International News Events: Asked and Answered...

[aside]

NO-ONE likes wearing a mask.
NO-ONE likes travel restrictions.
NO-ONE likes having to show vaccine passports to enter places.

At least one of these is incorrect.

[marshwiggle]

NO-ONE likes wearing a mask.
NO-ONE likes travel restrictions.
NO-ONE likes having to show vaccine passports to enter places.

At least one of these is incorrect.

Many people find these reasonable under the circumstances. That's not the same as saying they would voluntarily do them otherwise.

[Stockmann]

You know that MLK advocated direct action and civil disobedience, right? And that while he didn't think rioting was useful, he did sympathize with rioters, saying that their anger was justified?

NO-ONE likes wearing a mask.
NO-ONE likes travel restrictions.
NO-ONE likes having to show vaccine passports to enter places.
...
I haven't heard ANYONE say they don't understand the protester's frustration.What is at issue IS THEIR BEHAVIOUR.

I don't support these people in any way. But that doesn't mean I think they need to be brutalized. Where you're concerned, I worry that no protest an ever meet your criteria for being "peaceful". (This is a general concern, not one about these neo-nazi-truckers.)

Any protest that relies on forcing compliance with the protesters' will, rather than on convincing a majority of people of the merit of their cause, is a problem. When extortion overcomes the rule of laws made by democratically-elected governments, then you basically have mob rule.

Regarding these particular protests, it's not just the issue of mob rule, it would be mob rule and rule by their foreign sponsors, since a lot of their funding comes from people who are neither Canadian citizens nor residents, as are some of the participants on the ground. This has been public knowledge for a while, but the Canadian authorities have been unable or unwilling to do much about it.

....I'm also not really clear on what new powers it grants that are not currently available to various levels of government, which makes it hard to determine how necessary it is. The Prime Minister has certainly not done a good (or even adequate) job of communicating that.

Even more critically, what powers does it grant that the authorities would actually use?

[marshwiggle]

....I'm also not really clear on what new powers it grants that are not currently available to various levels of government, which makes it hard to determine how necessary it is. The Prime Minister has certainly not done a good (or even adequate) job of communicating that.

Even more critically, what powers does it grant that the authorities would actually use?

Here's one:

One power under the act, invoked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Monday, gives the federal government the ability to compel essential service providers to fulfil their contracts.

The City of Ottawa has had trouble convincing the companies it has under contract to tow any vehicles out of the protest zone. At least one company has already been threatened for moving an illegal structure at the request of convoy organizers.

The government being able to force companies to tow the trucks is big. The police can arrest anyone who tries to interfere with the towing.

Impound all the trucks and see how many change their minds.

[Parasaurolophus]

NO-ONE likes wearing a mask.
NO-ONE likes travel restrictions.
NO-ONE likes having to show vaccine passports to enter places.
...
I haven't heard ANYONE say they don't understand the protester's frustration.What is at issue IS THEIR BEHAVIOUR.

You seem to think I disagree with you. I don't. I am not at all sympathetic to these people.

Any protest that relies on forcing compliance with the protesters' will, rather than on convincing a majority of people of the merit of their cause, is a problem. When extortion overcomes the rule of laws made by democratically-elected governments, then you basically have mob rule.

Again, I think you're missing some very important nuance. But more germanely to the point at hand: even if we agree about this, it does not follow that they should be violently dispersed.

What I find deeply troubling is that the police are quick to resort to violence against most protests--which are much better behaved--but have been nowhere in sight until recently, and even then have been quite gentle. There's a double-standard at work, and it looks pretty ugly.

[marshwiggle]

NO-ONE likes wearing a mask.
NO-ONE likes travel restrictions.
NO-ONE likes having to show vaccine passports to enter places.
...
I haven't heard ANYONE say they don't understand the protester's frustration.What is at issue IS THEIR BEHAVIOUR.

You seem to think I disagree with you. I don't. I am not at all sympathetic to these people.

You pointed out that MLK was "sympathetic" to rioters, saying their anger was understandable.
Expressing "sympathy" does not require any support for the actions of protesters.

Any protest that relies on forcing compliance with the protesters' will, rather than on convincing a majority of people of the merit of their cause, is a problem. When extortion overcomes the rule of laws made by democratically-elected governments, then you basically have mob rule.

Again, I think you're missing some very important nuance. But more germanely to the point at hand: even if we agree about this, it does not follow that they should be violently dispersed.

I'm not sure where anything I said suggests they should be "violently dispersed". Impound their trucks, revoke their commercial licences - there are lots of things that can be done that don't involve violence. (Although if the protesters use violence to oppose the police, then they open the door to direct use of force.)

What I find deeply troubling is that the police are quick to resort to violence against most protests--which are much better behaved--but have been nowhere in sight until recently, and even then have been quite gentle. There's a double-standard at work, and it looks pretty ugly.

I seem to recall all kinds of protests like blockades of rail lines all over the country "in sympathy" with protests in other parts of the country that went on without intervention for some time.

Certain groups on the left get a lot of slack. I'd be happy with a consistent approach REGARDLESS of whatever group or "cause" is involved.

[Parasaurolophus]

You pointed out that MLK was "sympathetic" to rioters, saying their anger was understandable.
Expressing "sympathy" does not require any support for the actions of protesters.

He defended the rioters as expressing justified anger against a racist state. He thought nonviolence was morally and practically a better tactic, but he absolutely defended them. And again, note that the direct action he advocated and organized is exactly the sort of thing you don't support as a legitimate protest tactic.

I'm not sure where anything I said suggests they should be "violently dispersed". Impound their trucks, revoke their commercial licences - there are lots of things that can be done that don't involve violence. (Although if the protesters use violence to oppose the police, then they open the door to direct use of force.)

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by so doggedly disagreeing with me here about invoking the War Measures Act in 1970, and in the other thread when I said that the bar for state-sanctioned violence should be high, and that I'm not sure they've met it. If so, mea culpa.

That said, the bar for the Emergencies Act is much higher (whether force is invoked or not), and it's not at all clear to me that it's been met.

I seem to recall all kinds of protests like blockades of rail lines all over the country "in sympathy" with protests in other parts of the country that went on without intervention for some time.

Sure, although you'll recall that the previous Indigenous blockade in 1990 saw the army called in, protesters were beseiged and starved, the UN got involved, citizens who opposed them stoned retreating women and children, and a soldier bayoneted a 13 year-old girl in the chest. Small surprise they might take a different tack the next time around, when we're supposed to be engaged in Reconciliation. But even then, that wasn't true in 2020 at the original site of protest, where the RCMP got violent almost immediately.

And I, for one, remember being kettled during a perfectly peaceful protest, remember on another occasion seeing a prof clubbed in the head as he passed nearby to pick up his kids from daycare, etc. I remember when the police managed to arrest 1118 people (most of whom they released without charge) over the course of a couple days. I remember that a yearly homecoming event at a university in Ontario packs thousands of students into a three-block area (8000 in 2021), and that hundreds of cops are bussed in for it.

It's just that when the organizers are white-supremacists, and with weeks of advance warning, apparently they're outnumbered and powerless. And if towing companies can't be bothered, well, apparently we need the Emergencies Act, because it's not as if there are any other ways. God forbid we should offer them a large bounty for every truck towed.

So, to reiterate: it worries me.

[kaysixteen]

This emergency powers law that Trudeau has invoked, what exactly does it allow the government to do, and can a court, even the Canadian supreme court, interfere with his powers under it?   I have no sympathy with the truckers, but the act itself does sound, if I understand the snippets of info given on US tv, like it would be more or less blatantly unconstitutional in the US...

[mamselle]

The "Us" is larger than just the U.S.A., by the way: it's a NATO concern, overall:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drNBNuLG07E

M>

Starting to wonder...is the "team" that's so fond of football analogies in cahoots with Putin somehow, trying to make an end-run around Biden?

Just struck me...

M.

[marshwiggle]

You pointed out that MLK was "sympathetic" to rioters, saying their anger was understandable.
Expressing "sympathy" does not require any support for the actions of protesters.

He defended the rioters as expressing justified anger against a racist state. He thought nonviolence was morally and practically a better tactic, but he absolutely defended them. And again, note that the direct action he advocated and organized is exactly the sort of thing you don't support as a legitimate protest tactic.

Quotations from the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial

"Out of the mountain of despair, a stone of hope."
"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that."
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."

"Make a career of humanity. Commit yourself to the noble struggle for equal rights. You will make a better person of yourself, a greater nation of your country, and a finer world to live in."
"I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against it not in anger but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as a moral example of the world."
"If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective."
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirits."
"It is not enough to say 'We must not wage war.' It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but the positive affirmation of peace."
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
"Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies."
"We are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs 'down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.'"
"We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience."
"True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice."

Whatever he may have felt about rioters, none of that is reflected in the quotations on his memorial. His message that lasted was about non-violence and recognizing everyone's common humanity.

Highly obnoxious protest behaviour doesn't change peoples' minds; it may get some sort of momentary capitulation, but that is fleeting and usually disappears as soon as the pressure is off. Real long-term change comes from protestors giving a better moral example.

Rosa Parks didn't blockade a bus. She didn't prevent the bus from operating. She didn't prevent anyone from coming onto the bus or taking a seat. She didn't refuse to get off the bus until change happened, or chain herself to it, or go on a hunger strike, etc. The power of her protest came precisely from the fact that her actions didn't unravel the fabric of the universe. The fact that her actions were so mundane made the fact that they were considered "unacceptable" seem ridiculous.

Protesters who engage in thuggish behaviour, regardless of their cause, just generate contempt among the people they should be trying to win over.

[Parasaurolophus]

Whatever he may have felt about rioters, none of that is reflected in the quotations on his memorial. His message that lasted was about non-violence and recognizing everyone's common humanity.

[...]

Highly obnoxious protest behaviour doesn't change peoples' minds; it may get some sort of momentary capitulation, but that is fleeting and usually disappears as soon as the pressure is off. Real long-term change comes from protestors giving a better moral example.

Rosa Parks didn't blockade a bus. She didn't prevent the bus from operating. She didn't prevent anyone from coming onto the bus or taking a seat. She didn't refuse to get off the bus until change happened, or chain herself to it, or go on a hunger strike, etc. The power of her protest came precisely from the fact that her actions didn't unravel the fabric of the universe. The fact that her actions were so mundane made the fact that they were considered "unacceptable" seem ridiculous.

Protesters who engage in thuggish behaviour, regardless of their cause, just generate contempt among the people they should be trying to win over.

If that's how you want to move the goalposts, sure. Just recognize that the kind of direct action he (rightly) advocated is (again, rightly) a serious inconvenience. You may be familiar with his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which is chock full of important reflections. I'll just highlight a few pertinent to this issue:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. [...] The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Let me end with another quotation from the letter, which I think rings as true today as in 1963 (again, let's be clear: I'm talking about protest in general, not this particular group of white supremacists and nazis in Ottawa):

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens' Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[mamselle]

I almost feel like this belongs on the RIP thread: the death of peace in Eastern Europe...

   https://youtu.be/AjzMrDla0OA

M.

[kaysixteen]

I have been wondering for days now, and esp since Vlad the Great rolled the tanks, does anyone with no-how regarding the situation there think the Ukrainians could win this, if by defining 'win' we mean keep the Ivans from overrunning their country and  imposing Vlad's will?

[mamselle]

Um, if you're referring to Vlad the Impaler, he was Romanian, not Russian.

Bit of a difference...

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

Um, if you're referring to Vlad the Impaler, he was Romanian, not Russian.

Bit of a difference...

M.

There's also Novgorod the Great, so-named (if memory serves) after Vladimir the Great, Prince of Novgorod.