If anyone is spewing shit, it's you mate.
Calm down and get a hobby.
But "overthrow" reads to me like the protestors sought to forcefully remove and replace the existing government. In other words, a coup. That is a very different statement, and one I would really like you to substantiate with evidence if that's what you're trying to claim.
It was very similar to the first few days of the Easter Uprising in Ireland in 1916, except with trucks. A large group of people held key infrastructure hostage, with unreasonable demands that would not be met.
Those claiming otherwise need everyone to believe their side is the victim.
I asked for a citation. If this is literally what the protest organizers did, then it should be easy to provide one. Their official Facebook page where they published their official position is still up.
If you care enough about challenging your own beliefs, and if it's so easy, you'll do it yourself. I'm not going to waste my time and energy trying to convince random strangers on the internet. I know better.
Do you have any evidence for this beyond simply postulating it as fact? I'd be really interested in seeing who in the convoy, and what proportion of people, were making these demands.
And no, it was not like the Easter Uprising. The Easter Uprising saw armed insurrectionists kill over a hundred government personnel and hundreds of civilians. This kind of comparison does not give me confidence in your analysis of the protest.
There are many many simularities.
I'm not going to waste my time searching the internet for something you're fully capable of doing yourself.
You know damn well that was their goal.
And again, this is the fourth time that you've just postulated this as fact rather than linking to the protest leaders' actual statements. I have searched the internet for any such statements calling for a forceful overthrow of the Canadian government, and I have not found any. No, I don't know that was their goal, and nothing in my searches indicate that it was. If you're serious about convincing people that the protestors posed a legitimate threat to democracy, you need to do a lot better than making claims with no evidence and telling people do their own research.
I Know you are full of shit, therefore I know you know you are full of shit
My hobby is calling bullshit and it is fun. There’s so much of it!
Edit: for extra context, the two people who took major time out of their lives to do this, one was in the Canadian Forces when they were younger (not at the time obv) and the other came to Canada in the early 90s after their government wrecked their country and was watching in horror of it happening to them again
Edit - a friend provided me with the following article. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027642231166...
Enjoy
If that is all you have then that is extremely weak. Plenty of movements don't have the best people in them...
The article linked was in reference to their weak ass attempt to overthrow the government.
And when that happened, it was immediately taken down by the rest of the protesters. Just admit that you fell for the alarmist propaganda and move on with your life.
Just because they sucked at communication, their demands changed minute by minute, doesn't mean that wasn't their intent. They absolutely tried to do this.
Stop being an apologist to a horrific group of people. They are so far from what represents this country and our democracy.
Prove it. What groups? Where were they? How many people were in these groups?
> Just because they sucked at communication, their demands changed minute by minute, doesn't mean that wasn't their intent. They absolutely tried to do this.
It sounds like you suck at communication since you cannot substantiate your claims that they wanted to overthrow the government, nor substantiate your claims that they were white nationalists, nor substantiate your claims that they wanted the conservatives to take power.
And even if "they wanted the conservatives to take power", that's ambiguous at best, and does not at all amount to "overthrowing the government". A democratic no-confidence vote could qualify as the conservatives taking over, but that doesn't qualify as overthrowing the democratically elected government. Broad protests that lead to a no-confidence vote is the definition of democracy in action.
So yes, you fell for alarmist propaganda from the media that had clear incentives to sensationalize what was happening. Which isn't to say the protest was legal or without problems, but the things you're saying about it simply aren't true.
The fact you keep coming back to this conversation when I'm clearly unwilling to put any effort in speaks volumes about you.
I don't need to prove anything, I don't need to substantiate anything. I owe you nothing. You're just some random stranger on the internet.
The closet thing I could find is:
> Others adopted more extreme positions. Some denounced what they defined as the authoritarian, treasonous, and corrupt governing practices of prime minister Justin Trudeau and requested the dissolution of the government
In parliamentary systems that does not mean abolishing the government or state or something like that. It means they want Trudeau to step down and they want new elections or at least a new coalition which results in a new prime minister.
Using the word dissolve and form and the like when it comes to parliamentary systems has nothing to do with overthrowing the government.
---
In terms of the flag, many people on HN supported occupy wall street. There were communist flags there. Does that mean everybody who supported the occupy movement wants to kill gay people like communists did? No, of course not.
Also, the other protestors weren't fans of the flag...
Can you quote directly from the article where it says anything close to that the protestors wanted to "overthrow the government"? I'm hesitant to call you a liar before giving you a chance to explain your point of view, but nothing I read in that link comes close to substantiating your claims.