Of course it happens, but that doesn't mean you should try not to let it happen. And I think it depends on the organization. If it's your local Nazi's for Change group? No, it's not OK. PETA? Still not OK. Legal, but not OK. There's a reason the US and Canadian governments list those groups that are determined to be tied to terrorism, etc. There's also a reason why FINTRAC and other such laws and process are in place, to try and minimize funds going to bad organizations.
So my thinking is that, if I were a politician, it would be very advantageous for my party to always cast the groups my opponent supports as terrorist organizations. Again, I'm not trying to argue personally with you about this, I’m just throwing out ideas because this is a discussion board, and discussions help to enlighten (me).
So, I'm not a huge fan of what's being done in Canada. However once the nazi symbology, associated racism, and threats of violence started coming out (long before they even showed up), it was time to disassociate. That's when "the community" stops being about whatever shit you're protesting.
Technically it meets the definition, but so does a lot of other shit that we won't worry ourselves over, so I don't really like using the term to describe what's going on. That said, there is something happening that's more than just your average hippie drum circle. I think it's worth considering the difference between a protest and a hostage taking. A protest (or as it's termed in the US Constitution "petitioning the Government for redress of grievances") is a fundamental right, and is definitionally legitimate, but it extends no further than amplifying your own voice in order to be heard by the governing authority. It guarantees no result and involves nothing beyond communication between you (and any group you represent) and said authority. A hostage-taking in contrast, is the deliberate infliction of some kind of negative consequence if your demands aren't met. Hostage-taking is not definitionally legitimate, and each instance must be justified on its own merits. The two are often conflated, because most protests in the real world involve some level of hostage-taking. "We're going to be annoying in the streets for a few hours to ensure you have to think about our issue for a bit" is a common pattern. When hostage taking however, you have to scrupulously ensure that the injustice you're addressing is more severe than the injustice you induce to force a confrontation on the issue. In the case of these protests, I think it's pretty clear that the level of hostage-taking cannot be in any way justified by the issues the convoy claims are at the heart of their actions.
Yea, and I do think you have to be careful because you always run the risk of someone trying to discredit your movement by doing things like that. In the truck convoy case, if you're rolling down the highway and Wrecker99 decides to stick that stupid black maple leaf flag out, and then the news focuses on that happening, it's kind of disingenuous to paint everyone with that brush. That being said, you'd expect them to do a little more internal policing when these things happen. You can't spend all your time and energy fighting off every bad actor that gets entrenched (maliciously or otherwise), but you do need to spend some time doing it. The other point is that if your movement is naturally attracting a lot of facists, nazis, white supremacists, etc....well, you should probably be questioning the movement and its goals.
Then a great strategy for opponents of that group would be to flood it with as many of those symbols as you can. Make policing it impossible and get in front of every camera.
It's definitely a problem, and a sound tactic by counter protestors. Thankfully, it's rare for groups like this to organize sufficiently to do this without state sponsorship. You see some attempts at this sort of behaviour in left wing organizing, any the bulk of the group moves quickly to expose, and expunge, those people. In contrast, the truck protests have made little to no effort, and instead embrace all comers.
I kinda understand what you’re saying, but not sure I understand the chain of logic. It reads to me like: -this is a problem and a sound tactic -however, it’s a tactic that mainly affects left wing protests (meaning right wing infiltration) -left wing organizations are good at policing their ranks exposing it for the fakery that it is -in contrast, right wing protests aren’t good at policing their ranks. I mean, if that’s what you’re saying, then it could be said that in some instances, left wing infiltration into right wing organizations may have been very successful. I say “may have” because I’m not pointing to any specific examples, just throwing out some hypotheticals.
I know that I am looking forward to the public inquiry that invoking the Emergency Measures Act requires. The Judge(s) on the inquiry will have some serious power to hold people accountable for the failures that got things to the point where it was required. So if the Ottawa Chief of Police or Mayor were failing to do their jobs they're going to be held accountable and no amount of resigning will avoid that. If there was a systematic failure to follow orders by the Police on the streets then they're going to be unemployed. If people lied to the various levels of Government to get the Act invoked they are going to be in some deep shit. The Act is equivalent of the "break glass in case of emergency" button for the Country, and the biggest check on it being used is the guaranteed inquiry that will happen after it is invoked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/swqggj/fox_news_panel_lose_their_sht_while_geraldo/ Geraldo is correct, and it's more like 93% want police action against the freedom convoy. It no longer amazes me how uninformed the talking heads are.
That’s a business model. Most talking heads are there to reinforce the narrative that is already believed by the viewers. Guests and opposing viewpoints are brought in to serve their purpose as a target for verbal jabs. And this is a business model for every single network. But again - echo chambers, no gray area. “The network I like might do this, but the WRONG network is really a bunch of fucking idiots! Or worse!”
This would imply a higher level of agreement with the people who need to be policed for them to be welcomed so freely into the group.
So the private jet-flying assholes who organized this fiasco are whining in court about their first amendment rights….. in a Canadian courtroom. Its impossible to be this stupid. Let the stupid bitch sit in jail.
Yes it would, sadly. So is it - pertaining to any type of protest, from any side - “only a few bad apples” or “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch?” Which is worse - the presence of a bad action, or the presence of a bad idea? Are they equally bad?
He's got first amendment rights or something. Did we invade Canada and I didn't hear about it? Also, his wife being forced to wear a mask is funny as hell. Irony for the win.
Someone on Twitter pointed out that the "first amendment" to the Canadian constitution would be acknowledging the existence of Manitoba.