I was with you after watching the Maher video, but Dore is operating on false assumptions. Vaccine passports won't "track wherever you go for the rest of your life". Getting vaccinated doesn't "only protect you". Stopped watching after barely 30 seconds.
>I was with you after watching the Maher video, but Dore is operating on false assumptions. Vaccine passports won't "track wherever you go for the rest of your life". Getting vaccinated doesn't "only protect you". Stopped watching after barely 30 seconds.
20 minute video, I'm sure he's going to say stuff. I'll even say that I tend not to agree with him on many things. He's a bernie bro and I'm certainly not.
But the point I was making, the shit going down in Canada is real and hard pill to swallow.
If you wish to ignore jimmy dore, fine. Did you read the article?
> This (unfortunately) is my MP and it's sad to say that he's contributing to the echo chamber of made up stories for the sole purpose of making people angry and voting for him.
I said this about Mark Strahl, my MP, so no I didn't make the same "attack", sorry. As of now this story seems fabricated so I'll keep trying to hold my MP accountable.
This is incorrect. The lawyer is not confirming the story that people are having accounts frozen for donating. You'll note in that tweet they make zero reference to those donating.
It says they did provide a list of influencers, so perhaps they are just freezing the accounts of those who tweeted. I'm sure many of those who donated are also online influencers voicing their support for the freedom convoy.
I clicked on the link but it doesn’t seem to claim that he is representing anyone whose account was frozen for a donation. He states some of his clients are truck drivers/owners involved in the protest.
>Is this actually true? According to [0] "The Declaration expires after 30 days unless an extension is confirmed within specific timelines by both the House of Commons and the Senate.". I don't see how this would grant the government permanent powers unless the Emergencies Act gets renewed in perpetuity.
This is true. They have frozen the bank accounts of hundreds and you cannot do anything about it. You never got due process, there is no redress from the courts because you dont have a bank account to hire a lawyer.
>This is the risk in protesting. Authorities have never been nice to protestors. Protesting has always carried the risk of assault and the loss of livelihood, wealth, freedom, or life. So before protesting, you need to ask yourself if what your protesting for is worth it.
This act has never been used before, it's predecessor was used only during serious war. This act being used against legitimate protest and then going forward banning all protest?
Like say you want to protest the government based on one side of the Ukraine war? You can't, that's illegal.
Say you want to go cover those illegal protests and report on it as a journalist? That's illegal.
>Especially after the perceived police incompetence in the matter (by failing to dole out the standard ass-kicking-jail-fine punishment).
The police couldn't touch the protest for weeks not because of inaction but because your right to protest is a human right. They required the national emergency to remove our right to protest in order to label the protest illegal.
>The police couldn't touch the protest for weeks not because of inaction but because your right to protest is a human right. They required the national emergency to remove our right to protest in order to label the protest illegal.
So you are saying under Canadian law, if you protest and do something illegal like blocking roads, destroying property, etc then Canadian police can't do anything? So if I go back in history and look at other protests in Canada like the ones against the pipelines for example, then I will see that the police didn't act against them?
>you protest and do something illegal like blocking roads
Any protest of any respectable size will block the roads it chooses to march in, every climate change protest and every gay pride blocks the roads, never see people complaining about those.
>destroying property
What is the property that was destroyed by the protest in question?
> Any protest of any respectable size will block the roads it chooses to march in, every climate change protest and every gay pride blocks the roads, never see people complaining about those.
Ottawa gets protests for left- and right- wing causes on a weekly basis. One of the biggest protests we see is a yearly "bus all the catholic school children to parliament hill to protest abortion", and it goes by without a hitch every year.
Anyways, protests last for maybe an afternoon or day or two at most and involve people standing on parliament hill or marching around the downtown core, not blockading the city core and constantly harassing the people who live there for multiple weeks.
I see this word used multiple times in people arguing against the protest, never with any details about the concrete instances of the supposed harassment. Noise is not harassment, any activity with a large group of people is going to annoy and disturb the place they happen to choose to congregate, this is not even specific to protests.
Actually, just to be clear, what exactly did the protestors do besides blocking the road and making a lot of noise?
>protests last for maybe an afternoon or day or two at most
So
(1) The duration of a protest and
(2) How much inconvenience it causes to the locals
are the two factors that determine whether it's a legitimate protest or not ?
Noise is 100% absolutely definitely harassment, especially when it is over 100dB within people's homes, and every hour of the day for weeks on end. Why do you say it's not? It was loud enough to cause permanent damage and was unending for a significant portion of the occupation, until a citizen managed to get a court injunction.
The level of noise, the duration of the noise, and the tools they were using to create that noise (including multiple actual train horns) were all illegal under existing laws, as well.
You mean they did this at night? Wow. And police let this go on for multiple nights? When sleep deprivation is done to alleged terrorists, Amnesty International calls it torture.
Because it's not, harassment is usually implied to be personal, involving hostile contact between the harasser(s) and the harassed. Did the protestors shout insults or threats at you or other neighborhood residents ?
>all illegal under existing laws
Do we really need to constantly circle back to the point that protests have to be lawful ? they do not, protesting is about breaking the ordinary and disrupting the status quo, that's the point, especially when the people protesting feel cornered and without a lawful retort to perceived injustices.
Every action against the government will hurt the population to some degree or another, 100db noise seems pretty mild compared to the private property damage valued in the millions that large-scale protests usually cause. Prioritising comfort over protest is implicitely siding with the government, which is your right off course, as long as you're explicit about it.
Edit : 100db noise turns out to be a deadly serious matter, I apologize to the person I'm replying to for making light of it.
I still believe it's wrong to use this as justification for quashing a protest, there is a whole spectrum of solutions from reasoning with the protestors to wearing ear covers, but I can better understand and empathize with the antagonism most of the affected city's residents hold toward the protests.
At 100dB, a safe dose is about 15 minutes. Blowing horns all day for weeks on end poses a significant risk of severe hearing loss. Per affected person, a hearing loss payout can be up to around $100k. Given the ~1M people in Ottawa, I would expect the physical damage to persons in the area to exceed the millions of dollars in your "[usual] large-scale protest."
Let's flip it - can your neighbour block the end your driveway and lay on their car horn 24/7 for weeks straight if they say they're protesting the government? Bonus points for harassing you if you walk by
I wouldn't like it, but I also wouldn't call it an illegal protest because I don't like it.
Truth be told I've rarely encountered a protest I liked - they are always annoying (even the ones I agree with are annoying - they block traffic to friends and foes equally).
It comes with the territory, and it's something you must tolerate to have a democracy.
If the government had stopped at halting the horns, very few people would object, and even then not seriously. A lack of a horn does not prevent a protest.
But that's not what Canada did, is it? They not just remove the protest they froze bank accounts of supporters. That's not democracy. That's a government very very threatened by the protest.
If Canada does not wipe the slate clean and vote away every single politician who was culpable in this, then Canada is not the place it's been advertised to be.
I mean, aside from the noise torture they shut down a city's downtown core for 3 weeks, continually threatened, harassed, and assaulted it's residents, released multiple statements and videos calling for overthrowing and arresting elected leaders (especially women / people of colour), and the municipal police force proved itself incapable of enforcing the law and keeping Canadians safe. Not to mention the other blockades that halted more than $300mil/day in trade.
> So you are saying under Canadian law, if you protest and do something illegal like blocking roads
Every protest in history has “done something illegal” like blocking roads or disrupting access to public spaces, at an absolute minimum. So if you have the right to protest, then you have the right to do those things that would otherwise be illegal within the context of a protest, or you don’t have the right to protest at all.
Right so then let's continue the thought process. You are saying under Canadian laws, if a group of people are protesting, they can break whatever laws they want within the context of the protest and the police can't do anything? And if we look historically within Canada, we will see that this holds true? That the police never shut down any protest without emergency laws being enabled?
I am saying that protest by its nature is supposed to be disruptive on some level, and laws prohibit the type of disruptive behaviour typical of a protest clearly don’t apply _if_ you have a right to protest.
Blocking roads and occupying public spaces are some of the most fundamental features of a protest, so if you have a right to protest, then you certainly have a right to do that within the context of a protest.
If a protestor decides to commit a crime during their protesting, like destroying property, arson, assault… then they should still have full criminal liability for that. Nobody is disagreeing with you on that point. To me it seems you are simply trying to invent some contention out of nothing, in order to fit your view that the entire protest itself is illegal.
I never claimed the entire protest is illegal. I'm just trying to question the notion that in Canada when you protest and despite how disruptive you are, the Canadian police can't touch you or stop you without invoking emergency laws. I haven't seen it in recent history so I wonder why it's the case now.
To be fair, no one is complaining that they protested illegally. The complaint is that the protesters actively targeted unrelated civilians and made life a living hell for them for weeks on end.
I don't think you would say that it would be ok for protesters to physically attack random civilians because "it's a protest and that's their protest strategy". There are obviously limits to the illegal behaviour generally allowed to protests.
Again, people aren't complaining that they protested illegally, they are complaining that the protesters are physically and verbally harassing them beyond every reasonable degree.
The quote you brought out does not say that an illegal protest is the basis for using emergency powers. It says that an illegal occupation is the basis.
We have had many many "illegal" protests where streets have been blocked temporarily and there were no calls to break out the emergency act.
> The police couldn't touch the protest for weeks not because of inaction but because your right to protest is a human right. They required the national emergency to remove our right to protest in order to label the protest illegal.
This is wholly incorrect. The Ottawa Police made a huge error at the beginning of the occupation, allowing the occupiers to entrench themselves in the city. Further disagreements in the police force and municipality extended the situation that all levels of government agreed was illegal from day 1.
This wasn't a protest, it was an illegal occupation.
I'm Canadian as well but I'm in Canada. I was led to believe the biden warnings of imminent russia invasion were war mongering and not true. Clearly not true anymore. Russia is an aggressor.
From my point of view, it seems Canadians are team Russia here, especially our prime minister.
What led you to believe those things (the idea that the Biden Administration's claims of an imminent invasion were war mongering, and the idea that Canada has aligned itself with Russia)?
>What led you to believe those things (the idea that the Biden Administration's claims of an imminent invasion were war mongering,
That's a great question, but I don't know if I know the answer.
Overall, the US as world police, Obama and his nobel peace prize and 7 wars, and virtually entire existence of the USA they have been at war. It's kind of easy to see this point of view.
However, I would generally say our media was saying the invasion wasn't imminent. Largely reporting the Ukraine government denied any invasion was coming.
This I would say as well was the story across political lines.
The only thing really covered was how Trudeau was being actively excluded from diplomacy by Biden.
It is public knowledge that the liberal party are members of the WEF. So is Putin. Both Putin and Trudeau have done keynotes. They are publicly linked.
It's a whole different thing to say this is some evil cabal or some diplomatic war-supporting effort. For all I know Trudeau is a mole and we are still complete allies to the USA, if not protectorate.
But frankly, I look at the last week. Russia invaded and Canadians are under an unjustified national emergency with the government seizing bank accounts with no due process or redress. We do have political prisoners and global celebrities from across the political spectrum are calling out Trudeau as Hitler.
>Your PM just got a taste of authoritarian despotism so it would make sense.
I'm going to show my left-wing bias but Bill Maher and Jimmy Dore both called Trudeau Hitler. They are objectively right, but what happened?
Canada had some ineffectual blockades, but at the time of the emergency being invoked. Those were gone. So the emergency was ONLY the protest in Ottawa.
The justification for the emergency is the military occupation and they used the givesendgo hacked data to analyze that around 50% of the raised money was from the USA. The allegation is that the USA is somehow doing this? This is absurd but why is Trudeau overreacting to all this? What did he fear?
I am coming around to the opinion that the real estate market isn't out of control at all. The absolute complete opposite of the author here.
Doesnt make sense does it? But what if the underlying problem throughout the article? The overall PRICE of housing.
What if housing is only just a metric of the problem? Debt is money. Debt is generally speaking housing and transport. They will show the problem quickly.
What if the currency is in collapse? The governments would know it and their immediate action would be to stop reporting their financials? Obviously tremendous debt held by everyone and government is the cause.
this is part of the issue but not the entirety. If it was just the currency that was collapsing you would see wages spiraling out of control as well.
i think, what we're seeing here is housing has been made nearly impossible to build by regulation and zoning. Also, large imbalances between where jobs are and where places to live are, exacerbate the issue immensely.
Over the course of the last decade, I've come to accept that things are the way they are because many many people want it that way. There is large scale support for ever increasing housing costs among the voting population. this is because most voters own real estate and they simply want to those values to go up and up forever, regardless of the consequences to the next generations and the future of humanity. I had noticed this taking place in the US but I've been seeing this phenomonen happening all over the world in the so called "first world".
I realize I'm likely in the minority, but my property value has gone up almost 100% since 2019, and I don't like it one bit. I'm going to be burned by property tax increases like everyone else. Even if I did sell, there's nowhere to move--and I'd be paying stupidly-inflated percentage-based real estate commissions on both transactions.
In CA you can have your cake and eat it too. My property values have gone up 30% just in the last year and yet, with Prop 13, my property taxes will only go up 2%.
can you imagine the long term ramifications of such a taxation policy? the guy who made 2 million $ in equity gains over the last 20 years is paying 5 times less property taxes than the poor schmuck with 0 equity gain who just bought the same exact house at 4 times the cost. sure they're both paying a lot of property taxes but the one who just bought into the system, is paying a lot lot more.
If you're in Canada (or at least Ontario) huge upticks in property values across a city don't result in higher property taxes. Municipalities set their budget and then divide by the real estate value to arrive at each lot's property tax (the actual formula is more complex, but that's the basic concept, plus MPAC values lag way behind actual sales). When everyone's property goes up by the same amount no one's taxes increase.
It's still a very bad thing property values have gone up so much. This isn't free money; the cost is being extracted from young people and new immigrants trying to enter the market and it's turning our economy into a giant real estate shell game.
One of the most important realizations that you have to make as an adult is that there are no conspiracies. If there is one billionaire supposedly doing something on his own behind your back you can bet that there are millions of people who are doing the same thing and think it is perfectly okay.
People complain about black rock buying everything up but guess what, regular homeowners are in it for the speculation as well and they vote in a way that gives black rock outsized power because they want their own slice.
If you believe 'The currency is in collapse,' then I suggest you take out as much leverage as you can have to your name (Maybe even raise capital from institutions using your above diligence) and do a Soros-Style short.
I actually do believe the Canadian currency is in collapse and it absolutely changed my behavior (bought assets/stock in other countries, got a mortgage at 5% down, vs 20% down, other hard assets)
I'm telling you if you have that much conviction, then you can profit it off that WAY more than you currently are with some simple financial instruments.
But as always this is not investment advice, because I disagree with the premise.
It's possible to have conviction but recognize the possibility being wrong or that outside events can have an impact. With financial instruments, it's also possible to run into market-timing issues and outsized risk to reward.
On the other hand, it's easy to bet on hard assets (like real estate) and taking on debt when inflation is so high and rates are so low. It has the added benefit of not being sophisticated, requiring neither a finance nor an accounting degree.
Conviction is literally 'firmly holding a belief or opinion.' If you firmly believe that currency is collapsing and your response is to buy a home, then you're leaving a bunch of money on the table and potentially not profiting from that at all.
If you think that interest rates are low and housing has a lot of reasons to inflate going forward, then I think we agree you're acting rationally, but that has almost nothing to do with 'currency collapse.'
If you are of the persuasion that western currencies are collapsing, what would you pair the canadian dollar with for your trade?
Soros paired the GBP with USD because the bank of England was having a difficult time defending the pound. The USD was not also at risk. It was completely unrelated to the situation happening in England. But if both the GBP and USD fell, Soros would not have made a profit.
Lol whichever currency/asset you plan to use to measure your wealth in the future.
You're right, Soros borrowed pounds and sold them for dollars because he wanted more dollars. If you think CAD and USD are both going to collapse, then maybe think about the joys of your day-to-day life (coffee, heat, clean water) and use that as the other side.
It is very unlikely that USD collapses on a human life-scale without major disruptions in those supply chains.
>If you believe 'The currency is in collapse,' then I suggest you take out as much leverage as you can have to your name (Maybe even raise capital from institutions using your above diligence) and do a Soros-Style short.
Literally everyone I know is doing this. Crazy mortgages and all money into inflationary resistant assets. Gold, Crypto, etc.
>What's disappointing is the response of european leaders so far. They have prepared a sanctions package against Russia which won't include anything in the energy sector! If not energy then what, Matryoshka dolls? and we are supposed to take them seriously :-(
Oh yes, they will talk tough but will ultimately not do anything at all. Sanctions will target nothing intentionally.
I'm certainly not saying I believe it but the conspiracy theory goes... Putin, Xi Jinping, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel/Scholz, Jacinda Ardern, Eman Macron, Justin Trudeau, and Scott Morrison are allied against the USA. With some other smaller allies.
Biden's warnings about imminent war in Ukraine, I thought was warmongering. What US president hasn't war mongered since I've been alive?
A week ago I did not consider this to be anything but a conspiracy theory. The current state of affairs in the last week? I am open to listen to more evidence.
Regardless of the conspiracy theory, sure does seem everyone is about to dunk on the USA.
To edit my first post, Democrats have been calling bloody murder against the Russians for how long? Russians are who took Snowden, Russians are the ones who hacked the DNC to reveal Clinton. Democrats assert Trump is controlled by Russia. It seemed all so farfetched.
The moment Putin crossed border into the Ukraine... Putin is the aggressor here. ok well I'm listening to the democrats suddenly.
As a Canadian, boy am I ever uncomfortable finding myself seemingly at odds against the USA.
I sure hope the republicans can open discussion with the democrats over this.
This will be an impossible subject to wade through due to the very charged reality of what has gone down. Preconceived perceptions are broken.
I respect Bill Maher's opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i72czkSUsM
I respect Jimmy Dore's opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUNnGdv8ceM
One of the best objective timelines I have read on this subject to date: https://quillette.com/2022/02/21/the-ottawa-trucker-protest-...