Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts(edge.app)
edge.app
Official Response: Request to Freeze Canadian Edge Users’ Accounts
https://edge.app/blog/company-news/official-response-request-to-freeze-canadian-edge-users-accounts/
103 comments
Kudos to Edge. This is a ridiculous request.
If it’s the law it’s not a request is it? More of a command or face the consequences.
Bad laws should be disobeyed. That is the point of civil disobedience in the first place.
Are there not situations in which we're obligated not to follow the law? Every tyranny in history has been legal.
Yes. Any law that breaks the highest law of the land is invalid and should be disobeyed. However, as long as there is a tyrannical government willing to enforce invalid laws there are still consequences for breaking them.
Slavery was legal at some point.
Edge is not a Canadian corporation. They are not Canadian citizens. If Canada wants them to do something, they should get a US Court order.
For a counter example: the US imposition of its FATCA law on every financial institution on the plant regardless of domicile, without compensation for the costs of enforcement.
The US provides naval security for the entire world and controls access to SWIFT banking codes.
What does Canada do for the world?
What does Canada do for the world?
What on earth does naval security have to do with banking laws?
Take your argument a few steps further. Because of the naval security, should the US have the right to restrict abortion elsewhere in the world because a large portion of its population feels religiously inclined to enforce this?
My point is: Countries are supposed to be sovereign. Canada has no more right to enforce these laws beyond its border than the US does FATCA.
Take your argument a few steps further. Because of the naval security, should the US have the right to restrict abortion elsewhere in the world because a large portion of its population feels religiously inclined to enforce this?
My point is: Countries are supposed to be sovereign. Canada has no more right to enforce these laws beyond its border than the US does FATCA.
You should read up on the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. It doesn't matter what's fair
It doesn't matter what's hypocritical. "Sovereign rights" don't matter. The only thing that matters is your ability to project power. China has it. America has it. Canada does not.
See that’s right. But all those nations have agreed not to act this way on the world stage.
I’m very very anti “freedom convoy” but even I thinks seizing assets and freezing accounts is a bridge too far
What is the given rationale behind it? I didn't really follow the news on this very closely as it's very far removed from my part of the world, but can't they just walk up to the protestors and say "knock it off mate, or we'll arrest ya"?
They are able to freeze assets suspected of being used to fund criminal activity. This only applies to the corporate accounts of the owners of the trucks and the millions of dollars raised by mostly US-based anti-vaxxers. If Antifa activists were to recieve 6 figures from mostly Chinese communists with the express intent to use those funds to cause economic damage, some of the commentators here might react differently.
Of course there have been ample warnings, including the handing out of leaflets detailing the unlawful offenses. Many people were ticketed and arrested at border crossing protests, including 11 members of a splinter group, in posession of 13 long guns, ammunition, body armor and hand guns.
The Ambassodor Bridge, accounting for ~30% of the cross-border land trade has since been cleared. The damage is estimated at above $500M. Damages at border crossings in Alberta and Manitoba have been estimated at 48 and $73M respectively.
Of course there have been ample warnings, including the handing out of leaflets detailing the unlawful offenses. Many people were ticketed and arrested at border crossing protests, including 11 members of a splinter group, in posession of 13 long guns, ammunition, body armor and hand guns.
The Ambassodor Bridge, accounting for ~30% of the cross-border land trade has since been cleared. The damage is estimated at above $500M. Damages at border crossings in Alberta and Manitoba have been estimated at 48 and $73M respectively.
I don’t actually care which country wants to fund anti-facism. If you’re not anti-fascism, you’re the problem.
And before anyone hit’s the “i’m not anti-anti-fascist, i’m anti-antifa” there IS no antifa. You can’t join antifa, you can’t donate to antifa, they don’t give out member cards. It’s just a name people who are anti-fascism apply to themselves.
And before anyone hit’s the “i’m not anti-anti-fascist, i’m anti-antifa” there IS no antifa. You can’t join antifa, you can’t donate to antifa, they don’t give out member cards. It’s just a name people who are anti-fascism apply to themselves.
You can be opposed to fascism and be opposed to antifa, and opposed to the actions people-who-say-they-are-antifa take during their riots
No a clue, honestly. They didn’t need to seize assets or declare an emergency to send in armed forces to remove pipeline protesters last year, so it’s confusing why they’ve been treating this with such theatrics.
Not sure what Edge is but clearly it’s a deeply unserious organization that uses memes to respond to serious (and absolutely worthy of debate) requests.
small-time crypto- exchange getting some free press for itself
So they want to get good press, good luck to them, I now know who they are.
Right. I'd also never heard of them before. Now I have.
Actually a little funny.
The Canadian government is a deeply unserious organization that abuses emergency powers to lock people out of the financial system.
> and absolutely worthy of debate
No, it's worthy of ridicule, which is the right move here.
> and absolutely worthy of debate
No, it's worthy of ridicule, which is the right move here.
Why did you post the same comment as by user kajal7052?
I didn’t read the comments.
So "not reading the comments" caused you to post the same comment twice, using different usernames?
'kajal7052 looks like it was a bot that was posting comments it copied from existing ones.
The id of kajal7052's comment is 30407693, which is after Waterluvian's (30407636).
The id of kajal7052's comment is 30407693, which is after Waterluvian's (30407636).
Interesting. Haven’t seen that kind of garbage on HN before.
Move your coins to your own wallet. Use Monero. Exchanges should be simply used as fiat onramps and offramps.
It's only a matter of time
It's only a matter of time
I'm very anti-crypto, but if governments are going all tyrannical they do have a point about seizure resistance.
What a childish response and a great way to invite future regulation. I’m not an Edge customer but if I was I wouldn’t be anymore. Why would I entrust my money with a company that ignores the law and responds in memes?
>What a childish response and a great way to invite future regulation
why should private citizens have to lick the boots of government officials when they make stupid demands? They deserve mockery and being able to mock authority without fear of reprisal is the foundation of democracy
>I’m not an Edge customer but if I was I wouldn’t be anymore
you aren't their target market
why should private citizens have to lick the boots of government officials when they make stupid demands? They deserve mockery and being able to mock authority without fear of reprisal is the foundation of democracy
>I’m not an Edge customer but if I was I wouldn’t be anymore
you aren't their target market
They are not ignoring the law: “And most importantly, we can’t even if we wanted to.” Sounds like they are a non-custodial wallet or similar.
While they may truly believe the law is amoral and are in part happy to make that statement, this is primarily a marketing stunt for the pro-privacy and unseizable aspects of self-custodied crypto wallets.
While they may truly believe the law is amoral and are in part happy to make that statement, this is primarily a marketing stunt for the pro-privacy and unseizable aspects of self-custodied crypto wallets.
They should have opened with the facts. Then put the meme. Plus, that wasn't even the best "no" meme to choose.
I’ve never heard of them and everyone in this thread now has. I think they succeeded with the marketing stunt. If they led with the facts it wouldn’t have been as viral as it leverages people’s extreme interest in this political issue.
I’d never heard of them. Now I have and know to never use them.
You would rather store your money with an institution that would freely comply with a request to have your assets frozen without due process? To each their own, I guess.
I would prefer to store my money with an institution that follows the laws of my country. That seems pretty sensible.
What would you want your institution to do when the government decides that your money is no longer yours because you supported somebody they don't like?
That is what is happening here. A government attempt to silence dissidents.
That is what is happening here. A government attempt to silence dissidents.
Take a chill pill. The money is frozen, not seized.
If you don't have absolute control of your money it isn't yours.
Is it against the law for a US company to say "No" to a "request" by the Canadian government? Does edge even have a presence in Canada or need to follow Canadian laws(if the request is actually a demand)?
To me, it's not even clear from that article that Edge received a request from the Canadian government. This reads more as good PR / linkbait to get eyeballs.
Presumably because "government not able to seize my money" >>>>> "government able to seize money of my opponents". (I am not an Edge customer either)
It's amazing how many people don't understand "government can take money from people I don't like" == "government can take money from me"
I envy you that you aren't aware of the intimate relationship between crypto and memes. Cryptobros talk in memes. They love this.
Thumbing your nose to the legacy governments and establishment is de rigueur.
Thumbing your nose to the legacy governments and establishment is de rigueur.
Serious question: how does content get flagged in HN?
I'm assuming it's a case of "if enough users flag a topic", but is there a moderator involved at all?
Can a topic get 'unflagged' once flagged?
Could this system be abused by planted shills who coordinate 'flagging' when something is posted that is detrimental to a company?
I read the post, I see people's point here that responding with a meme is perhaps not appropriate for some audiences on a serious matter, but I personally didn't find it in bad taste, and would never consider this as grounds for 'flagging'.
Especially since 'flagging' in this particular case effectively means "censorship" / "shadowbanning" (in that it causes the topic to be removed from the list of topics, but does not kill the link itself).
Reminds me of that quote: "The best way to keep people obedient is to severely limit the scope of conversation, but allow very vivid conversation within that scope"
Seems like the few people who spotted this topic before it was removed from the list are allowed to discuss this topic as passionately as they like, while the moderator sleeps quietly at night knowing nobody will ever discover this passionate conversation.
What a weird world we live in.
I'm assuming it's a case of "if enough users flag a topic", but is there a moderator involved at all?
Can a topic get 'unflagged' once flagged?
Could this system be abused by planted shills who coordinate 'flagging' when something is posted that is detrimental to a company?
I read the post, I see people's point here that responding with a meme is perhaps not appropriate for some audiences on a serious matter, but I personally didn't find it in bad taste, and would never consider this as grounds for 'flagging'.
Especially since 'flagging' in this particular case effectively means "censorship" / "shadowbanning" (in that it causes the topic to be removed from the list of topics, but does not kill the link itself).
Reminds me of that quote: "The best way to keep people obedient is to severely limit the scope of conversation, but allow very vivid conversation within that scope"
Seems like the few people who spotted this topic before it was removed from the list are allowed to discuss this topic as passionately as they like, while the moderator sleeps quietly at night knowing nobody will ever discover this passionate conversation.
What a weird world we live in.
See the FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), in particular:
> How are stories ranked?
> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action."
and
> What does [flagged] mean?
> Users flagged the post as breaking the guidelines or otherwise not belonging on HN.
> Moderators sometimes also add [flagged] (though not usually on submissions), and sometimes turn flags off when they are unfair.
You might also find the guidelines helpful in answering your questions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> How are stories ranked?
> The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action."
and
> What does [flagged] mean?
> Users flagged the post as breaking the guidelines or otherwise not belonging on HN.
> Moderators sometimes also add [flagged] (though not usually on submissions), and sometimes turn flags off when they are unfair.
You might also find the guidelines helpful in answering your questions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thanks gzrm!
So effectively a single normal user can flag a submission. Interesting.
So effectively a single normal user can flag a submission. Interesting.
Depends on what you mean by "a single normal user can flag a submission". Any user with sufficient karma (30-odd?) can click "flag". The number of flags a submission has will affect its ranking, and with a sufficient number of flags, the [flagged] tag will appear.
Note that other actions (including voting on the submission, and commenting/participating in the discussion) also affect ranking (according to the FAQ).
Note that other actions (including voting on the submission, and commenting/participating in the discussion) also affect ranking (according to the FAQ).
When this protest started, people were complaining that the government was approaching the protest with relative tolerance compared to things like pipeline protests.
Well, now protestors are being arrested and their accounts being frozen. They're no longer being treated nicely compared to environmental protestors.
While I don't agree with their stance, I do think that "we should not have a vaccine mandate" is a valid political opinion, and I support people being able to protest in support of their opinion.
Yes, it's legal to freeze the funds. The list of net-negative-for-society things perpetrated that have been legal in the jurisdictions in which they occurred is long.
I would rather these protestors, environmental/pipeline protestors, and generally all other protestors be treated gently rather than quashing protest.
Canada's laws protecting protestors are much more limited than those in the USA. If the Canadians have decided that this is how they would like their country to operate, that is their right, but I would hope that this sort of thing never happens in the US regardless of the cause.
Well, now protestors are being arrested and their accounts being frozen. They're no longer being treated nicely compared to environmental protestors.
While I don't agree with their stance, I do think that "we should not have a vaccine mandate" is a valid political opinion, and I support people being able to protest in support of their opinion.
Yes, it's legal to freeze the funds. The list of net-negative-for-society things perpetrated that have been legal in the jurisdictions in which they occurred is long.
I would rather these protestors, environmental/pipeline protestors, and generally all other protestors be treated gently rather than quashing protest.
Canada's laws protecting protestors are much more limited than those in the USA. If the Canadians have decided that this is how they would like their country to operate, that is their right, but I would hope that this sort of thing never happens in the US regardless of the cause.
> now protestors are being arrested
Environmental protesters are FREQUENTLY arrested, so if you’re upset about these arrests at least have the decency to also be upset about these ones last year:
https://thenarwhal.ca/rcmp-arrests-wetsuweten-media-photos/
Environmental protesters are FREQUENTLY arrested, so if you’re upset about these arrests at least have the decency to also be upset about these ones last year:
https://thenarwhal.ca/rcmp-arrests-wetsuweten-media-photos/
I think a rereading of my comment would show that I am, indeed, upset about the arrest of environmental protestors.
My point being that I am upset about the arrest of protestors in general; those, these, and others, and think that the arrest of people who are not hurting people should be celebrated approximately never.
My point being that I am upset about the arrest of protestors in general; those, these, and others, and think that the arrest of people who are not hurting people should be celebrated approximately never.
I am not upset about the arrest of any protester if their protest escalates into significant economic damage or other types of harm. That's when it graduates from protest to terrorism. But they should be swiftly tried with a specific crime in a court of law. That's due process and liberal democracy working as it should.
Freezing assets without due process is a new thing which should be resisted as it's tyrannical and unchecked. Not good.
Freezing assets without due process is a new thing which should be resisted as it's tyrannical and unchecked. Not good.
> if their protest escalates into significant economic damage or other types of harm. That's when it graduates from protest to terrorism.
First of all, look up the definition of terrorism. It’s not “thing you think is bad”. Pretty integral to terrorism is violence. No violence or threat of violence, no terrorism.
Second, all protest causes economic harm - successful protest causes significant economic harm. Your line of thinking would have you condemn friggin’ Gandhi, a globally renowned and much celebrated peaceful revolutionary. His entire non-violent protest movement relied heavily on inflicting economic damage.
E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
First of all, look up the definition of terrorism. It’s not “thing you think is bad”. Pretty integral to terrorism is violence. No violence or threat of violence, no terrorism.
Second, all protest causes economic harm - successful protest causes significant economic harm. Your line of thinking would have you condemn friggin’ Gandhi, a globally renowned and much celebrated peaceful revolutionary. His entire non-violent protest movement relied heavily on inflicting economic damage.
E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
When I said "other types of harm" I basically meant violence which is why I said that that constitutes terrorism.
Regarding economic harm, I agree that this isn't terrorism. But there is clearly a limit beyond which the protestors need to be arrested. They cannot be allowed to block trade between two countries, for example.
We should make a distinction. Is the point to cause economic harm (e.g blocking a trade route)? Or is the point to get exposure (e.g protesting in the middle of the city) which has a side effect of some economic harm?
Regarding economic harm, I agree that this isn't terrorism. But there is clearly a limit beyond which the protestors need to be arrested. They cannot be allowed to block trade between two countries, for example.
We should make a distinction. Is the point to cause economic harm (e.g blocking a trade route)? Or is the point to get exposure (e.g protesting in the middle of the city) which has a side effect of some economic harm?
So was it wrong for the Montgomery bus boycott to intentionally cause economic harm? Was it wrong for gandhi to break the salt monopoly, causing economic harm? It seems like either you’re applying different standards because you feel different about the causes - or you oppose the actions of some of the most celebrated icons of the past 100 years of social change - unless there’s a third position i’m missing
I don't think it was right or wrong. That is the wrong lens. I just think we need to arrest them after a certain threshold of harm. Here's a reductio ad absurdum of the position that all economic harm should be tolerated: Should we allow a small group of 5 protestors to blockade the tarmac of an international airport and shut it down for 10 years? On what principle would you prevent that if you have declared support for protest irrespective of economic harm? Clearly this rule of yours doesn't work. The protestors need to get arrested at a certain threshold of economic damage and every thinking person should agree with that.
Ok, let’s roll with that. Should we allow a small group of 5 protestors to blockade the tarmac of an international airport and shut it down for 10 years if their cause has the support of 51% of the population.
Because i’d say yes we should allow that. We in the us and canada have governments that are proven to be unresponsive to the will of the people without the people giving the government a shove from time to time. If the majority supports a cause, the government should act - if it doesn’t, let the economy suffer until they do.
I also believe a different test applies when we’re talking about indigenous land. I.e. it’s no longer about a majority of the population - it’s about a majority of the people who’s land it is.
Because i’d say yes we should allow that. We in the us and canada have governments that are proven to be unresponsive to the will of the people without the people giving the government a shove from time to time. If the majority supports a cause, the government should act - if it doesn’t, let the economy suffer until they do.
I also believe a different test applies when we’re talking about indigenous land. I.e. it’s no longer about a majority of the population - it’s about a majority of the people who’s land it is.
Well then we just disagree. If you think an unlimited amount of economic harm is acceptable for any protest objective (not just those with majority support, no idea where you got that assumption from), this is simply naive and dangerous.
I don't want to pay tax and therefore I will shut down all international trade forever in order to protest my views on the matter, and you will support my right to do that? That's a reductio ad absurdum of your position. It is not workable.
I don't want to pay tax and therefore I will shut down all international trade forever in order to protest my views on the matter, and you will support my right to do that? That's a reductio ad absurdum of your position. It is not workable.
What? If the majority of people support your desire to not pay taxes, a _functioning_ democratic society would quickly pass the "2022 csee tax exemption bill". While you'd probably start bleeding support for your cause if you shut down all international trade, basically any measures are justified at that point because the government is no longer being responsive to the will of the people. If the government is allowed to go ahead and arrest people for that, that's the literal definition authoritarianism.
If the majority does NOT support your demand, then yes your right to protest can be limited by others right to go about their lives. The more disruptive your protest, the less room there is to tolerate it. But a simple threshold of harm as you argued for is not the right test for this. Harm and public support. If 40% of people support your cause, a democratic society would not enact that cause - but it would tolerate more economic harm than a cause supported by 0.4% of the people.
If the majority does NOT support your demand, then yes your right to protest can be limited by others right to go about their lives. The more disruptive your protest, the less room there is to tolerate it. But a simple threshold of harm as you argued for is not the right test for this. Harm and public support. If 40% of people support your cause, a democratic society would not enact that cause - but it would tolerate more economic harm than a cause supported by 0.4% of the people.
The vaccine mandate is only one of their complaints, the other is they want the government to resign so they can appoint another. THAT is why Trudeau won't talk to them and also why the emergency act was used.
The protestors are largely anti-vaxxers, and their official demands were the overthrow of the Canadian government, and handing over power to... the protestors.
This was never about vaccine mandates.
This was never about vaccine mandates.
Am I the only one who thinks responding with a meme is actually perfect? Stupid requests get stupid answers.
This childish response reminds me of Piratebay mocking legal notices and posting them on their website in the early days. Regardless of the legitimacy of the government's demand, such a response makes me feel it's being run by amateurs who don't realize the seriousness, power and reach of a sovereign government.
[deleted]
This is nowhere near edgy enough as the nunchuk's response:
https://twitter.com/nunchuk_io/status/1494885897577271299
Response itself? Good.
But responding with a meme? An institution that presumably holds my money? Oof.
But responding with a meme? An institution that presumably holds my money? Oof.
They don't hold money, that's the entire point of their response.
I've never heard about them but like this.
As a boomer I had to do a visual search to translate the meme. Apparently it is a magic conch shell on SpongeBob and my cultural literacy is deteriorating.
I tried to share this link with a group chat on Facebook Messenger and it was blocked.
[deleted]
Oof. Not a good look for edge.
I'll be the first to admit I think this protest is about a bunch of idiots with a victim complex. They should just get the vaccine like 90% of the rest of their profession have done. It's safe and is what anyone should do to help their fellow humans.
The Emergencies Act is law. If Edge wants to do business in Canada they have to follow it. I don't see this ending well for them.
Maybe I'm an old curmudgeon, but I also don't want to see ANY financial company using memes in an official press release.
I'll be the first to admit I think this protest is about a bunch of idiots with a victim complex. They should just get the vaccine like 90% of the rest of their profession have done. It's safe and is what anyone should do to help their fellow humans.
The Emergencies Act is law. If Edge wants to do business in Canada they have to follow it. I don't see this ending well for them.
Maybe I'm an old curmudgeon, but I also don't want to see ANY financial company using memes in an official press release.
As a mid-30s sw engineer, I’d say it’s a good look. I hate professional facades and meme’ing is how people communicate now. I’d also say the first part of your your last statement is probably correct, in that you might be an old curmudgeon ;)
Not OP but dropping a professional facade is often the first step on the road to actually becoming unprofessional. Not something you want from a company dealing in finance.
It's cryptocurrency.
I’m sure you’ll begin to appreciate professionalism when your employer starts trying to pay you in memes
Or crypto.
It's not a good look for the Canadian government.
Do explain
Emergency is the favourite tool of tyrants
According to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...
...in the US, there are ~40 (after counting the green squares twice it seems there are now 41) ongoing "national emergencies" declared since the passage of the "National Emergencies Act" in 1976.
The oldest one seems to be from 1979 and involve sanctions on Iran from the hostage crisis.
Biden has declared five emergencies; Trump declared nine (that haven't ended), Obama also declared nine (again ignoring ones that ended), GWB declared eleven, net, Clinton declared six, net, and surprisingly all emergencies between 1979 and 1994, roughly did come to an end.
Regardless of what one thinks of it, it's curious that for a couple of decades, the norm was for emergencies in the US to end and now it's not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...
...in the US, there are ~40 (after counting the green squares twice it seems there are now 41) ongoing "national emergencies" declared since the passage of the "National Emergencies Act" in 1976.
The oldest one seems to be from 1979 and involve sanctions on Iran from the hostage crisis.
Biden has declared five emergencies; Trump declared nine (that haven't ended), Obama also declared nine (again ignoring ones that ended), GWB declared eleven, net, Clinton declared six, net, and surprisingly all emergencies between 1979 and 1994, roughly did come to an end.
Regardless of what one thinks of it, it's curious that for a couple of decades, the norm was for emergencies in the US to end and now it's not.
Asset seizure is a big step, I agree.
They should just cut off their mobile data. Going without Joe Rogan podcasts and Jordan Peterson tweets will eventually hit hard.
They should just cut off their mobile data. Going without Joe Rogan podcasts and Jordan Peterson tweets will eventually hit hard.
As far as I know, the law does not demand asset seizure, but freezing. And the frozen accounts will be unfrozen when the emergency order expires or is lifted. The goal is to prevent the use of assets right now to finance blockades, not to deprive people of their property forever.
People that argue this seem unaware of how dreadful freezing assets can be. 30 days without funds means you can't pay any debt, can't pay for food, can't use transportation, etc.
I don't believe "The goal is to prevent use of assets right now to finance blockades," it's clearly an intimidation tactic against "undesirables."
I don't believe "The goal is to prevent use of assets right now to finance blockades," it's clearly an intimidation tactic against "undesirables."
I do think that is the goal. These are protestors with heavy, portable living quarters, after all; if you can't move them, you've got to cut off the money they use to live.
If governments don't come down hard on using heavy vehicles for blockades, and don't do what they can to stop that being a financially supportable method of protest, it will be repeated everywhere, like the Gilets Jaunes model of protest.
But ultimately I think it would be better to make life miserable for them by degrees, rather than attacking their personal finances.
So the Spotify/Peterson idea was a sarcastic joke (which humourless people have downvoted), but why _not_ make it difficult for them to protest by making it hard for them to buy stuff, or by making it difficult for them to return to their cabs when they leave them? Why not make the protests less liveable?
The thing about non-vehicular protest is that it eventually fizzles out; people make their point, they endure some notable hardship, it makes the press, they make their point and they move on. Generally this is how protest brings about small changes. But it's inherent in the process that it's difficult, extreme and inappropriate to permanently disrupt.
There is a balance, and protests are designed to attract law enforcement; civil disobedience, arrest and being very publicly removed by the police is ultimately part of the modern mechanism of protest.
Road-blocking with a truck in which it is presumably quite routine to be able to exist in a little more comfort for a few days at a time is another matter, and if the response does not reflect that, it'll go on forever.
It's a clever idea, but just because it has clever and innovative advantages over e.g. chaining yourself to a fence doesn't mean that it should be granted a pass.
Either the protesters and the police come to some point of collusion about what their very public arrest and removal will look like, or something ultimately has to be done to stop them disrupting forever.
If governments don't come down hard on using heavy vehicles for blockades, and don't do what they can to stop that being a financially supportable method of protest, it will be repeated everywhere, like the Gilets Jaunes model of protest.
But ultimately I think it would be better to make life miserable for them by degrees, rather than attacking their personal finances.
So the Spotify/Peterson idea was a sarcastic joke (which humourless people have downvoted), but why _not_ make it difficult for them to protest by making it hard for them to buy stuff, or by making it difficult for them to return to their cabs when they leave them? Why not make the protests less liveable?
The thing about non-vehicular protest is that it eventually fizzles out; people make their point, they endure some notable hardship, it makes the press, they make their point and they move on. Generally this is how protest brings about small changes. But it's inherent in the process that it's difficult, extreme and inappropriate to permanently disrupt.
There is a balance, and protests are designed to attract law enforcement; civil disobedience, arrest and being very publicly removed by the police is ultimately part of the modern mechanism of protest.
Road-blocking with a truck in which it is presumably quite routine to be able to exist in a little more comfort for a few days at a time is another matter, and if the response does not reflect that, it'll go on forever.
It's a clever idea, but just because it has clever and innovative advantages over e.g. chaining yourself to a fence doesn't mean that it should be granted a pass.
Either the protesters and the police come to some point of collusion about what their very public arrest and removal will look like, or something ultimately has to be done to stop them disrupting forever.
>Why not make the protests less liveable?
Protesting during multiple weeks in winter is already unliveable. I live in Canada and would probably not do that unless the issue is life-or-death. Using extra-judicial means to quell opponents is not what our government should be doing, be it by freezing assets, preventing exchange of goods or other. One of the basis of modern democracy is due process and executive/legislative separation.
Protesting during multiple weeks in winter is already unliveable. I live in Canada and would probably not do that unless the issue is life-or-death. Using extra-judicial means to quell opponents is not what our government should be doing, be it by freezing assets, preventing exchange of goods or other. One of the basis of modern democracy is due process and executive/legislative separation.
It wouldn't have made a difference if the Emergencies Act was not invoked. There is a court order to freeze assets which does not rely on the Act, just existing laws. Even without the act and by the order of the judiciary, the funds would have been frozen.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-judge-orders-up-to-20-mil...
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-judge-orders-up-to-20-mil...
That's a specific order, to a specifics individuals. Plus, this is a legal matter and can have a back-and-forth in court. The emergency act allows freezing assets of anyone without a judge having its say. The scale is not the same.
(Again -- what's with the downvotes on your comment? You have a legitimate opinion; I don't understand why it was downvoted when it didn't even needlessly snark at Joe Rogan like mine)
All protests ultimately end when the protesters allow themselves to be arrested or come to an agreement with the state or police for a way to protest over the long term that is present but less disruptive. Usually the process of protest involves some acceptance that the police are going to make your lives a little difficult; it's the nature of the beast.
But this is at a more significant scale, because each invididual protestor has a seriously outsize impact.
What happens to civil society if a bunch of truckers who believe a bunch of Qanon nonsense (and that is largely what is at work here -- not legitimate belief but conspiracy theories) can repeat this, over and over again, because of access to finance from outside (and even from abroad)?
I personally do not think that portable roadblocks on the basis of fringe belief funded by foreign state and non-state actors, going unchallenged, is something society should just do nothing about.
This isn't a one-off. Governments need to figure out how to allow this kind of protest for short periods but not tolerate for long periods, because road blockades have real consequences.
(As it goes, in the UK, it's the government that blocks roads with long tailbacks of lorries for purely partisan reasons)
All protests ultimately end when the protesters allow themselves to be arrested or come to an agreement with the state or police for a way to protest over the long term that is present but less disruptive. Usually the process of protest involves some acceptance that the police are going to make your lives a little difficult; it's the nature of the beast.
But this is at a more significant scale, because each invididual protestor has a seriously outsize impact.
What happens to civil society if a bunch of truckers who believe a bunch of Qanon nonsense (and that is largely what is at work here -- not legitimate belief but conspiracy theories) can repeat this, over and over again, because of access to finance from outside (and even from abroad)?
I personally do not think that portable roadblocks on the basis of fringe belief funded by foreign state and non-state actors, going unchallenged, is something society should just do nothing about.
This isn't a one-off. Governments need to figure out how to allow this kind of protest for short periods but not tolerate for long periods, because road blockades have real consequences.
(As it goes, in the UK, it's the government that blocks roads with long tailbacks of lorries for purely partisan reasons)
> They should just cut off their mobile data.
I understand that one of them has a Starlink dish set up on his truck.
I understand that one of them has a Starlink dish set up on his truck.
Is he the guy who is responsible for distributing the bitcoin?
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=2022-02-14-2
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=2022-02-14-2
A bunch of idiots with a victim complex? That’s a rather jaded viewpoint.. how did we get to a place where being skeptical of habitual liars is seen as idiotic? Where fear is seen as a victim complex?
> Oof. Not a good look for edge.
Predictable one though.
Predictable one though.
When nobody has even requested anything of you but you find it's a great opportunity to make your mark among the various bag holders.
(If only these people would actually use the decentralized tools they can't stop talking about, they wouldn't need some exchange posting memes to reassure them)
(If only these people would actually use the decentralized tools they can't stop talking about, they wouldn't need some exchange posting memes to reassure them)