Removing trucks could be almost 'impossible,' say heavy towing experts(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Removing trucks could be almost 'impossible,' say heavy towing experts
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-protest-truck-tow-remove-1.6339652
112 comments
Anyone still there has already counted the cost and decided that jail and fines are insufficient to dissuade them. Just like every other protest movement that you like. Now what?
Also, you’re Canada, not China, so you’re hamstrung by those pesky human rights. Jail and fines is all you can do; you can’t just shoot ‘em all
Also, you’re Canada, not China, so you’re hamstrung by those pesky human rights. Jail and fines is all you can do; you can’t just shoot ‘em all
Well, you could sterilize all the women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization_in_Ca...
Take possession and hold them until their fines are paid and if they fail to pay them in a certain period auction them off to recoup the costs.
If you park against the rules in Canada and obstruct others, can they sue you to recover any costs that is/may be caused by the obstruction? In a small claims court, perhaps?
Start jailing and fining them?
"""
The Bonus Army was a group of 43,000 demonstrators – made up of 17,000 veterans of the United States in World War I, together with their families and affiliated groups – who gathered in Washington, D.C. in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service bonus certificates...
Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment with compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.
On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
...
Though the Bonus Army incident did not derail the careers of the military officers involved, it proved politically disastrous for Hoover, and it is considered a contributing factor to his losing the 1932 election in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt. """
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment with compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.
On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
...
Though the Bonus Army incident did not derail the careers of the military officers involved, it proved politically disastrous for Hoover, and it is considered a contributing factor to his losing the 1932 election in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt. """
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Would banks not be willing to buy those certificates from them for at least face value?
With what capital? The banks were in the process of failing.
Regardless of whether you agree with the truckers' methods, it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify the lockdowns and mandates. They've outlived their usefulness and are now doing more economic harm than public health good.
If you disagree, I only request that you ask yourself: If you were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, would you recognise it?
If you disagree, I only request that you ask yourself: If you were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, would you recognise it?
How about we wait until hospitals have the capacity to resume elective surgeries.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/waterloo-r...
Ontario hospitalization of people with COVID-19 peaked on January 18th, less than one month ago, at the highest level ever recorded during this pandemic. While perhaps less than half of those hospitalized are there for COVID, nevertheless, those people need to be put in isolation wards. That is, unless you believe that the second-most contagious virus known should be just allowed to course through hospital wards.
Ontario COVID ICU usage peaked on January 24th at the second highest level ever seen during this pandemic. That was only two weeks ago. On Jan 31st Ontario eased their lockdown and there is great uncertainty about whether hospital and ICU admissions are going to start increasing again in the subsequent weeks because we have only a limited understanding of how many people were infected during the Omicron wave.
Baring another mutation that would thrust COVID into the position of the most contagious known virus, or otherwise evade immunity, we are nearing the end of the pandemic phase, where the virus is novel to the general population, and entering an endemic phase. Hospital beds will clear, surgeries will resume and then we can resume a more normal lifestyle. However, if you are a fan of medical services, like I am, we probably need a little bit more time.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/waterloo-r...
Ontario hospitalization of people with COVID-19 peaked on January 18th, less than one month ago, at the highest level ever recorded during this pandemic. While perhaps less than half of those hospitalized are there for COVID, nevertheless, those people need to be put in isolation wards. That is, unless you believe that the second-most contagious virus known should be just allowed to course through hospital wards.
Ontario COVID ICU usage peaked on January 24th at the second highest level ever seen during this pandemic. That was only two weeks ago. On Jan 31st Ontario eased their lockdown and there is great uncertainty about whether hospital and ICU admissions are going to start increasing again in the subsequent weeks because we have only a limited understanding of how many people were infected during the Omicron wave.
Baring another mutation that would thrust COVID into the position of the most contagious known virus, or otherwise evade immunity, we are nearing the end of the pandemic phase, where the virus is novel to the general population, and entering an endemic phase. Hospital beds will clear, surgeries will resume and then we can resume a more normal lifestyle. However, if you are a fan of medical services, like I am, we probably need a little bit more time.
Not allowing superspreading events, like football matches or huge parties, but truckers are travelling alone, I’m quite doubtful that they are the reason that the hospitals are full.
First of all I feel I should start by saying that the Ottawa protests are not about truckers.
https://www.trucknews.com/blogs/the-so-called-freedom-convoy...
The protests are disavowed by the Canadian Trucking Alliance and 90% of truckers are vaccinated and are exempt from the quarantine rules. Instead, the protest organizers are western separatists with their own agendas. This is their protest and the are using the Trucking industry as a tool in their PR. The very fact that we are discussing truckers now here on HN has more to do with their PR campaign than trucker well-being.
https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-...
Secondly, Canada's ending of the exemption for truckers from quarantine rules is reciprocal with the US rules. Canada unilaterally reinstating the quarantine exemption for cross-border truckers does approximately nothing to help unvaccinated cross-border truckers because they are still subject to the US rules regarding vaccination status when entering back into the United States. Again, this just goes to show that the protests in Ottawa have nothing to do with actual cross-border trucking. It would require international cooperation to actually address the alleged issue at hand.
Now, with regards to the matter of whether truckers traveling alone are the cause of the hospitals being full: The Omicron variant didn't originate in Canada. The virus was imported into the country from outside through a human vessel and was only able to establish itself in the country due to a violation of quarantine. No doubt the Omicron variant entered the country multiple times through multiple carriers.
Probably some of these carriers were subject to quarantine rules and violated the rules. Possibly some of these carriers were exempt from quarantine rules to begin with. But as a matter of fact, the reason the hospitals are full is because some people came into the country and didn't adequately quarantine, regardless of whether they were required to or if they were exempt.
Now, I do get it. Canada is not New Zealand. Our COVID border protections are a sieve. There was no way Omicron was ever going to be kept out of Canada. But just because our border protections are a sieve, isn't reason to eliminate them. Our goal here is not to prevent COVID from existing in Canada. Our goal is to spread out when people get sick over time so the people who will require hospital services don't all require it simultaneously. And it is plausible that our sieve can help in that regards.
When Omicron first enters Canada, it will spread more slowly if the "seeds" we are importing are spread out over time. The fewer seeds that are planted, and the more time in between them, both spreads out when people fall ill and gives more time to administer booster shots to the most at risk people.
With that all said, Omicron is now firmly planted in Canada. Whether cross-border travelers of any kind import Omicron basically makes no difference. So, as long as COVID doesn't mutate to move from the the second most contagious virus known to the most contagious virus known or otherwise escape immunity, the border policy isn't really effective at doing anything anymore. From my armchair it seems very unlikely that COVID has room to grow more contagious. But I also felt the same thing about Delta, so WTF do I know.
Therefore, I defer to those who hopefully know more than I do. If government advisors say, "hey, this COVID thing is well past its peak. Border policy is no longer doing anything meaningful. There is no longer any point in keeping it." then I'll be on board with that. If government advisors say, "so long as COVID continues to run its mutation experiments in millions of human shaped petri dishes across the globe, we will continue to keep our COVID border sieve in place." then I'm on board with that too. And if that means 10% less cross-border trucking capacity, then I'm okay with that too.
https://www.trucknews.com/blogs/the-so-called-freedom-convoy...
The protests are disavowed by the Canadian Trucking Alliance and 90% of truckers are vaccinated and are exempt from the quarantine rules. Instead, the protest organizers are western separatists with their own agendas. This is their protest and the are using the Trucking industry as a tool in their PR. The very fact that we are discussing truckers now here on HN has more to do with their PR campaign than trucker well-being.
https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-...
Secondly, Canada's ending of the exemption for truckers from quarantine rules is reciprocal with the US rules. Canada unilaterally reinstating the quarantine exemption for cross-border truckers does approximately nothing to help unvaccinated cross-border truckers because they are still subject to the US rules regarding vaccination status when entering back into the United States. Again, this just goes to show that the protests in Ottawa have nothing to do with actual cross-border trucking. It would require international cooperation to actually address the alleged issue at hand.
Now, with regards to the matter of whether truckers traveling alone are the cause of the hospitals being full: The Omicron variant didn't originate in Canada. The virus was imported into the country from outside through a human vessel and was only able to establish itself in the country due to a violation of quarantine. No doubt the Omicron variant entered the country multiple times through multiple carriers.
Probably some of these carriers were subject to quarantine rules and violated the rules. Possibly some of these carriers were exempt from quarantine rules to begin with. But as a matter of fact, the reason the hospitals are full is because some people came into the country and didn't adequately quarantine, regardless of whether they were required to or if they were exempt.
Now, I do get it. Canada is not New Zealand. Our COVID border protections are a sieve. There was no way Omicron was ever going to be kept out of Canada. But just because our border protections are a sieve, isn't reason to eliminate them. Our goal here is not to prevent COVID from existing in Canada. Our goal is to spread out when people get sick over time so the people who will require hospital services don't all require it simultaneously. And it is plausible that our sieve can help in that regards.
When Omicron first enters Canada, it will spread more slowly if the "seeds" we are importing are spread out over time. The fewer seeds that are planted, and the more time in between them, both spreads out when people fall ill and gives more time to administer booster shots to the most at risk people.
With that all said, Omicron is now firmly planted in Canada. Whether cross-border travelers of any kind import Omicron basically makes no difference. So, as long as COVID doesn't mutate to move from the the second most contagious virus known to the most contagious virus known or otherwise escape immunity, the border policy isn't really effective at doing anything anymore. From my armchair it seems very unlikely that COVID has room to grow more contagious. But I also felt the same thing about Delta, so WTF do I know.
Therefore, I defer to those who hopefully know more than I do. If government advisors say, "hey, this COVID thing is well past its peak. Border policy is no longer doing anything meaningful. There is no longer any point in keeping it." then I'll be on board with that. If government advisors say, "so long as COVID continues to run its mutation experiments in millions of human shaped petri dishes across the globe, we will continue to keep our COVID border sieve in place." then I'm on board with that too. And if that means 10% less cross-border trucking capacity, then I'm okay with that too.
Omicron is great at evading antibodies (luckily the T cells are still working in my vaccinated body for serious complications), so at this point vaccination rules outside hospitals have no medical value (limiting superspreading events may still help, but at this point it's hard to know).
I also saw the anti-governent signs, but I don't blame the people for it, although it may make the protest less effective in achieving something on the short term.
I have seen far right protests before, and this just doesn't look like that, even if it was initiated by a far right group.
I also saw the anti-governent signs, but I don't blame the people for it, although it may make the protest less effective in achieving something on the short term.
I have seen far right protests before, and this just doesn't look like that, even if it was initiated by a far right group.
> If you were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, would you recognise it?
If you were suffering from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, would you recognize it? Gaslighting is not a very convincing argument, and that's exactly what it is when you implicitly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having an invisible psychological problem. It's really is still possible for people to disagree on vaccine and mask mandates, both expressing legitimate reasons and concerns, without resort to such cheap tactics.
If you were suffering from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, would you recognize it? Gaslighting is not a very convincing argument, and that's exactly what it is when you implicitly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having an invisible psychological problem. It's really is still possible for people to disagree on vaccine and mask mandates, both expressing legitimate reasons and concerns, without resort to such cheap tactics.
> If you were suffering from Oppositional Defiant Disorder, would you recognize it?
FWIW, "The State" has long labeled anti-tyranny dissenters with labels like that. That's why things like ODD are based around _behaviors and actions which are problematic_ vs the dissenting opinion per se.
Freedom of conscious is vital. Without it, we are simply automatons programmed by technocrats.
FWIW, "The State" has long labeled anti-tyranny dissenters with labels like that. That's why things like ODD are based around _behaviors and actions which are problematic_ vs the dissenting opinion per se.
Freedom of conscious is vital. Without it, we are simply automatons programmed by technocrats.
> FWIW, "The State" has long labeled anti-tyranny dissenters with labels like that.
...and for just as long, plutocracy's "laissez faire" foot soldiers have been accusing everyone else of Stockholm Syndrome. That's kind of my point. We should be able to have a debate without the name calling, whether it's done blatantly enough for the moderators to act or not-so-subtly disguised with the "anyone who..." ruse.
...and for just as long, plutocracy's "laissez faire" foot soldiers have been accusing everyone else of Stockholm Syndrome. That's kind of my point. We should be able to have a debate without the name calling, whether it's done blatantly enough for the moderators to act or not-so-subtly disguised with the "anyone who..." ruse.
> now doing more economic harm than public health good
I measure harm in units other than economies, and so this equation is meaningless to me. It may be strictly true in some sense but I don't understand it as demanding any particular response.
Stockholm syndrome probably isn't real either btw.
I measure harm in units other than economies, and so this equation is meaningless to me. It may be strictly true in some sense but I don't understand it as demanding any particular response.
Stockholm syndrome probably isn't real either btw.
> I measure harm in units other than economies
Thank you. It's too often forgotten that markets and economies exist to serve humans, not the other way around.
Thank you. It's too often forgotten that markets and economies exist to serve humans, not the other way around.
Load of bullshit that the air brakes can't be released.
The air horns that they've been blaring at 100-120db (or more) is tied to the air system that supplies the brakes. If they can blare the horn, they've got air pressure to release the brakes.
The air horns that they've been blaring at 100-120db (or more) is tied to the air system that supplies the brakes. If they can blare the horn, they've got air pressure to release the brakes.
From the article:
> Heavy-duty tow trucks can transfer air from their system to the trucks to release the brakes, Allen said. Failing that, they could "cage" the brakes, which involves manually backing the brake off each individual wheel.
"We have all the capabilities on our tow trucks to do it … but I don't think anyone would want to," he said.
That's because many companies who provide heavy towing would be hesitant to risk their relationships with trucking companies, Allen said.
> Heavy-duty tow trucks can transfer air from their system to the trucks to release the brakes, Allen said. Failing that, they could "cage" the brakes, which involves manually backing the brake off each individual wheel.
"We have all the capabilities on our tow trucks to do it … but I don't think anyone would want to," he said.
That's because many companies who provide heavy towing would be hesitant to risk their relationships with trucking companies, Allen said.
That's the real reason why the heavy towing companies don't want to do it.
This all started with an epic failure by the OPS and the city of Ottawa for allowing vehicles right up the hill in the first place.
They don't have problems shutting down all car traffic for Canada Day, or other events like La Machine. Hell, I've seen specific barriers meant to trap and disable cars in the Byward market.
If you want to determine intention, you're better off looking at action over words. The action taken thus far by the OPS says a hell of a lot.
This all started with an epic failure by the OPS and the city of Ottawa for allowing vehicles right up the hill in the first place.
They don't have problems shutting down all car traffic for Canada Day, or other events like La Machine. Hell, I've seen specific barriers meant to trap and disable cars in the Byward market.
If you want to determine intention, you're better off looking at action over words. The action taken thus far by the OPS says a hell of a lot.
>Some activists have alleged the Ottawa Police Service's treatment of the truck convoy has displayed a double standard, since in November 2020, officers moved in on a group blocking an intersection to protest the force's treatment of Black and Indigenous people within days.
>But Skof said removing the convoy is a more difficult task: "You're talking about pedestrians for one thing, versus vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds."
---
This is the same lesson regarding weapons. Those with tools of force can oppose the government, while those without cannot.
Maybe left-wing groups need to buy a few Freightliners for future protests.
>But Skof said removing the convoy is a more difficult task: "You're talking about pedestrians for one thing, versus vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds."
---
This is the same lesson regarding weapons. Those with tools of force can oppose the government, while those without cannot.
Maybe left-wing groups need to buy a few Freightliners for future protests.
this "protest" is only showing that next time, BLM needs to march with trucks.
But then again it is also showing that perhaps the cops side more with the right-leaning "protests".
But then again it is also showing that perhaps the cops side more with the right-leaning "protests".
I strongly suspect that “BLM support” is not a normal distribution, and that the overlap between “BLM supporter” and “owner of a large commercial vehicle” is relatively small.
I’m from the US, and each side of the aisle has its own methods that it can employ effectively. The Canada seems pretty similar in this regard.
I’m from the US, and each side of the aisle has its own methods that it can employ effectively. The Canada seems pretty similar in this regard.
When the truck is being towed, how is that “pedestrian vs truck”? I thought the tow activity would happen in the street?
Skof is the president of the Ottawa Police Association. He's comparing removing people from a protest vs. removing trucks. He goes on to list one or two other logistical issues with trying to clear the trucks out.
My point is that you can resist government forces when you have the right tools. (Or when the police are on your side).
My point is that you can resist government forces when you have the right tools. (Or when the police are on your side).
You’re right. You can use a torch or sawzall on trucks if necessary.
Now’a the time for a major heist or terror activity there.
Now’a the time for a major heist or terror activity there.
We need to recognize that trucks big and regular sized are tools for force projection, easily potentially used as weapons of lethal force, and need to be banned and severely restricted from protest use.
Rent some CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters from the US.
The CAF bought 15 of them a few years ago for use in Afghanistan, if memory serves.
They also could rent large tow trucks from US who don't have the same reputation to manage with the trucking companies, maybe?
> Police remove fuel from protest camps
That... seems counterproductive if you want the trucks gone?
That... seems counterproductive if you want the trucks gone?
It's minus -10C at night for the next couple of nights, given we're expecting snow.
7 day forecast puts it at -20C at night.
They're staying in the cabs at night, and they can blare their horn, if there's fuel.
7 day forecast puts it at -20C at night.
They're staying in the cabs at night, and they can blare their horn, if there's fuel.
not to mention a potential safety risk.
I'm wondering what happens when a truck gets repossessed? Presumably they'd break in somehow.
By far the easiest way to remove the trucks would be to end the COVID mandates.
Yes, this is the simplest, easiest and safest approach. This isn't just an isolated protest. Large portions of the populace (including law enforcement and the military) are either supportive or sympathetic with the goals of the protestors.
Trudeau isn't escalating because he can't. He no longer has popular support for his mandates from the electorate or within his own government.
The reality is it's past time to remove the mandates anyway. Even die-hard laggard California is dropping most of the mandates this Monday. It seems like Trudeau is more worried about the appearance of his 'Authoritah" slipping.
Trudeau isn't escalating because he can't. He no longer has popular support for his mandates from the electorate or within his own government.
The reality is it's past time to remove the mandates anyway. Even die-hard laggard California is dropping most of the mandates this Monday. It seems like Trudeau is more worried about the appearance of his 'Authoritah" slipping.
furgooswft13(1)
I suspect giving in to them will embolden them to just switch to some other issue to protest. They are there for deeper reasons than the mandates IMO. I think it has to do with inequality and feeling voiceless in the political process.
I doubt it. They are protesting in reaction to a policy that suddenly disrupted their lives.
This is not a group that's united around decades of systemic oppression like other civil rights movements. They're united against a common enemy. If the mandate goes away, so do the truckers.
This is not a group that's united around decades of systemic oppression like other civil rights movements. They're united against a common enemy. If the mandate goes away, so do the truckers.
> policy that suddenly disrupted their lives
It... doesn't sound like it? Canada's vaccination rate overall is incredibly high at 80%, for truckers specifically somebody in the thread above is mentioning 90%, which is believable.
So, there is the minority, the 10%, who are already losing money by idling, but also risk their job, more losses, fines and jailtime, just to absolutely refuse to do what... spend 5 minutes at a pharmacy? And do what 90% of their peers already did? Really doesn't sound like life disruption.
It... doesn't sound like it? Canada's vaccination rate overall is incredibly high at 80%, for truckers specifically somebody in the thread above is mentioning 90%, which is believable.
So, there is the minority, the 10%, who are already losing money by idling, but also risk their job, more losses, fines and jailtime, just to absolutely refuse to do what... spend 5 minutes at a pharmacy? And do what 90% of their peers already did? Really doesn't sound like life disruption.
I'm not taking sides, but yes if one thinks refusing the shot is unjustified then the rest seems silly.
In terms of disruption, my understanding is that mandates for truckers came into effect just 3 weeks ago.
In terms of disruption, my understanding is that mandates for truckers came into effect just 3 weeks ago.
Disrupted their lives by needing a vaccine proven safe, I don't think so. It's purely political. Hey remember the truckers pushing back on having to wear a seatbelt? Yeah, me neither.
You're right, I don't remember people losing their jobs for not wearing seat-belts.
Right, let's see them keep their jobs refusing to wear a seatbelt.
> vaccine proven safe
There's enough medical dissent surrounding the topic to warrant pause, especially for something that gives no value to the receiver (young, healthy folks).
There's enough medical dissent surrounding the topic to warrant pause, especially for something that gives no value to the receiver (young, healthy folks).
There's very little medical dissent from doctors. Plenty from Rogan and Fox News. I guess it depends on who you trust.
Dismissing my dissent as Fox News derived is low, my friend. The "handful of sand" [0] I've inspected has led to different conclusions. I don't think that makes you a dolt and I'd appreciate the same in return. It's just a good way to live.
[0] https://ethanmaurice.com/books/zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle...
[0] https://ethanmaurice.com/books/zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle...
My doctor said I don't need the shot. Is that medical dissent?
[deleted]
It’s also the right thing to do.
It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.
It’s disturbing to see how many here on HN are calling for violent/destructive solutions rather than the one that respects citizens rights.
Sadly, armchair authoritarians often clamor for escalating punitive force on non-violent, non-criminal, peaceful protestors even when it's completely unnecessary and increases danger of physical harm for all involved.
I don't see towing all the trucks to impound and arresting the drivers as "violent and destructive" (unless the drivers force it to be so). I especially don't see it as more violent and destructive than parking a bunch of trucks in places that massively disrupt traffic for weeks.
I don't know what it's like in Canada, but in the US vaccine mandates are generally on strong legal ground
Oh you mean the mandates the Supreme Court just struck down?[1]
I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
I am vaccinated but I stand with my brothers and sisters who demand a choice. Had it been mandated and had I known then what I know now, I would have not taken it.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court...
Genuinely curious about "had I known then what I know now." What recent information tipped your decision from getting the vaccine to refusing it?
The supreme court struck down part of the mandate and were open to the idea of it being employment/situationally specific (e.g., nurses).
There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
There's also no pushback against vaccination requirements for school and universities, but I'm sure that will be coming soon
Now you are moving goalposts.
'strong legal ground' yet the Supreme Court disagreed with you.
You can posit about the future all you want, it won't change the reality of the present.
Now I no longer believe you are commenting in good faith, you are simply pushing an agenda.
'strong legal ground' yet the Supreme Court disagreed with you.
You can posit about the future all you want, it won't change the reality of the present.
Now I no longer believe you are commenting in good faith, you are simply pushing an agenda.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional.
This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
State level mandates are considered to be constitutional, it's the broad federal mandate without employment specialization that wasn't considered constitutional.
This isn't moving goal posts but providing context.
civil rights can't be violated on strong legal grounds?
How do you define a violation of rights?
I will assume good faith, here[1] is the definition.
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-civil-rights-viol...
Which is decided by courts
good grief. unvaccinated people are limited from going to restaurants and public gyms for public health and worker safety/health/rights reasons.
These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.
These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar. Drink at home.
> These are luxuries not rights. You don't have the right to go to a bar.
Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined?
Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
Does that mean that the government has the right to deny the population anything not spelled out as a right in the constitution? That sounds unlimited to me. Don't western governments usually have their responsibilities a bit more narrowly defined?
Granted covid is an emergency. I guess the question is how big an emergency something needs to be before allowing the government to place restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Reasonable people differ on their opinion of the tradeoffs involved, especially as we move through time.
The way to approach these questions is from the rights of the workers.
The people who work at the restaurants have a right to a healthy and safe work environment (this is why smoking was banned in restaurants).
These worker rights trump the "right" of someone to be able to go to a restaurant in a way that puts workers' health at risk. The reasons is because that worker has no choice, while on the other side, the other person has choices of: 1) get vaccinated or 2) feed themselves by making a sandwich at home.
The people who work at the restaurants have a right to a healthy and safe work environment (this is why smoking was banned in restaurants).
These worker rights trump the "right" of someone to be able to go to a restaurant in a way that puts workers' health at risk. The reasons is because that worker has no choice, while on the other side, the other person has choices of: 1) get vaccinated or 2) feed themselves by making a sandwich at home.
Your example was interesting. There are more laws protecting worker safety than there are laws protecting restaurant patrons.
For the purposes of covid I'm not sure if that is a black and white situation legally, at least in the U.S. Neither the rights of workers or patrons are spelled out as constitutional rights, because the constitution limits the government. This even kind of came up in the Supreme Court, which said that OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the name of workplace safety.
But doesn't the degree of danger and the trade-off involved in lockdowns matter? There's been a lot of mitigations against covid, some which make more sense than others as we've learned more, some that have costly effects - both financial and otherwise, especially for young people. Some look at the total count of 931k dead in the U.S. and want to do more. Some look at the same number as 1 out of 350 of the population, skewing old and unhealthy, and think we've done too much. We don't close restaurants for the flu, which kills tens of thousands of people.
I don't think this comes down to just a workplace safety issue. I think the degree of danger is quite important, and honest people have very different opinions of the risks and tradeoffs involved. The degree of danger and the mitigations required to make a difference in that danger are better known and quite different than two years ago. That is why there will be more and more calls to remove the existing mitigations.
For the purposes of covid I'm not sure if that is a black and white situation legally, at least in the U.S. Neither the rights of workers or patrons are spelled out as constitutional rights, because the constitution limits the government. This even kind of came up in the Supreme Court, which said that OSHA does not have the right to mandate vaccines in the name of workplace safety.
But doesn't the degree of danger and the trade-off involved in lockdowns matter? There's been a lot of mitigations against covid, some which make more sense than others as we've learned more, some that have costly effects - both financial and otherwise, especially for young people. Some look at the total count of 931k dead in the U.S. and want to do more. Some look at the same number as 1 out of 350 of the population, skewing old and unhealthy, and think we've done too much. We don't close restaurants for the flu, which kills tens of thousands of people.
I don't think this comes down to just a workplace safety issue. I think the degree of danger is quite important, and honest people have very different opinions of the risks and tradeoffs involved. The degree of danger and the mitigations required to make a difference in that danger are better known and quite different than two years ago. That is why there will be more and more calls to remove the existing mitigations.
If the unvaccinated can stay home, so can the worker.
I've always felt we should have put more effort into supporting those who are feel they are vulnerable, rather than punishing those who are not.
I've felt especially bad for young people who are at minimal risk from covid, having their lives turned upside down, who will inherit the extra trillions of dollars of debt all this will have cost.
I've felt especially bad for young people who are at minimal risk from covid, having their lives turned upside down, who will inherit the extra trillions of dollars of debt all this will have cost.
yep but the government has been bending over backward this entire time to keep as much open as possible so as to not implode the economy.
This is why the only stuff that is getting shut down are things at the intersection of "not essential" and "notable cause of cases."
This is why the only stuff that is getting shut down are things at the intersection of "not essential" and "notable cause of cases."
> Drink at home.
Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
Unless you're in Quebec, where the unvax don't have the right to buy alcohol for home consumption, either.
Very true and imo a questionable policy, though the bulk of protesters here in Ottawa are not from Quebec.
”How do I supply documentation to vindicate my posting relating to the Duncan Hines 1940 Travel Guide that highlighted travel accommodations that banned ”Restricted Clientele” which refers to Jews and Blacks?”
When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
When RESTRICTED CLIENTELE was searched for there were 456 results that were shown. The meaning of restricted clientele meant that Jews and Blacks were not welcome at those establishments which were scattered across the Country.
> These are luxuries not rights.
A large, large percentage of the population disagrees and we're now playing a game of chicken. Who will win?
A large, large percentage of the population disagrees and we're now playing a game of chicken. Who will win?
If the majority is in favor of mandates (dunno if true), it would be a blatantly undemocratic move.
The 51% percent shouldn't get to do anything they want to the other 49%.
Democracy can/should be more nuanced than simple majority/mob rule. Super majorities, local rule, and consensus are all ways of achieving that. Ideally groups of people would not be allowed to impose on other groups of people. I'm just throwing out a general statement about the idea of democracy, food for thought.
Many places haven't voted on lockdowns. I think Switzerland did at some point, which makes sense (as they are more of a real democracy than Canada). There's an initial emergency that may need a quick response, but later on there is time for the people to vote.
Democracy can/should be more nuanced than simple majority/mob rule. Super majorities, local rule, and consensus are all ways of achieving that. Ideally groups of people would not be allowed to impose on other groups of people. I'm just throwing out a general statement about the idea of democracy, food for thought.
Many places haven't voted on lockdowns. I think Switzerland did at some point, which makes sense (as they are more of a real democracy than Canada). There's an initial emergency that may need a quick response, but later on there is time for the people to vote.
Sure, but if, let’s say, 85% are in favor of lockdowns (or mandatory schooling, or seatbelts, or…), then letting the loud 15% dictate your policy by attrition is also mob rule.
Good luck collecting any statistics nowadays that are trusted by the entire population. Propaganda and lies have never been thicker than they are now, and it's coordinated worldwide.
85% sounds a lot better to me than a 51% majority, which was partially my point.
Your point about the minority dictating policy by attrition is interesting to think about. Conservatives might tend to like that feature, not adding new laws unless enough people agree. I assume Progressives would tend to feel the opposite. I'd add that the amount of people voting would seem to make a big difference. It's hard for tens or hundreds of millions of people to agree, easier for smaller groups. Compromise is also a wonderful thing, too, when the 85% respect the 15% enough to do so.
Your point about the minority dictating policy by attrition is interesting to think about. Conservatives might tend to like that feature, not adding new laws unless enough people agree. I assume Progressives would tend to feel the opposite. I'd add that the amount of people voting would seem to make a big difference. It's hard for tens or hundreds of millions of people to agree, easier for smaller groups. Compromise is also a wonderful thing, too, when the 85% respect the 15% enough to do so.
There are few countries which are "democratic". If that was the case, minorities would have no rights.
Wouldn't it be more democratic to allow people to decide for themselves, given that the vaccines cannot prevent transmission anymore?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-...
lol as someone pointed out on reddit...
"If you give me a torch and no libability, and salvage rights, I will guarantee you all the trucks will be removed by the end of the week, for free."
"If you give me a torch and no libability, and salvage rights, I will guarantee you all the trucks will be removed by the end of the week, for free."
tl;dr version - Naive "tow all the trucks away" ideas are ~useless in the real world, because towing just one heavy truck out of a tight spot, when the driver is friendly, is very difficult and laborious. At scale, against hostile truck drivers, when the tow truck drivers are (as a social group) quite close to them? Hahahaha. There would be plenty of easy solutions, if the Canadian government was comfortable with Evil Dictator tactics - but for some reason(s) it is not...
Trudeau Sr would have been comfortable with this. “Just watch me”
Tank, or something like this:
https://youtu.be/cD5dIyI7AoY
Done. Who says the tires have to be treated nicely?
Done. Who says the tires have to be treated nicely?
My understanding is that more extreme measures like this aren’t possible because the city has been left to deal with it, and all they have are towing trucks and towing contractors. The federal government would have to step in to make tanks or other heavy equipment available.
But at the point a commercial of licensed vehicle is illegally blocking downtown traffic for days, if they want to make it hard to remove there is no reason to gently remove the truck. Hell they can get a few acetylene torches and just start cutting.
But at the point a commercial of licensed vehicle is illegally blocking downtown traffic for days, if they want to make it hard to remove there is no reason to gently remove the truck. Hell they can get a few acetylene torches and just start cutting.
Would a plasma cutter be able to permanently destroy the engines in each truck rapidly beyond repairability, so that they’re “disarmed” and can be relocated safely without malicious driver interference? I assume these are going to be taken out by demolition crane anyways, and it would provide a simple and immediate on-site tool to turn them into worthless scrap metal.
Destroying them out of spite sounds like a very effective way of turning a civil protest into an insurgency.
Not out of spite, but to protect the workers as they remove the trucks, which the article cited as a specific concern. It will have obvious ramifications in decreased value of the truck, but that’s an expected side effect of deploying it as a paramilitary blockade in a large city anyways.
Maybe I missed something, but the way I read it is that the danger is from the drivers and other protestors, not the trucks themselves. Disabling the engines would make it more difficult to move the trucks, not less.
Let alone destroying the engine would have no effect on the air brakes
No it wouldn't work. You'd have trucks with no engines and the brakes still locked. With that many trucks, your "worthless scrap metal" would be millions of dollars in damages.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-air-brake-handbook/...
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-air-brake-handbook/...
If you don't want the drivers storming away for relocation, you could just empty the fuel tanks
That would also remove essentially all potential for attacking workers. I like it far better than my idea. Good call.
Have you considered that in the US and in Canada, approximately 80% of all goods are transported by heavy trucks? With the supply chain crippled and broken in so many ways already, these people are simply standing up for their right to CHOOSE if they want to vaccinated or not. They don't want to cripple the economy. They aren't anti-vax; they are anti-mandate. They can stay home, unvaccinated, and lose their homes, trucks, and jobs, further shutting down the supply chain. Or they can stand for freedom, and limit government overreach. And go to work delivering food, medical supplies, building materials, fuel, and other products.
Yeah, and that's a reason to swing swastika flags... Maybe a lot of them are -- rightfully! -- frustrated by the working conditions, that doesn't mean it's all right to side with populists and fascists.
> Yeah, and that's a reason to swing swastika flags...
What percentage of protesters is swinging swastika flags?
What percentage of protesters is swinging swastika flags?
I've not seen those. BTW, which ones are the fascists?
[deleted]
I find the freedom convoy thing very fishy, hear me out.
It is a bit suspicious that this is a grassroots movement actually against vaccine mandates, considering the attention and financial support it has been getting... and specially considering how the Canadian government is handling it. Trudeau dissappearing, no real possibility of negotiations, talks or anything... and who is even leading these protests? It seems very strange.
Even more strange is the likes of CNN publishing opinion pieces in favor of the protests: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/03/opinions/canada-truckers-...
It is a bit suspicious that this is a grassroots movement actually against vaccine mandates, considering the attention and financial support it has been getting... and specially considering how the Canadian government is handling it. Trudeau dissappearing, no real possibility of negotiations, talks or anything... and who is even leading these protests? It seems very strange.
Even more strange is the likes of CNN publishing opinion pieces in favor of the protests: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/03/opinions/canada-truckers-...
Obviously there is nothing else left than to deploy military, how dare Canadians rise against the benevolent rule of the Government?!?!
The backlash against environmentalist protestors in the UK has resulted in jail time: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/court-jails-star-paralympian-for-...