Off Topic Politics Thread

[StJabbo1]

Schad is on my mute list so I don’t know what he said.

But the article you posted shows that our House of Lords is opposed to censoring protests too so I am still not sure what point you’re making?

Ultimately any government that has to censor its citizens and rule by censorship and degradation of human rights is not a direction any democracy should be embracing.

The entire point of democracy is to avoid this sort of infringement.

I'm not censoring protests and support the amendments. the dark road is the original bill.

Is paralysing a city and blocking border crossings for a number of weeks legitimate protest? Add the exhortations to lynch them all and the other hateful speeches plus the carload of weapons and you have a protest highjacked by extremists.

 

[Osvaldorama]

I'm not censoring protests and support the amendments. the dark road is the original bill.

Is paralysing a city and blocking border crossings for a number of weeks legitimate protest? Add the exhortations to lynch them all and the other hateful speeches plus the carload of weapons and you have a protest highjacked by extremists.

Is stopping people from working and earning a living worth blockading a few streets?

I would say yes. I’m not going to bring this all up again, but to me the Canadian vaccine mandates are easily enough of an encroachment on their freedoms and liberties that this protest is fully justified.

Stopping people from working to earn money to feed their families pretty much makes this protest life or death. A lot of them are probably willing to go to jail or more for their freedom.

Accusing hard working truckers of being nazis is only going to stiffen their resolve.

 

[Archers Road]

Exactly right.

If Trudeau was in charge using his new ridiculous laws, Martin Luther King wouldn’t have been allowed to make his famous speech.

Didn't MLK get murdered by a right wing extremist?

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Schad is on my mute list so I don’t know what he said.

But the article you posted shows that our House of Lords is opposed to censoring protests too so I am still not sure what point you’re making?

Ultimately any government that has to censor its citizens and rule by censorship and degradation of human rights is not a direction any democracy should be embracing.

The entire point of democracy is to avoid this sort of infringement.

CENSORSHIP OF SCHAD!

 

[Schad]

Schad is on my mute list so I don’t know what he said.

Now that cancel culture has come for me, I hope that I can finally get that guest spot on the Joe Rogan Experience. Or maybe sell some seriously overpriced and pharmacologically dubious supplements to boost testosterone.

 

[Schad]

Didn't MLK get murdered by a right wing extremist?

He was also arrested 29 times in total. His famous letter isn't referred to as "Letter From A Spa Day in Birmingham" for a reason.

 

[Archers Road]

He was also arrested 29 times in total. His famous letter isn't referred to as "Letter From A Spa Day in Birmingham" for a reason.

Trudeau would have put a stop to him though

 

[StJabbo1]

Is stopping people from working and earning a living worth blockading a few streets?

I would say yes. I’m not going to bring this all up again, but to me the Canadian vaccine mandates are easily enough of an encroachment on their freedoms and liberties that this protest is fully justified.

Stopping people from working to earn money to feed their families pretty much makes this protest life or death. A lot of them are probably willing to go to jail or more for their freedom.

Accusing hard working truckers of being nazis is only going to stiffen their resolve.

As I said and you ignore it's more than a few blocks, include the border crossings and the timescale plus the highjacking of the protest, which has more than made it's point, and the exhortations for violence and legitimate protest it's not.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Didn't MLK get murdered by a right wing extremist?

The big mistake you and a few others have made is conflating outrageous government overreach with right wing extremism.

The two are totally different.

My point in mentioning him was that he was a staunch supporter of peaceful, non-violent protests and standing up for human rights in much the same was as the Canadian truckers are currently doing

 

[Osvaldorama]

CENSORSHIP OF SCHAD!

The big difference is I have personally chosen to mute someone who’s views are clearly the opposite to mine - but I still respect his views.

I haven’t requested that he be removed and censored from the forum.

That’s hugely significant.

 

[Gregm1988]

I notice the example of the crackdown protests being proposed by the U.K. government is being floated here in response to Trudeau

That doesn’t sit quite right with me as most will accept that our current government is the most right wing and authoritarian in many a year

With Trudeau we are talking about someone from ostensibly a left “leaning” Liberal party who is cracking down on protests and proposing powers to freeze bank accounts. As well as funds donated being diverted

You can quibble all you like about legitimacy but it is not a great precedent for a left leaning government to be setting. Because what happens if they lose in the future? And a right leaning Canadian government uses to same powers on, for example, a BLM like protest. Or an lgbtq based one. People will throw their arms up in the air and howl in outrage. But then you take a step back and look at who set the precedent for it. And you see that smiling dapper chap who is supposed to be a liberal. And that would give it even more legitimacy.

And this is not meant as a comment on the legitimacy of the trucker thing. It is just problematic. We can point and criticise a lunatic like Priti Patel for such moves. But when it is Trudeau?

 

[StJabbo1]

The big difference is I have personally chosen to mute someone who’s views are clearly the opposite to mine - but I still respect his views.

I haven’t requested that he be removed and censored from the forum.

That’s hugely significant.

Because you have no grounds whatsoever, not at all significant. Muting desenting arguments is the censorship you speak out against. No validity in your post.

 

[Osvaldorama]

I notice the example of the crackdown protests being proposed by the U.K. government is being floated here in response to Trudeau

That doesn’t sit quite right with me as most will accept that our current government is the most right wing and authoritarian in many a year

With Trudeau we are talking about someone from ostensibly a left “leaning” Liberal party who is cracking down on protests and proposing powers to freeze bank accounts. As well as funds donated being diverted

You can quibble all you like about legitimacy but it is not a great precedent for a left leaning government to be setting. Because what happens if they lose in the future? And a right leaning Canadian government uses to same powers on, for example, a BLM like protest. Or an lgbtq based one. People will throw their arms up in the air and howl in outrage. But then you take a step back and look at who set the precedent for it. And you see that smiling dapper chap who is supposed to be a liberal. And that would give it even more legitimacy.

And this is not meant as a comment on the legitimacy of the trucker thing. It is just problematic. We can point and criticise a lunatic like Priti Patel for such moves. But when it is Trudeau?

Exactly

I can only imagine what people like Schad would be saying if Trump had frozen BLM protestors bank accounts and banned their protests.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Because you have no grounds whatsoever, not at all significant. Muting desenting arguments is the censorship you speak out against. No validity in your post.

Not at all. This is ridiculous binary thinking. You can respectfully disagree with someone’s views without wanting to cancel them.

 

[StJabbo1]

I notice the example of the crackdown protests being proposed by the U.K. government is being floated here in response to Trudeau

That doesn’t sit quite right with me as most will accept that our current government is the most right wing and authoritarian in many a year

With Trudeau we are talking about someone from ostensibly a left “leaning” Liberal party who is cracking down on protests and proposing powers to freeze bank accounts. As well as funds donated being diverted

You can quibble all you like about legitimacy but it is not a great precedent for a left leaning government to be setting. Because what happens if they lose in the future? And a right leaning Canadian government uses to same powers on, for example, a BLM like protest. Or an lgbtq based one. People will throw their arms up in the air and howl in outrage. But then you take a step back and look at who set the precedent for it. And you see that smiling dapper chap who is supposed to be a liberal. And that would give it even more legitimacy.

And this is not meant as a comment on the legitimacy of the trucker thing. It is just problematic. We can point and criticise a lunatic like Priti Patel for such moves. But when it is Trudeau?

I edited a post to add Trudeau needs criticism and censure. Anyone who raises their head above the parapet deserves scrutiny and criticism no matter who they are.

 

[StJabbo1]

Not at all. This is ridiculous binary thinking. You can respectfully disagree with someone’s views without wanting to cancel them.

Binary? Bollocks is it **** you mute someone you respectfully disagree with in effect cancelling because you can't address their arguments.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

The big difference is I have personally chosen to mute someone who’s views are clearly the opposite to mine - but I still respect his views.

I haven’t requested that he be removed and censored from the forum.

That’s hugely significant.

Eh? How can you respect his views if you don't know what they are, because you've muted him (effectively cancelled him from your discussion).

 

[Schad]

I notice the example of the crackdown protests being proposed by the U.K. government is being floated here in response to Trudeau

That doesn’t sit quite right with me as most will accept that our current government is the most right wing and authoritarian in many a year

With Trudeau we are talking about someone from ostensibly a left “leaning” Liberal party who is cracking down on protests and proposing powers to freeze bank accounts. As well as funds donated being diverted

You can quibble all you like about legitimacy but it is not a great precedent for a left leaning government to be setting. Because what happens if they lose in the future? And a right leaning Canadian government uses to same powers on, for example, a BLM like protest. Or an lgbtq based one. People will throw their arms up in the air and howl in outrage. But then you take a step back and look at who set the precedent for it. And you see that smiling dapper chap who is supposed to be a liberal. And that would give it even more legitimacy.

And this is not meant as a comment on the legitimacy of the trucker thing. It is just problematic. We can point and criticise a lunatic like Priti Patel for such moves. But when it is Trudeau?

It's absolutely a concern. I would mention a couple things:

- It's limited. The Emergencies Act needs to be renewed by Parliament in short order, and Trudeau doesn't command a majority. Given that he'll need the support of the NDP, the party generally most vocally supportive of peaceful protesting, they're likely going to have to tailor this fairly narrowly.

- It kinda went from a normal protest to something a bit darker when some of them started caching weaponry and making plans to kill police. Having people who are receiving money, much of it from outside the country, potentially using those resources to purchase a bunch of illegal armaments is the sort of thing that is going to invite scrutiny.


Edit: I don't mind Os muting me, it's his choice. I do reserve the right to find it a touch ironic.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Eh? How can you respect his views if you don't know what they are, because you've muted him (effectively cancelled him from your discussion).

It’s very simple. When someone accuses me of being a white supremacist simply because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of medical choice, I lose all personal respect for their opinions. But I still respect his right to hold his views, however stupid they may be.

I can respect someone’s right to hold their views, without respecting the views themselves.

Which is why muting someone is nothing like cancelling them.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

It’s very simple. When someone accuses me of being a white supremacist simply because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of medical choice, I lose all personal respect for their opinions. But I still respect his right to hold his views, however stupid they may be.

I can respect someone’s right to hold their views, without respecting the views themselves.

I mean, he didn't accuse *you* of being a white supremacist, but okay.