|
|
|
|
|
|
by colburnmh
1581 days ago
|
|
|
Freedom also means the ability to live without having to suffer overbearing impacts from others. The blockade of Ottawa and the US/Canada border crossings are causing enormous economic impacts on both countries while in the midst of a global pandemic, rising inflation due to supply chain issues. Estimates of the financial impact of this "protest" are not definitive, but are likely in the billions of dollars and are affecting everyone in both countries. You have the right to protest and make your opinion heard. But at the point that you are actively preventing ~25% of the international trade between two countries while further increasing both inflation and supply chain issues, your "protest" looks more like economic terrorism. Especially when only a small minority of people actually care--let alone support--your position. To tie this back to the original thread: The author states "There are no other constitutional rights in substance without freedom to transact". But this protest is impacting other people's ability to transact. Therefore, by the same logic the author presents, this "protest" is impacting the freedoms of millions just because a couple of hundred people don't want to get vaccinated or get tested regularly. The requirement that people crossing the border be vaccinated or have taken quick and painless test to prove that they are not carrying a virus that has claimed more than 5M lives in the past two year is NOT tyranny: it's an minor inconvenience. |
|
|
From TFA:
>I don't actually have a view on the substance of the trucker protests and if Canada's COVID policies are good, bad or neutral.
>I would further guess that the truckers are probably violating a variety of Canadian laws relating to how they can protest.
>What would be a normal constitutional democracy political response to a problem like this is either:
>a) let it play out if you think it is in good faith
>or
>b) encourage the local authorities to arrest them and try them in a court if you think it is not
>Either is fine.
>The right to assembly in Canada probably does not allow you to block the highway for days for everyone else.
>I assume Canada still has police and courts so they could presumably arrest the highway blockers & take them to court
In other words, he's not advocating that the protests should go on unimpeded (contrary to what you think). He's against the government punishing the protesters extra-judicially.