court? Just call the bank and say, ‘hey, seize the funds available in that guys account and wire the proceeds to us’.
In a state of Emergency?
Or just because you don't like the other side on a protest?
Obviously, this is a very, very slippery slope and we should not want to ever see conditions under which this sort of action would even be considered.
Let's first admit that this was not a riot with some businesses burned down in a limited area (incredibly serious as that is), but rather an extended interruption of an entire economy. Not a march and loud voices but an intent to shut down an economy.
But let's put the scale aside and simply stick with the riot level for a moment, would you agree that it's qualitatively (and potentially legally) different to provide help for bail and legal defense.... compared to providing the funds for people to travel to the riot with the intent to riot and burn? Or to pay for the kerosene with which to light the fires? Or to pay for the bomb materials, or the guns?
See my question...at what point does "financial support" crossover into complicity with the illegal act?
Petey,
I avoided any comparison of the relative righteousness of the protests of the summer of 2020 vs the Canadian trucker protest of 2022. And I put aside the large scale of the impact of the trucker protests versus the very small number of actual protestors, all of whom doing the major damage intentionally, and by comparison, the enormous number of peaceful protestors doing no damage versus the few who were doing damage in 2020. I put that aside.
And I went right at the concept of rioters burning buildings, differentiating between financial support for legal defense and bail with financial support paying people to riot, with the intent of the damage. If someone buys the kerosene, the bombs, or the guns or pays people to destroy, they are complicit and subject to consequences of that complicity.