You're 100% right. The moment someone blasted their horn -- much less their modified, multi-horn noise-terrorism device -- they should have been warned, fined, and then charged/arrested for mischief. The moment they blocked roadways illegally with regulated, commercial vehicles, they should have been warned, fined, and then charged/arrested, the vehicle towed. The moment the first person stopped near a bridge they should have been...etc.
So we agree, law breakers should have been charged. Police action should have been constant and aggressive.
But it was an occupation. Police barely operated in their lawless zone at all. That's the whole point, and was the intention of the group. It was a bully group, and their rhetoric and claims were often that they would die before they left. There are connotations to that.
Why would you treat this group of protestors so much more harshly than ones that, say, block railways? Also, I think a lot of what you're saying is very narrow minded. To get a group of people together to protest anything is a miracle and to expect them all to behave like their some sort of hive mind is just willful ignorance. There will always be bad actors, even with proper leadership. I think you need to spend some time reflecting on your world views or how you view groups of people and compare these protestors with others in Canadian history. I also think your news sources are a little biased.
"Why would you treat this group of protestors so much more harshly than ones that, say, block railways?"
Me? I found the railway blockades intolerable lawlessness. Trudeau took well-earned criticism for the soft-handed approach to them, and it cost him a majority government. It had far less of a negative impact on Canada (and touched on a very sensitive aboriginal issue), but those of us with actual value-based positions -- instead of just tribalistically flexing our positions to justify whatever we think "our" group are doing, as seen by DHH here -- are pretty consistent on this.
But can you point out any other protest in Canada that set up hot tubs on city streets, abused commercial vehicles and commercial privileges, terrorized residents, squatted on city parking lots as command and control systems, and operated a lawless zone? Pointing to some CHOP in the US (also GROSSLY unacceptable) isn't an example. Pointing at BLM isn't a counterpoint.
"expect them all to behave like their some sort of hive mind"
Among any group there will be bad actors. The constant citing of a Nazi flag appearance was just boring nonsense...at least until I repeatedly saw Canada First and Red Ensign flags (which are a subtler way of saying the same thing). QAnon nuttery would be just some fringe...if it wasn't the majority of content on their main stage and repeated by the main organizers constantly. The guy saying the flurry of incredibly ignorant misinformation would be just some nut, if it wasn't the same thing that came out of almost every participant's mouth.
"I also think your news sources are a little biased."
Sure. I mean, my news sources don't involved many QAnon blogs, but during the protest I had a video window playing most days featuring one of the sympathetic live streamers who constantly walked up and down the protest, interviewing participants. ZOD, the travel fun guy, some machine guy, etc. It is the words of the participant, and hearing their rhetoric at their stage, that gives me my opinion of this group.
> That's the whole point, and was the intention of the group.
That's a point you are making, and it's a point I completely agree with.
But don't dismiss the unrelated point that DHH is raising, which is a concern over the power to freeze anyone's assets without due process, and the power of crypto to prevent that from happening.
Even if DHH is categorically wrong that it's a "peaceful" protest or whatever, his core point still stands.
DHH's piece is clearly just a pro-"trucker" piece -- he has posted others previously -- and he decided to add a crypto narrative as some weak editorial justification. Add that he knows crypto enthusiasts are now going to distribute this nonsense widely. It's a pretty easy group to pander to.
But sure, he brings up classic arguments for crypto. There is nothing new in them. "Avoid government control - use crypto". Sounds great when it's for a cause you support, and DHH supports chaos and lawlessness in foreign cities he has no interests in, so why not. Kind of falls apart when that same mechanism is used for causes you're against.
It's a mistake to think this article is just a rehash of the classic arguments for crypto. The Canadian response is the first piece of hard evidence we have seen that such arguments aren't just fanciful theoretical speculations that could never apply to wealthy, liberal democracies. It is good and useful to point this out. Even if the rest of the piece is ideologically motivated, we shouldn't then close off to this important nugget of truth.
That was the the time when I bought BTC as well. People are too attached to their political views to see that it could be them as well sending $25 to their favourite protest (for example BLM, where there was looting involved as well).
>The Canadian response is the first piece of hard evidence
For two decades the US has frozen and seized accounts in the hundreds of thousands -- billions of dollars in assets -- often with little oversight or checks. Civil forfeiture is rampant. Whole political groups have been declared "terrorist affiliated" and any correlation at all can lead to extremely unpleasant outcomes. No fly lists are flippant and casual.
And you think Canada using financial tools, primarily motivated by large external contributions to illegal activities, is the example?
It's maybe an example, sure. A weak one to me, but sure. It's certainly no precedent. To use this as the kick off point for some crypto advocacy seems...pernicious.
You are correct that freezing accounts and assets is far from unprecedented. It has been used (and abused) as a tool against suspected drug dealers, money launderers, ISIS supporters, and so on.
The difference here is its blank check authority against a reasonable protest objective as a response to certain bad actors within that broader objective and movement. Not everyone involved is creating criminal levels of noise pollution, trying to burn down apartment buildings, or blocking trade routes. Many of them just want good faith protest. If we could just arrest the bad faith actors quickly, and allow the good faith actors to continue protesting, we can simultaneously protect the right to valid protest while protecting the community within which the protest is happening. When you start freezing accounts without due process, that all flies out the window. This is what is importantly different about this particular action by Canada. It is uniquely chilling to the right to political protest in a way that unduly seizing the assets of suspected drug dealers isn't (although I am very much against that too).
The BLM protest movement can be used as an analogy. Would it be reasonable for all BLM support to be effectively criminalized by carte blanche freezing of accounts of people "involved"? No, of course not. The reasonable thing is to arrest those people who are looting or setting up CHOP or whatever, and to allow the real protestors to keep protesting.
,,To use this as the kick off point for some crypto advocacy seems...pernicious.''
There were people who could only afford to pay a lawyer to get back their money taken away from them by civil forfeiture because they had some Bitcoin as well in their portfolio. They got all their money back, as they were innocent, but they would have had to ask lots of money from their friends just to be able to afford a lawsuit. So no, this is not the first time having some Bitcoin is advised against civil forfeiture.
So we agree, law breakers should have been charged. Police action should have been constant and aggressive.
But it was an occupation. Police barely operated in their lawless zone at all. That's the whole point, and was the intention of the group. It was a bully group, and their rhetoric and claims were often that they would die before they left. There are connotations to that.