> They were peacefully protesting, how were they criminals?

They were protestors until they started living on the streets, at which point they became occupiers (CC §63(1)):

* https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/protesters-build-wooden-structure-...

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-truck-convoy-pr...

* https://pressprogress.ca/photos-show-young-child-with-a-gas-...

When ordered to disperse they did not, which now goes into disobeying lawful police orders.

And if I was a resident of Ottawa, I doubt I would have considered 24/7 honking and the generation of noise "peaceful" (CC §31).

* https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/angela-hewitt-play...

If you want your movement to succeed and goals achieve your goals you need to get the public on your side, not piss them off and consider you inconsiderate jackasses.

Also: is shutting an international border crossing (bridge), which affects the commutes and livelihood (via supply chains) of thousands of people every day, "peaceful"?

* https://ccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Know-Your-Rights...

Sounds like we need some sort of Geneva Conventions around protesting, a set of rules that protestors & governments can agree on so that we differentiate between "legit protesting" vs not.

Was Occupy Wallstreet illegit?

They were blowing freight truck horns at all hours of the day and night. Tens of thousands of people's lives and sleep were disrupted for weeks on end. 90% of the stuff they were protesting literally wasn't real.

Obviously there is a fine line between legitimate, legal protest and it should be taken very seriously. IMO that particular protest pushed that line too hard.

The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in some of the most affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.

Lol do you actually live in Ottawa?

Calling downtown near the Parliament buildings "the most affluent areas around the nation's capital" is pretty hilarious.

You can tell when people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when they think downtown cores are where rich people live.

Outside the USA, including Canada, downtown cores are where (many, but not all) rich people live.

Yes please tell me more about where I live and you don't.

I live in Toronto and have been to Ottawa many times, as well as tons of other Canadian and American cities. Downtown cores have some middle class folks in them, usually in somewhat luxurious condo buildings. But in no way does the interpretation of "where all the rich Canadians live" being downtown Ottawa make any sense.

Is it no longer the most expensive part of downtown? Obviously there are rich suburbs.

It has never been the expensive part.

The Glebe, Sandy Hill, Rockliffe, Island Park, etc.. All those parts of Ottawa's core have always been more afluent than the downtown by the Parliament.

The rise of new condos in that area has probably improved it somewhat in the last 10 years but it's still far from "afluent".

Point stands regardless, but it is relatively affluent to it's surroundings here: https://neighbourhoodequity.ca/economic-maps/

The point absolutely does not stand. You've retreated to "relative affluence". For your point to stand, it would also have to be a given that the acceptability of noise pollution correlates with how rich the population is. That doesn't stand either.

Lol what? Point stands regardless? What does that mean?

- "Oh my point was proven wrong but I'm going to stick to it anyways? Because fact shmacts?"

Your whole argument was that the convoy was shut down because it inconvenienced the wealthy locals.. Which is completely not what happened.

It's ok to say you were wrong.

It means you can strike "some of the most" from my comment and the point remains unrebutted.

>The stuff they were protesting was very real, and those measures specifically caused disruption to hundreds of thousands of people's lives and sleep for months on end. The government turning to wartime measures so that privileged Ottawans living in ~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ affluent areas around the nation's capital can withstand a few honks for a few weeks is absolutely preposterous.

Did the government force people to take vaccines?

>Dennis: Think about it. She’s out in the middle of nowhere with some dude she barely knows. She looks around her, what does she see? Nothing but open ocean. “Oh, there’s nowhere for me to run, what am I gonna do, say no?”

>Mac: Okay…that seems really dark though.

>Dennis: No, no, it’s not dark. You’re misunderstanding me, bro.

>Mac: I think I am.

>Dennis: Yeah, you are. ‘Cause if the girl said no, then the answer obviously is no. The thing is that she’s not gonna say no, she’d never say no…because of the implication.

>Mac: Now, you said that word “implication” a couple of times. What implication?

>Dennis: The implication that things might go wrong for her if she refuses to sleep with me. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for her, but she’s thinking that they will.

So no, they didn't.

Sure, and at first the Canadian government didn't force indigenous children into residential schools - it just withheld resources and services and used a monopoly on violence to make resistance untenable. Believing that's acceptable behaviour from your government, is certainly... a position.

Equating cultural genocide to a public health measure is insane.

Respectfully, it is insane to not recognize the discrete similarities listed, and moreover, how many genocides have their roots in purported "public health measures".

I feel you are exemplifying the typical conspiratorial thinking patterns. You might as well have asked me to concede based on the fact that there are technically similarities between vaccine mandates and the Yellow Badge. I mean you must be insane not to recognize how they're basically the same thing, right? /s

> The government turning to wartime measures […]

The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war:

* §3 For the purposes of this Act, a* national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or, (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

* https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html

Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)?

The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Emergency_Commiss...

>The Emergencies Act has nothing to do with war

War is the obvious example that meets 3(a) and 3(b), because the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, which was designed to give the government wide latitude for authoritarian actions desired in wartime.

>The Act mandates an inquiry be called after any invocation, and the inquiry in question found that the use of the Act was justified:

The inquiry in question (led by a longstanding party member) found reluctantly:

* I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming. Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion than the one I have arrived at. [1]

In part, because the definition you cited is not the entry point for the federal proclamation, which is actually at s.16 of the act:

* §16 In this Part, declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act.

Even though the Canadian government was told by CSIS at the time:

* Canada's intelligence agency didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in its enabling law [2]

And comparatively, the last time this level of power was invoked domestically it was in response to separatist terrorism culminating in the murder of a government official. [3]

>Was the "health or safety of Canadians" at risk? Did it "exceed the capacity or authority of a province" (Ontario under Ford)?

The criteria is not just "at risk" but "seriously endangered". The commission's report, in my opinion, takes a tortured approach to justifying the meeting of this threshold.

[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/public-order-emergenc...

[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/convoy-protest-emergencies-...

[3] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...

This is the very essence of what real protesting is. It's meant to inconvenience people and be in their face. What do you think the word protest even means?

Honking is literally terrorism, haven't you heard? When lefties protest they're allowed to make huge mess but when right wingers make some noise (literally) that's a heckin war crime.

Can you cite an example of where Canadian protests by "lefties" took over a major public road for weeks on end, and disrupted the lives of thousands of citizens, harassing them, depriving them of sleep, preventing their ability to get to/from their homes and businesses?

I can tell you're already very convinced of who was right and wrong in this and you're trying to make this a left vs right thing, but there are limits to how many problems you can cause when you protest - no matter the cause - before civil society (via it's police force and/or government) says "ok, that's enough".

Either that, or civil society sides with you, and then major change happens.

And I guess no one wanted to side with the COVID-denying racists.

> before civil society (via it's police force and/or government) says "ok, that's enough".

Can you elaborate why it is "and/or government". Why is it acceptable that the government by-pass the normal legal system in dealing with protestors?

To be fair, I do come from a Swedish perspective. Historically we had a fairly painful event in 1931 when the government did that and sent the military to do the job of the police in order to break a protest. The outcome was the death of several protestors, and some major political consensus to never again use military against protestors. In 2001 there was again a major protests, and just for the fact that some politicians started to suggest the use of military force, laws was drafted and put in place to explicitly forbid the government from ever using military force against protestors. If protestors break the law, you send the police to catch and jail them. If there isn't enough police, you get more.

> Why is it acceptable that the government by-pass the normal legal system in dealing with protestors?

I'm not going to debate whether it was legal or not with you because (I'm assuming) neither of us are lawyers.

I'll say that I don't particularly agree with the bank account shenanigans they pulled, but they only did that because the Ottawa police force completely failed to do their job in dealing with the blockade.

I definitely don't like the precedent that was set, but having seen the blockade first hand (it was not a "peaceful protest", it was an aggressive encampment that was regularly threatening to passerbys and locals) and the impact it had on the area - my parents live nearby - they had to do something.

I support the rights of citizens to protest but as I said, there's a limit.

The legality of the event is know. It was illegal, as deemed by a court of law.

The question I was after is if the concept is ever moral or reasonable to deal with protestors with methods outside the legal system. Common methods are the military, but also martial law, suspending bank accounts (without a court decision), and other methods.

Current in Sweden we had recent several demonstrations that lead to riots, and historically we had major ones including one that lead to several demonstrators getting shot. Every single time, researchers and government investigations has found that using anything other than the regular legal system is counter productive, and in some cases very deadly. If the police don't do their job you get more police from other regions. In a event just a few months ago, they even got police from nearby countries to help (despite massive demonstrations and influx of tourists, crime went significant down during that period).

In general, the problem of police not doing their job seems to stem from when they are afraid. Either because of being extremely outnumbered, or in combination with poor instruction (with can lead to being afraid of doing mistakes in a political hot situation). Both are problems that can be solved by politicians without going outside the framework of the legal system.

Here's one where the protesters blockaded rail lines for months causing layoffs and many millions in lost revenue.

Why didn't the government shut down these protestors bank accounts?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/via-rail-layoffs-1.5468617

Not really "lefties" here, but this is a reasonable example...

I will say that First Nations issues in Canada are pretty complicated, particularly when it comes to unceded territories and the rights around those.

It's also worth mentioning that those rail line blockades in Ontario were done in support of other protests in BC where the government eventually sent cops in riot gear to dismantle the blockades by violence.

Something that didn't happen in Ottawa, and I'll let you figure out why.

>the government eventually sent cops in riot gear to dismantle the blockades by violence.

The Ottawa police did the exact same thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/19/world/canada/canada-truck...

"COVID-denying racists."

Have you seen videos or pictures of the protestors? They were all different races, there wasn't an ounce of "racism" anywhere in there.

My friend, my parents live right near where this happened.. I had to go help them many times.

I don't need to see "videos or pictures" I saw it with my own eyes, many times.

I saw first hand the confederate flags, the screamed slurs at passerbys, the aggressive racist-coded chants and associated violent rhetoric..

One night my mom got screamed at by a drunken asshole waving a big confederate flag, she was shaking so badly she didn't sleep that night..

So your hearsay "there wasn't an ounce of racism anywhere in there" can take a hike.

Sleep deprivation is torture under the Geneva Convention. It's rightfully considered a war crime.

You don't get to do that to other people. Not in my idea of a civil society.

Get a grip. Honking is honking. Comparing it to "war crimes" like killing civilians makes little sense and is disingenuous[1].

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...

Translation: "I don't live anywhere near the affected area, so I didn't experience it. If I had, I could have just left town for a while and waited for the whole thing to blow over. I don't see the problem."

It's possible to be against the protesters and/or think that they're unacceptably annoying, without trying to compare your plight to innocent civilians who were killed/raped by enemy soldiers.

Exactly. There's a force continuum at play.

Truckers take over the city and make life a living hell for thousands of innocent residents? Lock their bank accounts and starve them out, and (ideally) prosecute the perpetrators alongside anyone who donated to them.

Soldiers raping and killing civilians? Blow them to kingdom come if possible (it's a war, after all). Otherwise, identify them, convene a tribunal after the war, and hang those found guilty.

FA, FO.

Still hugely disproportionate.

If someone is non-violent protesting in a location they arent allowed to be, the appropriate response it to arrest and move them, not lock their bank accounts and starve their families.

Deliberate sleep deprivation is torture. It isn't "non-violent protest." This isn't a matter of opinion.

nonsense.

Locking someone in a cell and keeping them awake for the purpose if inflicting suffering is torture. Making noise so that someone in the freedom of their own home has to put ear plugs in is not.

conflating them ignores the clear differences and stretches the meaning of the word. You might as well say an ice cream display in the super market is torture.

Again, translation: "Like the other guy said, this didn't affect me or my loved ones. Even if it had, I have the resources to deal with it. So, meh."

no, the translation is that something can be bad, but not everything bad is literal torture.

Please don't break the HN guidelines like this, and please don't perpetuate flamewars. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Yes, the other commenter was also breaking the site guidelines and I've responded to them elsewhere.)

Please don't break the HN guidelines like this, and please don't perpetuate flamewars like this. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Yes, the other commenter was also breaking the site guidelines and I've responded to them elsewhere.)

If they had been honking to protest the RCMP murdering natives, you would not be making this inane war crime claim.

I guess people living on Manhattan get tortured a lot between the fire truck horns and the police sirens.

Sorry are you trying to imply that the way various levels of US governments responded to recent left-wing protests has some conspiratorial parallel to the way the Canadian federal government responded to a right wing protest?

The city of Ottawa's law enforcement officers were ordered to remove the protesters weeks before the federal government stepped in. The cops basically just didn't do their job. The emergency act was not invoked lightly.

Who said anything about the US government? Left wing protestors get plenty of leeway in Canada but right wing protestors get branded terrorists for being loud. Oh but it "wasn't done lightly", whatever that's meant to mean, so obviously it's kosher.

To what "leftist' protests are you referring, exactly?

Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are, so please don't do it on HN.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

The other commenter was breaking the site guidelines too, but in a different way, and I've responded to them also.

Perhaps the emergency act should have been invoked against the police.

Can you please not post in the flamewar and/or ideological battle style to HN? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Note this one:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

and this one:

"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

Peacefully protesting can be criminal. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The right to protest and speech does not include a right to break the law.

The fundamental problem with the Canadian bank response is that it was not proportional, broke convention, and did not fit the crime.

If someone is trespassing, you arrest and remove them.

Government have incredible power they can wield, but convention is that they do not use it to force compliance in every circumstance.