Justin Trudeau’s crackdown on protests could make things worse(economist.com)
economist.com
Justin Trudeau’s crackdown on protests could make things worse
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/02/16/justin-trudeaus-crackdown-on-protests-could-make-things-worse
75 comments
https://archive.ph/j8b7l
Freezing bank accounts is an ugly overreach. Going to give sympathy to the protesters
It is amazing to watch freezing bank accounts being seriously considered. I note the article throws in a "...perhaps to suggest, absurdly, that Canada’s covid-19 restrictions are akin to Nazism...".
A fair comment in my view, but it does raise an interesting question - what is this comparable to? This is something extreme, it must be comparable to some major past event. Attacking truck drivers in this way isn't normal peacetime activity, it looks like a lot of extreme measures are being taken.
> "The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful."
Also, woah. Is that at all true?
A fair comment in my view, but it does raise an interesting question - what is this comparable to? This is something extreme, it must be comparable to some major past event. Attacking truck drivers in this way isn't normal peacetime activity, it looks like a lot of extreme measures are being taken.
> "The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful."
Also, woah. Is that at all true?
Covid policies remind me of the Stanford-Prison-Experiment. Divide a population into two subgroups. Introduce strict rules for group B and let group A enforce them. See what happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
The nazis used this pattern too, but they also systematically murdered group B, which in my opinion disqualifies direct comparisons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
The nazis used this pattern too, but they also systematically murdered group B, which in my opinion disqualifies direct comparisons.
Taking away money from people generally shortens their life expectancy (rich people live longer), so while it's still very far from taking their life, the direction looks clear.
That’s about the worst stretch I’ve ever heard. I guess I should shoot the next guy who tries to give me a parking ticket?
You should work to reform your local parking enforcement so it can’t overwhelm poor people with tickets and boot their cars.
No, but I'm not sure that it would be a bad thing to bring back capital punishment (like the guillotine) for huge financial crimes.
Uhm, the key of the experiment was that someone did active division.
The vaccine situation isn't like that. People decided on their own whether to get a vaccine. Just like whether they decide on their own how to vote, how to eat, etc. Some of them are militant about whether others should eat meat or inject vaccines, they're not encouraged to be militant by Justin Trudeau or Stanford researchers.
The vaccine situation isn't like that. People decided on their own whether to get a vaccine. Just like whether they decide on their own how to vote, how to eat, etc. Some of them are militant about whether others should eat meat or inject vaccines, they're not encouraged to be militant by Justin Trudeau or Stanford researchers.
> Uhm, the key of the experiment was that someone did active division.
I think that the division of people by vaccination status is active, like a division by religion or language would be active.
> they're not encouraged to be militant by Justin Trudeau or Stanford researchers.
I am not sure about this. Some argue that demand characteristics lead to the outcome of the experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Dem...
The BBC experiment had a different outcome. Like the Danish "experiment" today (no mandates, no protests, nobody calling for state of emergency).
I think that the division of people by vaccination status is active, like a division by religion or language would be active.
> they're not encouraged to be militant by Justin Trudeau or Stanford researchers.
I am not sure about this. Some argue that demand characteristics lead to the outcome of the experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Dem...
The BBC experiment had a different outcome. Like the Danish "experiment" today (no mandates, no protests, nobody calling for state of emergency).
Could you elaborate on why this is an active division? It might help if you explain it by comparing/contrasting it with the situation wrt. measles vaccines, which I understand is mandatory in parts of Canada and which hasn't involved noticeable protest.
Two doses of measles vaccine are 97% effective and do not need any further boosters, while we don't know if 4 doses of today's SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective against next month's variant.
As I understand, with measles vaccines an outbreak can be prevented, while SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not stopping the virus even in fully vaccinated populations.
We also need to look at risks. Covid risks are spread unevenly over a population and it does not look to me like the threat is existential for humanity.
Especially younger people are looking at worse risk/benefit ratios than older people.
Since the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not good at preventing transmission, I don't think that a mandate is needed, suitable or adequate.
There are no mandates to quit drinking, smoking, potato chips and extreme sports or to do yoga, to eat healthy and to take proper supplements. Introducing such mandates may technically be possible, but it would leave us with a system like the social credit score where we need to prove our smoking, drinking or yoga status in order to be allowed to just be. Being required to prove our vaccination status already introduces a little bit of this and vaccinations could be done without this, by just not mandating them.
I think it is fair to protest against this.
As I understand, with measles vaccines an outbreak can be prevented, while SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not stopping the virus even in fully vaccinated populations.
We also need to look at risks. Covid risks are spread unevenly over a population and it does not look to me like the threat is existential for humanity.
Especially younger people are looking at worse risk/benefit ratios than older people.
Since the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not good at preventing transmission, I don't think that a mandate is needed, suitable or adequate.
There are no mandates to quit drinking, smoking, potato chips and extreme sports or to do yoga, to eat healthy and to take proper supplements. Introducing such mandates may technically be possible, but it would leave us with a system like the social credit score where we need to prove our smoking, drinking or yoga status in order to be allowed to just be. Being required to prove our vaccination status already introduces a little bit of this and vaccinations could be done without this, by just not mandating them.
I think it is fair to protest against this.
I see. A fair answer, but informative rather than persuasive.
To me that answer makes you look like the kind of person who protests against using a condom on a one-night stand because you don't know whether it'll protect against an unwanted pregnancy next week, and anyway the risks of an unwanted pregnancy are uneven.
To me that answer makes you look like the kind of person who protests against using a condom on a one-night stand because you don't know whether it'll protect against an unwanted pregnancy next week, and anyway the risks of an unwanted pregnancy are uneven.
To me that answer makes you look like the kind of person that compares apples and oranges.
It seems like quite a political miscalculation. It makes me wonder who advises him because it really is the type of move you would hope your political opposition makes when future elections are involved.
It is certainly playing with fire.
At one point I was thinking about moving to Canada.
Then the ethnic genocides news came which connected Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Justin's father) to "wiping out the Indian problem" with the Catholic Church.
Justin distanced himself only to wait a few months and show his lack of basic decency. Blocking people's access to their own money is extremely low. I find it hard to have any kind of respect for Justin Trudeau.
Other than that, I really thought that I'd have to wait longer - at least till the end of analog money - to see first signs of western-government-turned-slave-master.
When we forfeit cash, we forfeit freedom and ownership. There will just be corporations and government allowing us access to "our" money under strict slavery-like conditions.
Then the ethnic genocides news came which connected Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Justin's father) to "wiping out the Indian problem" with the Catholic Church.
Justin distanced himself only to wait a few months and show his lack of basic decency. Blocking people's access to their own money is extremely low. I find it hard to have any kind of respect for Justin Trudeau.
Other than that, I really thought that I'd have to wait longer - at least till the end of analog money - to see first signs of western-government-turned-slave-master.
When we forfeit cash, we forfeit freedom and ownership. There will just be corporations and government allowing us access to "our" money under strict slavery-like conditions.
Justin Trudeau got elected by being a pretty boy and the son of a popular Canadian prime minister. Anytime he's asked a hardball question, listen to the word salad he spits out. He's a man of zero substance, but unfortunately the Conservatives aren't offering any alternative either.
What I don't understand (looking in from Europe) is why the Police just doesn't confiscate every single truck that is blocking or honking all day? Can't you cite them with improper operation of a vehicle or reckless operation and impound the vehicle?
Also if you are going to start freezing bank accounts, how are you going to identify people? They may not even have an ID on them and the truck might be stolen for all we know.
Also if you are going to start freezing bank accounts, how are you going to identify people? They may not even have an ID on them and the truck might be stolen for all we know.
As far as I know many many towing companies are refusing to help.
How do you get rid of trucks without towing trucks?
How do you get rid of trucks without towing trucks?
Easy, by diplomacy not by force. Talk to truckers at first. Listen what they want. Get rid of useless vaccine mandates and the truckers will leave on their own accord.
That would just prove that the fascist were wrong. Can't have that. The opposition to totalitarianism is always wrong.
You have to understand that those who are in power don't want solutions or good of the people. They want total obedience.
You have to understand that those who are in power don't want solutions or good of the people. They want total obedience.
You'd think that having 5 "waves", two of which easily infected 50% of the population, most waves while having vaccines available, lockdowns and ... would have proven beyond anyone's reasonable doubt that the measures (and heavy handed government enforcement) were totally ineffective. "Wrong" in other words.
Essentially all governments initially promised a lockdown with the express purpose of not having to deal with a long drawn-out epidemic. I can only say: Well done!
Then came the promises: okay, not short, but they'll keep vulnerable groups safe! Well, studies now say, most people vulnerable to covid ... died. Despite the measures.
So we have the worst of all possible worlds:
1) people who were sensitive to covid for some reason largely died (as proven by very comparable death rates between countries with vastly different measures, once you exclude the tiny, obviously lying (China, Russia, a bunch of others), islands other than Britain, or those that don't have any health care to effectively determine cause of death)
2) we had ENORMOUS negative impacts from ineffective measures to prevent 1.
But you can't talk with people who imagine they're disease free, and terrified of losing that "pure" status. It is very well known that any human's immune system is constantly fighting a few hundred battles with a few hundred different diseases, even in the cleanest human alive. And on top of that, fights with internal problems, like cancers, even the odd too enthousiastic immune system cell.
Of course, now that all measures have failed, people have generally decided to settle on the most hateful conclusion possible: that the spread of all waves was the fault of all these other people who don't agree with extreme measures ...
Essentially all governments initially promised a lockdown with the express purpose of not having to deal with a long drawn-out epidemic. I can only say: Well done!
Then came the promises: okay, not short, but they'll keep vulnerable groups safe! Well, studies now say, most people vulnerable to covid ... died. Despite the measures.
So we have the worst of all possible worlds:
1) people who were sensitive to covid for some reason largely died (as proven by very comparable death rates between countries with vastly different measures, once you exclude the tiny, obviously lying (China, Russia, a bunch of others), islands other than Britain, or those that don't have any health care to effectively determine cause of death)
2) we had ENORMOUS negative impacts from ineffective measures to prevent 1.
But you can't talk with people who imagine they're disease free, and terrified of losing that "pure" status. It is very well known that any human's immune system is constantly fighting a few hundred battles with a few hundred different diseases, even in the cleanest human alive. And on top of that, fights with internal problems, like cancers, even the odd too enthousiastic immune system cell.
Of course, now that all measures have failed, people have generally decided to settle on the most hateful conclusion possible: that the spread of all waves was the fault of all these other people who don't agree with extreme measures ...
100%
[deleted]
the city has several heavy tows that can move double-decker buses, and also trucks.
For every towing company that refuses to help, audit them, run surprise inspections, make a new law that requires to comply with legal city requests in order to maintain a license to operate.
Yeah, that's how you'll tame the protests against government overreach.
Wow.
This period of time really shines a light on us all, doesn't it?
This period of time really shines a light on us all, doesn't it?
I’ve thought about this a bit, they may not have many people who know how to drive a truck like that :V
Driving those trucks is identical to driving a bus. In fact, thats how a lot of these truckers pass the driving test: by driving a bus.
Now, the city bus service in Ottawa, also has heavy tows, that can pull a double-decker bus, or a semi tractor.
They could've been doing this a long time ago.....but they didn't.
Why? They had all the tools.
Now, the city bus service in Ottawa, also has heavy tows, that can pull a double-decker bus, or a semi tractor.
They could've been doing this a long time ago.....but they didn't.
Why? They had all the tools.
City bus drivers driving a 21 speed?
Sure thing.
Sure thing.
Would take me less than an hour to learn enough to drive a semi truck from point A to point B.
> The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful.
Is this for real? This is like a parody of a parody of a parody of what the most strident libertarians would accuse "big government" types of wanting to do, right? This isn't actually being considered? Nobody can actually justify charging people with precrime, right?
Is this for real? This is like a parody of a parody of a parody of what the most strident libertarians would accuse "big government" types of wanting to do, right? This isn't actually being considered? Nobody can actually justify charging people with precrime, right?
Yeah but hate speech. It makes people feel unsafe.
And while you’re at it, we need to protect the children, so we need to monitor 100% of the internet and ban encryption.
But it’s for your safety.
And while you’re at it, we need to protect the children, so we need to monitor 100% of the internet and ban encryption.
But it’s for your safety.
> Nobody can actually justify charging people with precrime, right?
This is not unique, in most countries you can be charged for planning a terrorist attack as well.
This is not unique, in most countries you can be charged for planning a terrorist attack as well.
Not quite.
What Canada already has (compelled speach laws) and is planning to do certainly is unique, except maybe a couple dictatorships if you criticize the regime.
While the proposed text defines hatred as
I can only remember, being from ex-yugoslavia, which used to be a diverse ex-communist country, a similar set of "terrorizing of free speech" laws, right after WWII by Tito. They had been deemed necessary to use fear of Communists to quell any desire for any kind of revenge for the massacres and exterminations in death camps from WWII, and suffocate any nationalism.
They were rescinded in the mid 1950's because of the harm they had caused back then. It was used to send 75K people in gulag, a lot innocent, just denounced by people who didn't like them. 54K never came back, 60K more were sent to regular prison for 1-5 years.
Also, seeing the 1990's, they quite obviously didn't work, people just kept their fear of the other and desire for revenge inside, not talking, slowly simmering to a boiling point.
Not saying Trudeau's opening polar work camps, but he certainly stepped on (over ?) the border of that territory.
What Canada already has (compelled speach laws) and is planning to do certainly is unique, except maybe a couple dictatorships if you criticize the regime.
While the proposed text defines hatred as
"[...] the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain",
"A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit [...]
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor."
I can only remember, being from ex-yugoslavia, which used to be a diverse ex-communist country, a similar set of "terrorizing of free speech" laws, right after WWII by Tito. They had been deemed necessary to use fear of Communists to quell any desire for any kind of revenge for the massacres and exterminations in death camps from WWII, and suffocate any nationalism.
They were rescinded in the mid 1950's because of the harm they had caused back then. It was used to send 75K people in gulag, a lot innocent, just denounced by people who didn't like them. 54K never came back, 60K more were sent to regular prison for 1-5 years.
Also, seeing the 1990's, they quite obviously didn't work, people just kept their fear of the other and desire for revenge inside, not talking, slowly simmering to a boiling point.
Not saying Trudeau's opening polar work camps, but he certainly stepped on (over ?) the border of that territory.
What is the proposal? I can’t find a name for it or a link
[deleted]
> A wise government would listen to them and respond politely, taking their complaints seriously and patiently explaining why covid restrictions, though onerous, are necessary for the time being.
This seems unlikely to achieve anything, given that the convoy seems consist of antivax folks for whom patient explanation of the principles by authority figures is ineffective.
> The police already have ample powers to quell disorder.
But apparently haven't been using them.
Entire article is fluff. And not at all tech related.
This seems unlikely to achieve anything, given that the convoy seems consist of antivax folks for whom patient explanation of the principles by authority figures is ineffective.
> The police already have ample powers to quell disorder.
But apparently haven't been using them.
Entire article is fluff. And not at all tech related.
Interestingly, a larger percent of truckers are vaccinated than the Canadian population.
So calling them anti vax is about as descriptive and useful as calling them racist or mysoginist.
So calling them anti vax is about as descriptive and useful as calling them racist or mysoginist.
I didn't call "truckers" anti vax. I said a lot of the convoy are. The idea they represent all truckers is pretty unfounded, they appear to be a niche group.
They're both niche and so powerful they warrant the response? Which is it.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
Be more precise when using the term 'antivax'. The protest isn't about that; it's about vaccine mandates. You can very easily be pro-vaccine and against the mandates.
The protest appears to be about a number of things.
Further, I said the convoy seems to consist of antivax folks, which is not incompatible with what you said.
Further, I said the convoy seems to consist of antivax folks, which is not incompatible with what you said.
[deleted]
Why would clearing an illegal blockade aimed at causing economic disruption be "seeking to curb free speech"?
If you read the article, you will find:
> The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful.
> The other proposed change would let individuals file legal complaints against people pre-emptively, if they fear that they may be about to say something hateful.
That's a lot of words just to say "protest."
Perhaps they should consider alternate protests, like the fiery, but mostly peaceful kind.
Somewhat OT: this is an editorial, right? The tone clearly reads as one, but Ctrl+F "opinion" or "editorial" has 0 results, and I couldn't find an author byline.
Why do newspapers do this?
Why do newspapers do this?
Almost all content from The Economist, except "the world in brief" quick newsbites, is editorial.
The also never sign their posts, as they usually have multiple collaborators and reflect the opinion of the entire editorial team.
Source: they wrote about it a few years ago.
The also never sign their posts, as they usually have multiple collaborators and reflect the opinion of the entire editorial team.
Source: they wrote about it a few years ago.
Oh, interesting. I guess it makes more sense, in that case. Would be nice to have an explicit "Anonymous editorial" / "The editorial team" byline, though.
The Economist isn't a newspaper. It's an opinion magazine.
The reason you got confused about that is because actual newspaper behave like opinion magazines these days too.
The reason you got confused about that is because actual newspaper behave like opinion magazines these days too.
The URL contains the term "leaders" which is UK English for an editorial piece.
> this is an editorial, right?
Yes
Not just the tone but there are several indications. Like the "Leaders" section. Or phrases like "The Economist has long argued..."
But yeah the lack of an author byline is weird and not something I agree with.
Yes
Not just the tone but there are several indications. Like the "Leaders" section. Or phrases like "The Economist has long argued..."
But yeah the lack of an author byline is weird and not something I agree with.
>I couldn't find an author byline.
Probably, the author was obligated to write this by a superior and chose to do it anonymously. I heard this happens sometimes in the media from where I come
Probably, the author was obligated to write this by a superior and chose to do it anonymously. I heard this happens sometimes in the media from where I come
The Economist always has anonymous writers.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/...
I read the comments and see a large misconception.
The belief seems to be that the mask mandates are there to protect the mask wearers.
They aren't. They are there to protect immunocompromised people who still have to go about their life as best as they can. Many people could go without masks and if they get sick, it's mild (though there are studies[1] that show even a mild covid can cause lasting heart damage). But before they even knew they were sick they would be spreading it to everyone around them. And there are quite a few immunocompromised people who if they get COVID may very well die. I'm married to one.
Do you drive 70 mph in a 30 mph zone? If you are advocating removing mask and vaccination mandates then that is effectively what you are doing.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0
The belief seems to be that the mask mandates are there to protect the mask wearers.
They aren't. They are there to protect immunocompromised people who still have to go about their life as best as they can. Many people could go without masks and if they get sick, it's mild (though there are studies[1] that show even a mild covid can cause lasting heart damage). But before they even knew they were sick they would be spreading it to everyone around them. And there are quite a few immunocompromised people who if they get COVID may very well die. I'm married to one.
Do you drive 70 mph in a 30 mph zone? If you are advocating removing mask and vaccination mandates then that is effectively what you are doing.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0
The people who are least valuable to a society are usually the ones who think their rights are violated when mandates are drafted to protect those with no other option.