I can tell that you have rushed this dispatch [those typos, etc. do creep in] but, as with all your previous dispatches on this topic, I found it well considered and thoughtful, particularly, in noting that there were other considerations that would have to be considered (sorry) later but time did not allow anyone to deal with those considerations right now. I mean RIGHT NOW.
So, again, well done. As I read this dispatch and consider the previous ones, I am left agreeing with parts, disagreeing with parts and left with an incredible sense of WTF?
In truth, I have previously largely given up on Canada and the utter total incompetence of all levels of government and the stupidly partisan approach of all those non-leaders causes me to believe that my previous opinion was spot on.
Terry, I do understand your comment about social media, I do.
The problem with your comment is that I don't do social media so they have no influence on me. I have never signed up for Twitter so I don't tweet; I have FaceBook only to allow me to see pictures of my granddaughter; I don't do Linked In; I don't do Pinterest; I don't do .... etc.
My point is, I don't care what social media says or doesn't say; I read newspapers (boy, talk about having to discern bias!!); I am terrifically careful about television and radio as they also have terrific bias. And so forth. As near as I can tell, the various media have always had bias and that is not going to change; I therefore have to try to discern bias and consume the information with that bias in mind.
It is on that basis that I have come to my conclusions about the failure of Canada. One other point in arriving at my conclusion: I live in the same part of the country as does Jen Gerson and I am very much of the opinion that the country has great disdain for my part of the country and for the economy that assists us here and for the people that live here. I have given up on Canada as it has chosen to sneer at and denigrate me and my friends and family; Canada has not simply chosen to sneer at my region, it has turned it's back on us.
So, blaming it all on social media? You can go ahead; I blame the citizens of Canada for being led in incredibly inappropriate (soft word, there) directions by the fools that are our non-leaders.
Ken - I don’t understand your sentiment that “Canada has turned its’ back on us.” I was born in Cape Breton - when steel mills & mines closed, Canadian opinion was largely - you are using old technology so get with it. They were right - it was nobody’s fault but a global phenomena.
Coal replaced steam, oil replaced coal - we are on the road to oil’s replacement. Blaming others just makes the process longer and harder.
The failure of Canada is the citizens who allowed us and our parents to be bribed with our children and grandchildren's future through the lie that is deficit financing. I'm in Ontario, but I worked in Alberta and can't wait to go back. So many people keep talking about this bias in Canadian media, yet the vast majority of what they report can be fact-checked. When they're editorializing, they say so. Then these same people run off to "alternative media" that doesn't usually pass the fact- check and hold it up as an example of how they're being mistreated. For Alberta, the federal government doesn't control the price of oil. Would I like to see them put a $100/barrel tariff on Saudi oil? You bet, but there are very likely reasons I don't understand to explain why they don't. Do I wish Alberta had jumped on Notley's idea to increase oil shipments by rail? Yes, I do, because those were meaningful long-term Canadian jobs that a pipeline can't provide. Do I wish they'd do it today when Alberta oil can now be economically harvested? Seems like an opportunity missed through political arrogance (if it's her idea, it must be bad...how much did Jason pay to cancel that?)
The CPC is dead in the water in Canada IMHO until they abandon the social conservative wing of the party that the vast majority of Canadian reject. It's not 1950. If they came out with a fiscally conservative platform, that addressed the reality of climate change, they'd win a landslide. Instead, they're going further right and will split 20% of the votes with the PPC. Our leadership options are terrible. It's the party's that chose that; not the people of Canada.
I can't wait to get back to your wonderful province. My travel dollars will be spent in Canada for the balance of my life.
David, I agree with much of what you have said. As always, there is a "however."
I start by agreeing that the populace as accepted bribery in the form of promises (rarely kept but when kept financed by deficits) of illusory "goodies." I say, "illusory" simply because the promises never match the reality.
For example, the upcoming (?) promises of cheap childcare. This is a provincial area so the feds are bribing the provinces and bludgeoning them with the reality that this concept - note, I said "concept" - is widely popular. The problem is that the monies to be spent (a) will be nowhere enough to accommodate demand and, (b) if the feds follow form (see healthcare) financing) they will soon start to reduce their contributions to a mandatory program.
Then, of course, the provinces will be stuck. And, oh, yes, the child care will be provided by MORE swivel servants. Guaranteed pensions, guaranteed vacations (all accruing more and more), union bargaining with the province absolutely petrified that the union will strike and thereby hold the province hostage.
Yup, we fall for all sorts of stupidity, especially our own.
Now, you mention oil. All the oil that is currently being produced is being handled by pipelines. As you may be aware, pipelines are much safer and much more environmentally friendly than rail shipment (can you say Lac Megantic?). Clearly, rail is an option but pipelines are a better option.
As for what Jason paid to cancel the contracts, I cannot recall. Clearly, it was a very large number. I was of mixed feelings about it at the time but, on consideration, it seemed a - relatively - good decision to me. Not a great decision but, at the time, a relatively good decision. Now, with the oil prices as they are and with sufficient pipeline capacity it was a superb decision.
As for Canadian jobs with rail shipment, yes, there would be some. Not a lot, but some minor number of them.
You say that the cancellation was arrogance. Truthfully, I cannot say. At the time she arranged the rail shipment I thought it, on balance, a reasonable idea. Later, things changed and, again - later - as noted above, I thought the cancellation a relatively good decision. One always has to look at conditions as they exist and not be caught by prior decisions if current circumstances suggest change.
As for your comments on the CPC, I will await matters to unfold to see what they offer. One thing I can tell you is that I believe that the CPC will again attempt to curry favor with O & Q and will ultimately hammer Alberta once more with a stupid analysis of global warming. I am not saying that there is no global warming but I am saying that the current mania in this country is to commit suicide and eliminate all carbon while the whole world takes advantage of our stupidity
I have said many times over the past 7 years, pipelines that don't exist don't move any oil. How many thousand oil trains have CN and CP moved from Bruderheim (there are several a day currently)since Lac Megantic (which happened not because of moving oil by rail, but because of a complete failure on the part of Transport Canada to oversee the railroads operations; a result of Harper's transition to Safety Management Systems that allow a business to police themselves. It doesn't work. The Field BC crash is another example). Also during Harper's time, it became clear that building pipelines was going to be a little more complicated than digging a ditch. Whether that is right or wrong is another question; it's the current reality. Alberta chose to ignore that. Then the price crashed. Suggesting that shipping by railroad wouldn't create thousands of 30 year careers is ignorant. To run a train from Edmonton to St John NB requires about 12 2 man crews, so 5 trains a day is 120 people a day...every day going back and forth. That's just to eastern Canada, and it's a bare minimum. Plus you need people to maintain the equipment. Plus you need people to load and unload. A pipeline won't create 120 permanent jobs total. I would accept that risk for the benefit to the country as a whole, since those jobs would span the land.
The CPC has to gain favour in O&Q if they want to form a government. 25 or the 38 million people in the country live there, so that seems logical. They could easily; they just have to drop the social conservative wing of the party. That will not fly out here. A woman's right is hers, and that 1950's thinking has cost the CPC the last 2 elections; that Trudeau served to hem on a platter. Fiscal conservancy devoid of the social element and they win a landslide.
There isn't sufficient pipeline capacity, nor will there be any time soon.
Pretending that climate change isn't happening also won't fly. Denying its existence is sticking your head in the sand and wondering why your nose is itchy. No one, anywhere, is suggesting that we can get rid of carbon overnight. But there is going to be billions to be made by developing green technology...that we can then sell. Leading in that area can only benefit a country that doesn't make much of its own stuff anymore. High volume storage is another area where research dollars are required, with a potentially massive return. Add to that high volume desalination as the world is in dire need of freshwater; the US dramatically so. Sorry, I'm off-topic.
I can't really comment on child care except I know there is a vast shortage of it. It needs to be addressed. If businesses didn't treat their workers like crap, unions wouldn't be required. Currently, unions are essential as the pendulum has swung way too far to the management side. Fascinating debate. Sadly, I don't think anyone will ask our opinions :)
I totally agree that the so-cons are a boat anchor for the CPC. Harper traded the Red Tories for the so-cons and he seemed to understand how to manipulate them. He didn't pass on the technique.
AB will likely post a balanced budget so its credit outlook will improve in the short term.
The whole world is in for some pain due to reckless government spending and central bank stimulus, mainly in the form of staglation. Getting ahead of the austerity curve can only be beneficial.
As for being for or against 'Canada', Canada is not a simple, coherent political construct. An inherently colonial institution only now coming to terms with its fascist relationship to Indigenous Peoples, for ex., Canada is not just one thing to be liked or disliked as a flavour of ice cream. It has always been a site of competition and conflict. It's not Santa Claus, it's not Oprah (one big hug for everyone).
Canada is a tentative attempt to politically address the combined opportunities and threats that any political entity must manage. If 'Canada' no longer works (as some folks clearly believe, separatist parties rise and fade everywhere), then by all means kick the tires on a newer model. Check out the features, the sticker price, and then , enjoy the ride!
The issue is more "Do federal institutions provide value inline with their cost?" Out East, the equation is easier as the Feds provide plenty of direct employment, and protection of industries such as media, airlines and dairy creates make work. In Western Canada, the value is not so obvious.
Journalists (and yes I'll include the good editors of the Line in that bucket) seem confused by a protest that isn't performative posturing in which the media is the audience and the purveyors of the message. Listening vs judging is the trait of both good leaders and trustworthy communicators.
Secondly, the level of vitrol and doxxing makes the Puritans (much less the Stasi) looks like amateurs.
Finally, perhaps our current Prime Minister should read the words of his predecessor who wrote the first "Sunny Ways" speech and was known for his Policies of Compromise (and Laurier in turn, invokes the words of the Prince of Peace)
"What is hateful is not rebellion but the despotism which induces the rebellion; what is hateful are not rebels but the men, who, having the enjoyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; they are the men who, having the power to redress wrongs, refuse to listen to the petitioners that are sent to them; they are the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone." ~ Wilfrid Laurier
You ask the question - "Was the Emergencies Act really necessary?" CBC's David Common on Power & Politics, also put this question to Bill Blair, Federal Minister of Public Safety. Both of you cited the peaceful resolution of the Windsor Bridge blockade as evidence that the Act is overkill. Neither you, Mr. Common or Mr. Blair enlightened this dialog by acknowledging that without US tow trucks to start the ball rolling, that bridge might still be closed today. Do we really want to be characterized as timid weenies who need the US to provide us a little backbone. I'd say that this alone makes the Emergencies Act imposition a good move.
Perhaps you noted that today the towing companies struck a defiant note, Emergencies Act be damned, as they vowed to refuse cooperation for the dismantling the Ottawa occupation.
The leaders of this action understand that might makes right and they've been applying this principle since day one. Their success has come a long way with skillful use of intimidation. And make no mistake, our collective fear is showing. There may be bouncy castles but the threat of dangerous force is lurking, symbolically represented by the walls of heavy equipment. The government must win this challenge to its authority and the Emergencies Act is a good start. We should all hope it will be enough to give "we the people" a little steel too.
Let's wait to see the whole drama play out before fretting that its imposition is overkill.
I would prefer a stronger line be taken on the doxing aspect of this. Do people really believe that destroying peoples lives and or livelihood is the way to being the country together? Already several unrelated businesses has been targeted for boycotts. It can only get worse.
I'm finding the way you obviously want to side with the government in their efforts to segregate and persecute 15% of the population, but have enough integrity to notice the peacefulness of the protesters, the unnecessary overreach of the government action, and the sheer nastiness of the individual segregationists in their doxxing and harassment, interesting. What I don't understand is why you so clearly want to side with the segregationists. Is it just that you were deeply afraid of COVID and hate admitting that all the NPIs and mandates were wrong, useless, and designed to appeal to your fears?
It sounds like you want to pretend COVID didn't happen; that healthcare systems across the country didn't collapse under the weight of cases. Social responsibility is a thing, even if you choose to deny it. Have you stopped for a moment to ponder where we would be if governments hadn't pushed the vaccines so hard? The mandates weren't and still aren't wrong. They will come off as our sadly fragile healthcare system allows; under the direction of people who are actual medical science experts.
Healthcare systems in this country are in a state of perpetual collapse. If that’s going to be an excuse for perpetual restrictions I’d choose as soon have the American system.
I don't expect perpetual restrictions, as appears to be happening. I don't think there can be any doubt that the hope is Omicron is COVID burning itself out. But there can be no question what COVID has exposed. Will the governments do something about it? I can't support the concept of the American system. It failed worse than ours.,. although the "leadership" really helped with that.
Are you pretending that Covid affects all ages equally?
Covid certainly did happen, and vaccinating the vulnerable (ie old, fat, and sick) was effective - which is why so many of them signed up for it voluntarily. Forcing healthy 20 year olds to get vaccinated on threat of exclusion from university was dumb, useless, and cruel - they don't end up in ICU anyway. Masks and lockdowns simply didn't work. There are undoubtedly 60+ year olds in Canada refusing vaccination because it is being forced on them. That is unfortunate.
And it is perfectly obvious that all the decisions are being driven by polling, politics, and ego, rather than science. Have you really not noticed?
I do, and I am happy they took the shots. I also have kids, and I am unhappy with people forcing them to take the shots. The cost benefit ratio between my parents and my kids differs by at least 2 orders of magnitude.
I think the decisions not to lockdown were driven by the things you mention. In Ontario, if Doug had acted when his experts told him to, I think the impacts would have been significantly reduced. Instead, he waited until things were bad to act, prolonging the lockdowns, the anger, and the frustration.
You vaccinate 20 year olds to attempt to reduce the spread to all the other vulnerable people they come in contact with to avoid filling the hospitals. This was a team event. 10% chose not to play. In Ontario, that 10% fills 50% of the ICU beds to this day. And pretending masking didn't have a significant impact on spread is just denying reality.
Are you still pretending that 2 shots stop transmission? After all this time, and all the undeniable facts (eg Ontario government data) to the contrary? Why?
I'm saying 2 shots dramatically lowers your chance of hospitalization...and yes, it also decreases the likelihood of transmission. It's there if you open to mind to see it.
I think the point was that being under 60 doesn't give you a free pass, and long COVID will be worse than death for some. But your level of callousness to someone else's situation is part of the problem in the country. Blatant selfishness.
I don't say it's a free pass - just that it's a free choice, or should be. There is no rational argument at all for forcing people to take the shot (or persecuting those who don't) unless it benefits the rest of the population. Since, in practice, very very few people under 60 end up in ICU with Covid, there is no rational argument at all for forcing them to take the shot.
Which we all know - you segregationists are doing it out of spite. And then calling other people "callous" and "selfish". Because you are sick with hatred.
Your use of the word segregate is incorrect. It is the less than 10% who have chosen to set themselves apart from their work, their communities and the rest of Canada. OK, most of Canadians. They would be the segregationists here.
Actually not. Laws that ban people from air travel, employment, school, sports, weddings, funerals, and social life, etc. are, literally, segregation. If you accept that people have a right to refuse the shot. Or you can deny that right and admit you are forcing it on them, and segregation is just your chosen means of force. Which applies to you?
Every decision you make in life comes with consequences. This is no different. They choose not to get it, ignoring all the scientific information available to them and then dealing with the consequences. 49% of people in Ontario ICU's are not fully vaccinated....that 49% coming from 9% of the population. The vaccines work. The proof is indisputable, yet these people who made that choice are also the ones who clogged up the hospitals denying healthcare to everyone else; Saskatchewan suspending their organ transplant program for a period being the worst-case scenario to date. Now, if they want to ignore the science, the social responsibility, and skip the shot...and the trip to the hospital, let them do whatever they want. You can't have it both ways.
And how are we defining social responsibility? Is it greater than that of those people who smoke or are alcoholics or are obese or have high blood pressure or indulge in recreational drugs (legal or otherwise) or travel internationally and contract malaria or hepatitis or TB or work long hours in high stress jobs? All of those people "clog up" the health care system.
Further more, from a social determinants of health perspective, the unvaxx are more likely to be marginalized (note: this is based on a UK study) and thus are the very people who should be accessing libraries and rec centres and community programs. Stigmatized and punishing people and isolating them further also creates risk. (With even longer term health and social impacts).
Fear and loathing is not a great foundation for multi-faceted public policy.
Is there a shot you can take for smoking or obesity that reduces your chance of hospitalization by 70%. And how many of those that you mention haven't been able to access healthcare because the system was clogged with COVID patients? We have a finite system. It was designed or staffed to deal with this; arguably, nor should it be. But all those unvaccinated who ended up in hospital might not have needed to go but for 2 simple shots.
If you travel abroad, you are required to get shots for things like malaria, and numerous other diseases. There are all sorts of rules for foreign travel. Want to go; get the shots. Why is this any different? Are people forced to work in high-stress jobs, or is that a choice they make?...and many thrive on as well.
What I have yet to hear from an unvaccinated person(outside that tiny percentage with a valid health issue) is a rational reason not to get it. It is proven that they work. It is proven that they benefit society as a whole. Have you pondered how bad things would be if they hadn't been invented?
If you don't have any staff, you can't open rec centres and community centres. If people had gotten vaccinated, and governments had acted in a timely manner, the closures that did occur would likely have been for a shorter duration. There is no fear or loathing, but there is a huge lack of understanding of the decisions they've made; one that would benefit themselves, their families, their friends, and society as a whole.
So I define social responsibility as doing whatever you can to protect vital systems that you want available should you, your neighbour, or your family need them. That's what COVID vaccines do.
Given the display of organizational ineptitude Canadians have witnessed over the past three weeks, I'm inclined to welcome the Emergencies Act as possibly breaking that log jam of institutional chaos.
I am not overly worried by its potential excess because it will receive heavy scrutiny from the public, wary premiers, affected institutions and a rabid partisan opposition. The act itself is already the product of scrutiny that corrected the overreach of the War Measures Act.
What are its benefits?
Our institutions are clearly inadequate to the current situation and this limited, temporary use of such federal power may create the impetus for the various levels of government, private institutions and the general public to reassess and renew their democracy in the light of its weaknesses and the threats against it.
Regarding the Ottawa Police, we have to consider (and prove of course) the possibility of a 'compromised institution'.
Institutions are no longer managed inside physical walls as they were 30 years ago. Cybernetic activity makes institutions inherently permeable. We already have evidence, via videos, of members of police and military whose allegiances are raising questions. This is nothing new. However, the coordination capacity across those permeable institutional boundaries is.
Sadly, this rightly draws fears of fascist soldiers banging on doors in the middle of the night demanding tests of loyalty. And yet. Democracy must defend itself. The first defence is to know what democracy is and what it is not.
Therefore, in a nutshell, I see the current historical moment as a moment for a challenged democracy to renew itself in the face of a challenge it has not properly addressed. Hopefully the events of the past weeks and the scrutiny of the weeks to follow will allow Canadians to re-assess and renew their democracy in a cybernetic age, and not fall, by neglect and complicity, into the fascist tendencies of far right, paramilitary, multiplayer, meme addicted, fascist, criminal gamers.
So folks need to focus on the cybernetic threat, the money, the coordinated activities, and learn to distinguish what's democratically ok and what's not. Closing your eyes, passing the buck, enjoying the fascist products while believing anonymity guarantees non-accountability, needs to be challenged with and on democratic values and principles.
Organizational ineptitude? Clearly, you are over kind in your comment!
You welcome the Emergencies Act. I don't welcome it. I was in Montreal during the War Measures Act imposition. I won't say that that was bad but it certainly was scary for me; and I didn't live in Quebec but just happened to be visiting.
One of the features of the War Measures Act that I recall quite clearly is that police across the country, including in my region, used it as an excuse to do a whole lot of what they wanted, i.e. things that would otherwise not be legal. Strangely - how odd! - no one was held to account for that.
As for "breaking the log jam," well! The Ambassador Bridge was cleared BEFORE the EA was declared. The Coutts border crossing was cleared WITHOUT the use of the EA powers. The border closing at Emerson, MB is, we are told, being negotiated, again, WITHOUT the EA powers. Would Coutts have been accomplished without the EA? I absolutely believe that is so as it was well on the way to being done prior to the imposition. And so forth.
My point is that the EA was NOT needed. What was needed was leadership and institutional will. The EA doesn't provide either of those things.
You say that the institutions are inadequate. I say the institutions are adequate but the people are not.
Again, it is the people that are inadequate. No matter the law, if the will to use the law is not there then the law will not be upheld.
The current act was meant to curb a lot of the abuses that could occur under the War Measures Act. One of my ex-wife's uncles was one of the people who suffered from unchecked action in 1970. A gay left-wing university professor with separatist sentiments, he was fired from his position and suffered the consequences for the rest of his life. He wasn't involved with the FLQ, but he moved in the wrong circles and was targeted for it. I didn't have a lot in common with his politics, and I don't have much sympathy for the truckers. However, when I see a precedent like this, I'm always alarmed when people fail to consider that eventually the shoe could be on the other foot.
Fair points. I would simply note the EA is a retracted version of the WMA precisely for the overreach of the latter. Second, the EA needs to be seen in action, scrutinized and corrected based on real experience not just imaginary projections. So I'm confident that will happen. Just as with the WMA. Unless I misunderstand your point, no one was held accountable for the WMA because it was legal and made things legal which the EA does not, as a result. So the EA is in part an accounting for the deficiencies of the WMA.
As for the 'inadequacy of institutions' issue. I agree it's the people, but why did they fail in their institutional roles? Again, granted regarding the individual blockades you cite, however, I suspect we see the underlying problem differently. The FLQ crisis was focused in Quebec and Ottawa, and used troops on the ground. It was the era of television, we sat back and watched just as Pierre instructed us ("Just watch me").
The central issue in the current crisis to my mind, is not the individual events, but the loosely coordinated cybernetic nature of them across the country. That's what needs addressing, that's what threatens our democratic institutions, and that's what needs institutional adjustment. The current institutional arrangements did not do very well. They were easily and quickly outfoxed and outmanoeuvred, especially in Ottawa which appears to be the better organized target, as the democratic public looked on relegated to stupified spectators unable to comprehend what was happening. Everyone yelling 'action', while none of the actors would move. So lesson for the democratic public: it's not just a movie, it's not television.
The democratic public has seen the results, now they will need to figure out how to participate democratically in the fix.
Robert, thank you for your thoughtful response. Again, I must stress how valuable polite discourse is, even where there is disagreement. And, yes, I must disagree with you.
First, I must acknowledge the point that you and George Skinner make that the EA is a replacement for the WMA and was intended to not only update the WMA but to attempt to prevent the abuses that were perpetrated [like that pejorative?] under the WMA.
My problem is that I simply, absolutely, totally and unequivocally distrust our worsers (they are not whatsoever our betters!) to be introspective about this application of the EA. As I noted previously, the reasons put forward for the EA did not apply in three of the four situations and the fourth situation (i.e. Ottawa) is a failure of application of existing law, not a failure to HAVE law.
So, our worsers have shown themselves unable to adequately use the laws they have so they now have a new law, i.e. a new toy, with which to abuse us.
Now, we see that with this new law available, i.e. the EA, they still haven't dealt with Ottawa. Why, oh, why have they not dealt with Ottawa? Simply put, the people at the "top" [really, I just HATE thinking of them that way] just are not able to apply the laws that they have.
The result is that I respectfully - and emphatically, but, again, respectfully - disagree with you.
You want to see what happens with the application of the EA and you are confident in the ability and willingness of the people to discern (in)adequacies of that law and the application thereof. For most of my life I had that same confidence. But I no longer have it. I simply and intensely distrust our worsers; they have earned absolutely every iota of that distrust.
I can't help but wonder if the 24-hour announcement that the EA was coming played a significant part in the break-up of the western blockades? Currently, it doesn't look like it is needed. 48 hours ago, I thought it essential.
Doxxing is indeed bad. In the earlier leak, the info was protected and made available only to journalists, right? Whereas in this case, the hacker just dumped everything.
So the people blocking the highway at Milk River were "ordinary protestors" who blocked highway while bringing out their children to party/act as shields. All is well then!
'And yet. The text of the order gives us some pause. We don't know if the Emergencies Act is justified — that'll be up to legal experts and scholars and will remain controversial for generations. But we have a lot to think about. This could get interesting. '
One aspect that I found interesting was the bread-and-circuses aspect you noted in the article. Who funded it and was it planned, innocently, from the get-go, because that was organised. Spur of the moment? Maaaybe. Only a committee could have done it, though, and it served its purpose as a shield. Another is the apparent total support the ultra-Christian group(s) gave to this brouhaha. Evangelism by force? Odd. Such a rich mine for researchers from so many disciples, for years.
Too soon to make pronouncements about the Emergencies Act decision but it wasn't taken lightly and we might, indeed, find out, in the future, just how dark things are.
I don't feel too much sympathy for a business - in Ottawa, no less - that gave money to the protest after it was very clear what was happening & had to go on a 2nd crowdfunding site to do it. Maybe her business benefitted from the protest but countless others didn't.
Personally I think it's better to invoke the Emergencies Act a bit *before* it's absolutely crystal clear to everyone that it's necessary. Kinda like how calling the police in a domestic situation during the screaming but before the hitting starts is often better for everyone.
"It may be allowing a small minority with bad intent to operate under the cover of an otherwise non-violent protest." While these people are not the FLQ I don't think we've seen anything since then where the overthrow of the government was demanded. Whether these Memorandum of Unity people are merely seriously delusional and brainwashed from too much Facebook and QAnon or actually coordinated with some militia-types to do serious violence remains to be seen.
If those people are not prosecuted for treason or sedition it will be a big mistake!
Absolutely. You can't dismiss the demand that a duly-elected government be overthrown as just nonsense. The demand itself suggests the group who actually signed the thing were serious, although deluded and conned. A `Central Committee'?
Again, not too bad. It is more even handed than usual. Getting closer to the "no bullshit" tagline. But, not quite there yet. It does still shows strong bias amongst the attempts to temper it.
Let's take some examples:
"We maintain a very healthy skepticism of government claims that lack strong evidence."
OK, great. Skepticism against government claims is good. Skepticism against the press is also good, though not mentioned for probably obvious reasons. Evidence is good. Strong evidence is even better. Do you live up to it?
"But this does, generally, align with what The Line was hearing last week about a hard-core element hidden among a larger, frustrated protest movement."
What do you mean by "hearing last week", and what do you mean "hard-core elements". That's not even a claim. It's vague innuendo. Do you mean Matt's spidey sense about "hard men"? That not any kind of evidence, not even anecdotal. That's literally just saying he didn't like the look of somebody, and he has an admitted bias against the Ottawa protest.
Do you mean Jen's experience in Alberta? While that too was just a personal perception, that group has nothing to do with the Ottawa group.
Can you be specific. Heard from whom? Heard what claims exactly?
"If the feds have concluded, as we believe they might have, that there is an organized, anti-government faction at play, then the government could indeed make a case that such a threat would be beyond the ability of any province or local jurisdiction to handle alone."
As of yet there's been zero evidence presented publicly for any of this. What I read this as is that the government (and perhaps pseudo-apologists in the press) are now in the business of hypothetical pre-crime as justification? If you have some actual evidence please present it. Real evidence can actually sway support. Smears and empty hypothetical claims just reinforce support by noting the opposition is just psychologically biased and has nothing real. Evidence matters.
I'm not saying you are claiming it is true. You do say, quite nicely, "We aren't saying we buy it, and we'd like to see the feds make this case more explicitly. But it's worth thinking about."
It's that last line. Why is it worth thinking about? Right from its origins this has been a peaceful protest by design, with very public discussions, and so far has lived up to it completely as far as the actual protest (as opposed to a few fringe people that are at best unaffiliated and unrepresentative of the protest and at worst are intentional agent provocateurs -- and rejected by the protesters and organizers.
The Freedom Convoy 2022 goals were openly posted on GoFundMe, then GiveSendGo and still there, with videos. They had public messages as well, all stating their cause was only about the mandates and digital passports, and that is was to be peaceful. Their Twitter posts are all there as well, all saying it is to be a peaceful protest. Read them yourself: https://twitter.com/Tamara_MVC
Jan 21: "Just so I’m clear you are reporting a Métis woman working with Clan Mothers across the Nation to support a peaceful protest with a group of people losing their livelihoods."
Jan 22 list of demands:
"1. Federal & provincial governments must Terminate the covid passport and/or any and all other obligatory vaccine contact tracing programs or inter-Canada passport system.
2. Terminate covid vaccine mandates and respect the rights of those who wish not to be vaccinated.
3. Cease the decisive rhetoric attacking Canadians who disagree with government mandates.
4. Cease to limit debate through coercive means to censor those who have varying or even incorrect opinions."
(They have since simplified it to the first two, though still complain about the last two.)
Tamara (Metis) talks about working with other First Nations for support, all walks of life, all races, all religions.
Are you sure you weren't biased by the PM and press that tried to smear them, and/or confused them with a completely different group, Unity Canada, who had a "Convoy for Freedom" in October 2021 and a MOU that they tried to deliver to the Senate on Dec 10, 2021: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/protesting-the-pretext-of-the-protests?r=p061j
To continue:
"The second observation we would offer is that many of the most notable features of the encampments — the bouncy castles, the saunas, the BBQs — serve as an incredible PR move. These amenities give the protests the aura of a peaceable street party. This deceives not only the broader public, but also the protesters themselves who believe they are merely attending a happy fun times event to show their support for ending mandates etc. "
See, why would you say it like that. That's almost defamation. Does it deceive? Do you have any evidence that there is more to it? Or is this just spidey sense pre-crime premonitions, or perhaps divine revelations?
"For most attendees, that is entirely true. We believe that the majority of these protesters have no connection to extremist movements. Pretending otherwise — and presenting the entire convoy as a collection of racists and misogynist radicals because of a few bad actors — is not only inaccurate, but serves to drive distrust between mandate-skeptics and mainstream media."
Great. But what "few bad actors"? Do you mean the mention those flags again? Those people unaffiliated with, and not supported by, the protests?
I mean, at what point do you associate things? If you see on the news a "few bad actors" caught committing a crime who happen to be of some race, do you then associate all people of that race with them? If a "few bad actors" commit crimes in Canada, do you associate Canada with those bad acts? When people commit crimes at Canada Day celebrations, do you associate them with the celebration, and smear the organizers with those acts?
What matters here is what the protest is about, not whether or not anybody anywhere in the vicinity has done anything wrong, especially if it is an obvious attempt to smear. That's irresponsible journalism. Do you have evidence of the protest organization itself, and the purpose, to be about something nefarious? If not, then stop suggesting it. If there are bad actors afoot somewhere in their midst, then that is independent of the protest and you blame those individuals, or that infiltration group.
"But the hot dogs, the concerts, and the entertainments for kids, all of this also serves to camouflage a small dark seam in this movement. It may be allowing a small minority with bad intent to operate under the cover of an otherwise non-violent protest."
What's with the phrase "it may be allowing"? You wouldn't shut down a Canada Day celebration if the police catch some bad people in the crowd. Would you say that the Canada Day celebrations "may be allowing" bad actors in the crowd? Attributions and labels matter. Unless the protest organizers and/or protesters themselves are aware of, and condone or allow, those bad actors, then it has nothing to do with them or the protest and they are blameless. You then need to separate the protest from the bad actors completely, even complaining that the bad actors are undermining the peaceful protests.
None of this suggests any justification for the Emergency Measures Act. I know you are skeptical about it too, and well documented here. Kudos. But, I don't see that anything you suggest provides even remotely a potential justification. If the police do know of bad actors, then they can act on those bad actors using existing police and laws, get them out, and address the protest separately on its own merits. If they don't know of specific bad actors, then it's just about addressing the protest directly.
Perhaps one might suggest that to end both the protest and remove any risk of bad actors, that they actually talk with the organizers and plan out the ending of the mandates and passports. Like the provinces have been doing. (Did you give credit to that in the ending of the Coutts case?)
To give a nice "sandwich" here. I'll end on a higher note as I started with. I like this article. It's not perfect. It is hurried. It clearly has biased phrasing and implications. But, it is trying really, really hard to be fair. I recognize that and appreciate it. Maybe a few stray turds, but definitely no bullshit. Thank you and good work.
The bouncy castles were a little inferior, on the PR job, to Occupy feeding the hungry.
That offered the double-whammy of Good Works, plus pointing out that the homeless even exist in a country that spends $7000/house/year on the military, which was part of Occupy's whole point. Nothing like demonstrating your thesis, live, with examples right at the protest site. The protesters should have set up a "Free Restaurant, No Masks, No Vax".
The doxxing is obviously wrong, but I think it could have been avoided but for two things: the air horns, and the "memorandum" that was right out of the Sovereign Citizen movement. I haven't seen any North American media point out how Sovereign Citizen that document looks, but George Monbiot at The Guardian spotted it right off:
...and the spreading around of the material might have been less aggressive but for that chilling photo of the guns. The particular Ottawa vengeance-seeking probably wouldn't have happened except for the air horns costing a week of sleep.
I have some faith in Canadians, however: if the trucks leave over the next day or so, it'll all blow over.
I think this piece is awfully generous in giving Trudeau the benefit of the doubt regarding invoking the Emergency Measures Act. This government has a long record of substituting performance for actual action, and focusing on image rather than substance. After 7 years, I think the burden is really to show that the government needed to invoke the act for any reason other than a gesture that now they're Doing Something after weeks of doing nothing.
The other problem with the Trudeau government's record has been their conviction that because they mean well, they should be able to do what they need to do. There's a straight line from Trudeau barreling onto the floor of the Commons to grab an MP by the elbow before a vote to attempting to interfere with the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin to trying to assert unchecked budget authority for 2 years early in the pandemic. Trudeau's resistance to being challenged or admitting he's wrong raises a real risk of abuse of emergency powers authority, particularly if the NDP caves again.
Jen / Matt, again, a superb effort.
I can tell that you have rushed this dispatch [those typos, etc. do creep in] but, as with all your previous dispatches on this topic, I found it well considered and thoughtful, particularly, in noting that there were other considerations that would have to be considered (sorry) later but time did not allow anyone to deal with those considerations right now. I mean RIGHT NOW.
So, again, well done. As I read this dispatch and consider the previous ones, I am left agreeing with parts, disagreeing with parts and left with an incredible sense of WTF?
In truth, I have previously largely given up on Canada and the utter total incompetence of all levels of government and the stupidly partisan approach of all those non-leaders causes me to believe that my previous opinion was spot on.
Thank you.
Canada's vacuum of leadership, at all levels, is quite depressing
Terry, I do understand your comment about social media, I do.
The problem with your comment is that I don't do social media so they have no influence on me. I have never signed up for Twitter so I don't tweet; I have FaceBook only to allow me to see pictures of my granddaughter; I don't do Linked In; I don't do Pinterest; I don't do .... etc.
My point is, I don't care what social media says or doesn't say; I read newspapers (boy, talk about having to discern bias!!); I am terrifically careful about television and radio as they also have terrific bias. And so forth. As near as I can tell, the various media have always had bias and that is not going to change; I therefore have to try to discern bias and consume the information with that bias in mind.
It is on that basis that I have come to my conclusions about the failure of Canada. One other point in arriving at my conclusion: I live in the same part of the country as does Jen Gerson and I am very much of the opinion that the country has great disdain for my part of the country and for the economy that assists us here and for the people that live here. I have given up on Canada as it has chosen to sneer at and denigrate me and my friends and family; Canada has not simply chosen to sneer at my region, it has turned it's back on us.
So, blaming it all on social media? You can go ahead; I blame the citizens of Canada for being led in incredibly inappropriate (soft word, there) directions by the fools that are our non-leaders.
Ken - I don’t understand your sentiment that “Canada has turned its’ back on us.” I was born in Cape Breton - when steel mills & mines closed, Canadian opinion was largely - you are using old technology so get with it. They were right - it was nobody’s fault but a global phenomena.
Coal replaced steam, oil replaced coal - we are on the road to oil’s replacement. Blaming others just makes the process longer and harder.
The failure of Canada is the citizens who allowed us and our parents to be bribed with our children and grandchildren's future through the lie that is deficit financing. I'm in Ontario, but I worked in Alberta and can't wait to go back. So many people keep talking about this bias in Canadian media, yet the vast majority of what they report can be fact-checked. When they're editorializing, they say so. Then these same people run off to "alternative media" that doesn't usually pass the fact- check and hold it up as an example of how they're being mistreated. For Alberta, the federal government doesn't control the price of oil. Would I like to see them put a $100/barrel tariff on Saudi oil? You bet, but there are very likely reasons I don't understand to explain why they don't. Do I wish Alberta had jumped on Notley's idea to increase oil shipments by rail? Yes, I do, because those were meaningful long-term Canadian jobs that a pipeline can't provide. Do I wish they'd do it today when Alberta oil can now be economically harvested? Seems like an opportunity missed through political arrogance (if it's her idea, it must be bad...how much did Jason pay to cancel that?)
The CPC is dead in the water in Canada IMHO until they abandon the social conservative wing of the party that the vast majority of Canadian reject. It's not 1950. If they came out with a fiscally conservative platform, that addressed the reality of climate change, they'd win a landslide. Instead, they're going further right and will split 20% of the votes with the PPC. Our leadership options are terrible. It's the party's that chose that; not the people of Canada.
I can't wait to get back to your wonderful province. My travel dollars will be spent in Canada for the balance of my life.
David, I agree with much of what you have said. As always, there is a "however."
I start by agreeing that the populace as accepted bribery in the form of promises (rarely kept but when kept financed by deficits) of illusory "goodies." I say, "illusory" simply because the promises never match the reality.
For example, the upcoming (?) promises of cheap childcare. This is a provincial area so the feds are bribing the provinces and bludgeoning them with the reality that this concept - note, I said "concept" - is widely popular. The problem is that the monies to be spent (a) will be nowhere enough to accommodate demand and, (b) if the feds follow form (see healthcare) financing) they will soon start to reduce their contributions to a mandatory program.
Then, of course, the provinces will be stuck. And, oh, yes, the child care will be provided by MORE swivel servants. Guaranteed pensions, guaranteed vacations (all accruing more and more), union bargaining with the province absolutely petrified that the union will strike and thereby hold the province hostage.
Yup, we fall for all sorts of stupidity, especially our own.
Now, you mention oil. All the oil that is currently being produced is being handled by pipelines. As you may be aware, pipelines are much safer and much more environmentally friendly than rail shipment (can you say Lac Megantic?). Clearly, rail is an option but pipelines are a better option.
As for what Jason paid to cancel the contracts, I cannot recall. Clearly, it was a very large number. I was of mixed feelings about it at the time but, on consideration, it seemed a - relatively - good decision to me. Not a great decision but, at the time, a relatively good decision. Now, with the oil prices as they are and with sufficient pipeline capacity it was a superb decision.
As for Canadian jobs with rail shipment, yes, there would be some. Not a lot, but some minor number of them.
You say that the cancellation was arrogance. Truthfully, I cannot say. At the time she arranged the rail shipment I thought it, on balance, a reasonable idea. Later, things changed and, again - later - as noted above, I thought the cancellation a relatively good decision. One always has to look at conditions as they exist and not be caught by prior decisions if current circumstances suggest change.
As for your comments on the CPC, I will await matters to unfold to see what they offer. One thing I can tell you is that I believe that the CPC will again attempt to curry favor with O & Q and will ultimately hammer Alberta once more with a stupid analysis of global warming. I am not saying that there is no global warming but I am saying that the current mania in this country is to commit suicide and eliminate all carbon while the whole world takes advantage of our stupidity
I have said many times over the past 7 years, pipelines that don't exist don't move any oil. How many thousand oil trains have CN and CP moved from Bruderheim (there are several a day currently)since Lac Megantic (which happened not because of moving oil by rail, but because of a complete failure on the part of Transport Canada to oversee the railroads operations; a result of Harper's transition to Safety Management Systems that allow a business to police themselves. It doesn't work. The Field BC crash is another example). Also during Harper's time, it became clear that building pipelines was going to be a little more complicated than digging a ditch. Whether that is right or wrong is another question; it's the current reality. Alberta chose to ignore that. Then the price crashed. Suggesting that shipping by railroad wouldn't create thousands of 30 year careers is ignorant. To run a train from Edmonton to St John NB requires about 12 2 man crews, so 5 trains a day is 120 people a day...every day going back and forth. That's just to eastern Canada, and it's a bare minimum. Plus you need people to maintain the equipment. Plus you need people to load and unload. A pipeline won't create 120 permanent jobs total. I would accept that risk for the benefit to the country as a whole, since those jobs would span the land.
The CPC has to gain favour in O&Q if they want to form a government. 25 or the 38 million people in the country live there, so that seems logical. They could easily; they just have to drop the social conservative wing of the party. That will not fly out here. A woman's right is hers, and that 1950's thinking has cost the CPC the last 2 elections; that Trudeau served to hem on a platter. Fiscal conservancy devoid of the social element and they win a landslide.
There isn't sufficient pipeline capacity, nor will there be any time soon.
Pretending that climate change isn't happening also won't fly. Denying its existence is sticking your head in the sand and wondering why your nose is itchy. No one, anywhere, is suggesting that we can get rid of carbon overnight. But there is going to be billions to be made by developing green technology...that we can then sell. Leading in that area can only benefit a country that doesn't make much of its own stuff anymore. High volume storage is another area where research dollars are required, with a potentially massive return. Add to that high volume desalination as the world is in dire need of freshwater; the US dramatically so. Sorry, I'm off-topic.
I can't really comment on child care except I know there is a vast shortage of it. It needs to be addressed. If businesses didn't treat their workers like crap, unions wouldn't be required. Currently, unions are essential as the pendulum has swung way too far to the management side. Fascinating debate. Sadly, I don't think anyone will ask our opinions :)
I totally agree that the so-cons are a boat anchor for the CPC. Harper traded the Red Tories for the so-cons and he seemed to understand how to manipulate them. He didn't pass on the technique.
AB will likely post a balanced budget so its credit outlook will improve in the short term.
The whole world is in for some pain due to reckless government spending and central bank stimulus, mainly in the form of staglation. Getting ahead of the austerity curve can only be beneficial.
Not to quibble, but this is social media.
As for being for or against 'Canada', Canada is not a simple, coherent political construct. An inherently colonial institution only now coming to terms with its fascist relationship to Indigenous Peoples, for ex., Canada is not just one thing to be liked or disliked as a flavour of ice cream. It has always been a site of competition and conflict. It's not Santa Claus, it's not Oprah (one big hug for everyone).
Canada is a tentative attempt to politically address the combined opportunities and threats that any political entity must manage. If 'Canada' no longer works (as some folks clearly believe, separatist parties rise and fade everywhere), then by all means kick the tires on a newer model. Check out the features, the sticker price, and then , enjoy the ride!
The issue is more "Do federal institutions provide value inline with their cost?" Out East, the equation is easier as the Feds provide plenty of direct employment, and protection of industries such as media, airlines and dairy creates make work. In Western Canada, the value is not so obvious.
Journalists (and yes I'll include the good editors of the Line in that bucket) seem confused by a protest that isn't performative posturing in which the media is the audience and the purveyors of the message. Listening vs judging is the trait of both good leaders and trustworthy communicators.
Secondly, the level of vitrol and doxxing makes the Puritans (much less the Stasi) looks like amateurs.
Finally, perhaps our current Prime Minister should read the words of his predecessor who wrote the first "Sunny Ways" speech and was known for his Policies of Compromise (and Laurier in turn, invokes the words of the Prince of Peace)
"What is hateful is not rebellion but the despotism which induces the rebellion; what is hateful are not rebels but the men, who, having the enjoyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; they are the men who, having the power to redress wrongs, refuse to listen to the petitioners that are sent to them; they are the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone." ~ Wilfrid Laurier
You ask the question - "Was the Emergencies Act really necessary?" CBC's David Common on Power & Politics, also put this question to Bill Blair, Federal Minister of Public Safety. Both of you cited the peaceful resolution of the Windsor Bridge blockade as evidence that the Act is overkill. Neither you, Mr. Common or Mr. Blair enlightened this dialog by acknowledging that without US tow trucks to start the ball rolling, that bridge might still be closed today. Do we really want to be characterized as timid weenies who need the US to provide us a little backbone. I'd say that this alone makes the Emergencies Act imposition a good move.
Perhaps you noted that today the towing companies struck a defiant note, Emergencies Act be damned, as they vowed to refuse cooperation for the dismantling the Ottawa occupation.
The leaders of this action understand that might makes right and they've been applying this principle since day one. Their success has come a long way with skillful use of intimidation. And make no mistake, our collective fear is showing. There may be bouncy castles but the threat of dangerous force is lurking, symbolically represented by the walls of heavy equipment. The government must win this challenge to its authority and the Emergencies Act is a good start. We should all hope it will be enough to give "we the people" a little steel too.
Let's wait to see the whole drama play out before fretting that its imposition is overkill.
Let it play out? Let's just roll over and play dead. Let me know if we will be having elections anymore.
I would prefer a stronger line be taken on the doxing aspect of this. Do people really believe that destroying peoples lives and or livelihood is the way to being the country together? Already several unrelated businesses has been targeted for boycotts. It can only get worse.
The segregationists (by definition) don't want to bring the country together. They want to crush the enemy.
I'm finding the way you obviously want to side with the government in their efforts to segregate and persecute 15% of the population, but have enough integrity to notice the peacefulness of the protesters, the unnecessary overreach of the government action, and the sheer nastiness of the individual segregationists in their doxxing and harassment, interesting. What I don't understand is why you so clearly want to side with the segregationists. Is it just that you were deeply afraid of COVID and hate admitting that all the NPIs and mandates were wrong, useless, and designed to appeal to your fears?
It sounds like you want to pretend COVID didn't happen; that healthcare systems across the country didn't collapse under the weight of cases. Social responsibility is a thing, even if you choose to deny it. Have you stopped for a moment to ponder where we would be if governments hadn't pushed the vaccines so hard? The mandates weren't and still aren't wrong. They will come off as our sadly fragile healthcare system allows; under the direction of people who are actual medical science experts.
Healthcare systems in this country are in a state of perpetual collapse. If that’s going to be an excuse for perpetual restrictions I’d choose as soon have the American system.
I don't expect perpetual restrictions, as appears to be happening. I don't think there can be any doubt that the hope is Omicron is COVID burning itself out. But there can be no question what COVID has exposed. Will the governments do something about it? I can't support the concept of the American system. It failed worse than ours.,. although the "leadership" really helped with that.
Are you pretending that Covid affects all ages equally?
Covid certainly did happen, and vaccinating the vulnerable (ie old, fat, and sick) was effective - which is why so many of them signed up for it voluntarily. Forcing healthy 20 year olds to get vaccinated on threat of exclusion from university was dumb, useless, and cruel - they don't end up in ICU anyway. Masks and lockdowns simply didn't work. There are undoubtedly 60+ year olds in Canada refusing vaccination because it is being forced on them. That is unfortunate.
And it is perfectly obvious that all the decisions are being driven by polling, politics, and ego, rather than science. Have you really not noticed?
You lost me at "old, fat and sick". Mindless callousness. Do you not have parents?
I do, and I am happy they took the shots. I also have kids, and I am unhappy with people forcing them to take the shots. The cost benefit ratio between my parents and my kids differs by at least 2 orders of magnitude.
I think the decisions not to lockdown were driven by the things you mention. In Ontario, if Doug had acted when his experts told him to, I think the impacts would have been significantly reduced. Instead, he waited until things were bad to act, prolonging the lockdowns, the anger, and the frustration.
You vaccinate 20 year olds to attempt to reduce the spread to all the other vulnerable people they come in contact with to avoid filling the hospitals. This was a team event. 10% chose not to play. In Ontario, that 10% fills 50% of the ICU beds to this day. And pretending masking didn't have a significant impact on spread is just denying reality.
Are you still pretending that 2 shots stop transmission? After all this time, and all the undeniable facts (eg Ontario government data) to the contrary? Why?
I'm saying 2 shots dramatically lowers your chance of hospitalization...and yes, it also decreases the likelihood of transmission. It's there if you open to mind to see it.
Your lack of medical understanding is showing.
And what is your understanding that unvaxx are more like to transmit based on?
And yet the bulk government statistics show a completely different story. You must be an unlucky person to know.
I think the point was that being under 60 doesn't give you a free pass, and long COVID will be worse than death for some. But your level of callousness to someone else's situation is part of the problem in the country. Blatant selfishness.
I don't say it's a free pass - just that it's a free choice, or should be. There is no rational argument at all for forcing people to take the shot (or persecuting those who don't) unless it benefits the rest of the population. Since, in practice, very very few people under 60 end up in ICU with Covid, there is no rational argument at all for forcing them to take the shot.
Which we all know - you segregationists are doing it out of spite. And then calling other people "callous" and "selfish". Because you are sick with hatred.
Your use of the word segregate is incorrect. It is the less than 10% who have chosen to set themselves apart from their work, their communities and the rest of Canada. OK, most of Canadians. They would be the segregationists here.
Actually not. Laws that ban people from air travel, employment, school, sports, weddings, funerals, and social life, etc. are, literally, segregation. If you accept that people have a right to refuse the shot. Or you can deny that right and admit you are forcing it on them, and segregation is just your chosen means of force. Which applies to you?
Every decision you make in life comes with consequences. This is no different. They choose not to get it, ignoring all the scientific information available to them and then dealing with the consequences. 49% of people in Ontario ICU's are not fully vaccinated....that 49% coming from 9% of the population. The vaccines work. The proof is indisputable, yet these people who made that choice are also the ones who clogged up the hospitals denying healthcare to everyone else; Saskatchewan suspending their organ transplant program for a period being the worst-case scenario to date. Now, if they want to ignore the science, the social responsibility, and skip the shot...and the trip to the hospital, let them do whatever they want. You can't have it both ways.
And how are we defining social responsibility? Is it greater than that of those people who smoke or are alcoholics or are obese or have high blood pressure or indulge in recreational drugs (legal or otherwise) or travel internationally and contract malaria or hepatitis or TB or work long hours in high stress jobs? All of those people "clog up" the health care system.
Further more, from a social determinants of health perspective, the unvaxx are more likely to be marginalized (note: this is based on a UK study) and thus are the very people who should be accessing libraries and rec centres and community programs. Stigmatized and punishing people and isolating them further also creates risk. (With even longer term health and social impacts).
Fear and loathing is not a great foundation for multi-faceted public policy.
Is there a shot you can take for smoking or obesity that reduces your chance of hospitalization by 70%. And how many of those that you mention haven't been able to access healthcare because the system was clogged with COVID patients? We have a finite system. It was designed or staffed to deal with this; arguably, nor should it be. But all those unvaccinated who ended up in hospital might not have needed to go but for 2 simple shots.
If you travel abroad, you are required to get shots for things like malaria, and numerous other diseases. There are all sorts of rules for foreign travel. Want to go; get the shots. Why is this any different? Are people forced to work in high-stress jobs, or is that a choice they make?...and many thrive on as well.
What I have yet to hear from an unvaccinated person(outside that tiny percentage with a valid health issue) is a rational reason not to get it. It is proven that they work. It is proven that they benefit society as a whole. Have you pondered how bad things would be if they hadn't been invented?
If you don't have any staff, you can't open rec centres and community centres. If people had gotten vaccinated, and governments had acted in a timely manner, the closures that did occur would likely have been for a shorter duration. There is no fear or loathing, but there is a huge lack of understanding of the decisions they've made; one that would benefit themselves, their families, their friends, and society as a whole.
So I define social responsibility as doing whatever you can to protect vital systems that you want available should you, your neighbour, or your family need them. That's what COVID vaccines do.
Given the display of organizational ineptitude Canadians have witnessed over the past three weeks, I'm inclined to welcome the Emergencies Act as possibly breaking that log jam of institutional chaos.
I am not overly worried by its potential excess because it will receive heavy scrutiny from the public, wary premiers, affected institutions and a rabid partisan opposition. The act itself is already the product of scrutiny that corrected the overreach of the War Measures Act.
What are its benefits?
Our institutions are clearly inadequate to the current situation and this limited, temporary use of such federal power may create the impetus for the various levels of government, private institutions and the general public to reassess and renew their democracy in the light of its weaknesses and the threats against it.
Regarding the Ottawa Police, we have to consider (and prove of course) the possibility of a 'compromised institution'.
Institutions are no longer managed inside physical walls as they were 30 years ago. Cybernetic activity makes institutions inherently permeable. We already have evidence, via videos, of members of police and military whose allegiances are raising questions. This is nothing new. However, the coordination capacity across those permeable institutional boundaries is.
Sadly, this rightly draws fears of fascist soldiers banging on doors in the middle of the night demanding tests of loyalty. And yet. Democracy must defend itself. The first defence is to know what democracy is and what it is not.
Therefore, in a nutshell, I see the current historical moment as a moment for a challenged democracy to renew itself in the face of a challenge it has not properly addressed. Hopefully the events of the past weeks and the scrutiny of the weeks to follow will allow Canadians to re-assess and renew their democracy in a cybernetic age, and not fall, by neglect and complicity, into the fascist tendencies of far right, paramilitary, multiplayer, meme addicted, fascist, criminal gamers.
So folks need to focus on the cybernetic threat, the money, the coordinated activities, and learn to distinguish what's democratically ok and what's not. Closing your eyes, passing the buck, enjoying the fascist products while believing anonymity guarantees non-accountability, needs to be challenged with and on democratic values and principles.
Good luck.
Organizational ineptitude? Clearly, you are over kind in your comment!
You welcome the Emergencies Act. I don't welcome it. I was in Montreal during the War Measures Act imposition. I won't say that that was bad but it certainly was scary for me; and I didn't live in Quebec but just happened to be visiting.
One of the features of the War Measures Act that I recall quite clearly is that police across the country, including in my region, used it as an excuse to do a whole lot of what they wanted, i.e. things that would otherwise not be legal. Strangely - how odd! - no one was held to account for that.
As for "breaking the log jam," well! The Ambassador Bridge was cleared BEFORE the EA was declared. The Coutts border crossing was cleared WITHOUT the use of the EA powers. The border closing at Emerson, MB is, we are told, being negotiated, again, WITHOUT the EA powers. Would Coutts have been accomplished without the EA? I absolutely believe that is so as it was well on the way to being done prior to the imposition. And so forth.
My point is that the EA was NOT needed. What was needed was leadership and institutional will. The EA doesn't provide either of those things.
You say that the institutions are inadequate. I say the institutions are adequate but the people are not.
Again, it is the people that are inadequate. No matter the law, if the will to use the law is not there then the law will not be upheld.
The current act was meant to curb a lot of the abuses that could occur under the War Measures Act. One of my ex-wife's uncles was one of the people who suffered from unchecked action in 1970. A gay left-wing university professor with separatist sentiments, he was fired from his position and suffered the consequences for the rest of his life. He wasn't involved with the FLQ, but he moved in the wrong circles and was targeted for it. I didn't have a lot in common with his politics, and I don't have much sympathy for the truckers. However, when I see a precedent like this, I'm always alarmed when people fail to consider that eventually the shoe could be on the other foot.
Fair points. I would simply note the EA is a retracted version of the WMA precisely for the overreach of the latter. Second, the EA needs to be seen in action, scrutinized and corrected based on real experience not just imaginary projections. So I'm confident that will happen. Just as with the WMA. Unless I misunderstand your point, no one was held accountable for the WMA because it was legal and made things legal which the EA does not, as a result. So the EA is in part an accounting for the deficiencies of the WMA.
As for the 'inadequacy of institutions' issue. I agree it's the people, but why did they fail in their institutional roles? Again, granted regarding the individual blockades you cite, however, I suspect we see the underlying problem differently. The FLQ crisis was focused in Quebec and Ottawa, and used troops on the ground. It was the era of television, we sat back and watched just as Pierre instructed us ("Just watch me").
The central issue in the current crisis to my mind, is not the individual events, but the loosely coordinated cybernetic nature of them across the country. That's what needs addressing, that's what threatens our democratic institutions, and that's what needs institutional adjustment. The current institutional arrangements did not do very well. They were easily and quickly outfoxed and outmanoeuvred, especially in Ottawa which appears to be the better organized target, as the democratic public looked on relegated to stupified spectators unable to comprehend what was happening. Everyone yelling 'action', while none of the actors would move. So lesson for the democratic public: it's not just a movie, it's not television.
The democratic public has seen the results, now they will need to figure out how to participate democratically in the fix.
Robert, thank you for your thoughtful response. Again, I must stress how valuable polite discourse is, even where there is disagreement. And, yes, I must disagree with you.
First, I must acknowledge the point that you and George Skinner make that the EA is a replacement for the WMA and was intended to not only update the WMA but to attempt to prevent the abuses that were perpetrated [like that pejorative?] under the WMA.
My problem is that I simply, absolutely, totally and unequivocally distrust our worsers (they are not whatsoever our betters!) to be introspective about this application of the EA. As I noted previously, the reasons put forward for the EA did not apply in three of the four situations and the fourth situation (i.e. Ottawa) is a failure of application of existing law, not a failure to HAVE law.
So, our worsers have shown themselves unable to adequately use the laws they have so they now have a new law, i.e. a new toy, with which to abuse us.
Now, we see that with this new law available, i.e. the EA, they still haven't dealt with Ottawa. Why, oh, why have they not dealt with Ottawa? Simply put, the people at the "top" [really, I just HATE thinking of them that way] just are not able to apply the laws that they have.
The result is that I respectfully - and emphatically, but, again, respectfully - disagree with you.
You want to see what happens with the application of the EA and you are confident in the ability and willingness of the people to discern (in)adequacies of that law and the application thereof. For most of my life I had that same confidence. But I no longer have it. I simply and intensely distrust our worsers; they have earned absolutely every iota of that distrust.
I can't help but wonder if the 24-hour announcement that the EA was coming played a significant part in the break-up of the western blockades? Currently, it doesn't look like it is needed. 48 hours ago, I thought it essential.
This is by far the best account of the situation that I have read to date.
Doxxing is indeed bad. In the earlier leak, the info was protected and made available only to journalists, right? Whereas in this case, the hacker just dumped everything.
So the people blocking the highway at Milk River were "ordinary protestors" who blocked highway while bringing out their children to party/act as shields. All is well then!
'And yet. The text of the order gives us some pause. We don't know if the Emergencies Act is justified — that'll be up to legal experts and scholars and will remain controversial for generations. But we have a lot to think about. This could get interesting. '
One aspect that I found interesting was the bread-and-circuses aspect you noted in the article. Who funded it and was it planned, innocently, from the get-go, because that was organised. Spur of the moment? Maaaybe. Only a committee could have done it, though, and it served its purpose as a shield. Another is the apparent total support the ultra-Christian group(s) gave to this brouhaha. Evangelism by force? Odd. Such a rich mine for researchers from so many disciples, for years.
Too soon to make pronouncements about the Emergencies Act decision but it wasn't taken lightly and we might, indeed, find out, in the future, just how dark things are.
I don't feel too much sympathy for a business - in Ottawa, no less - that gave money to the protest after it was very clear what was happening & had to go on a 2nd crowdfunding site to do it. Maybe her business benefitted from the protest but countless others didn't.
Personally I think it's better to invoke the Emergencies Act a bit *before* it's absolutely crystal clear to everyone that it's necessary. Kinda like how calling the police in a domestic situation during the screaming but before the hitting starts is often better for everyone.
Excellent read!
"It may be allowing a small minority with bad intent to operate under the cover of an otherwise non-violent protest." While these people are not the FLQ I don't think we've seen anything since then where the overthrow of the government was demanded. Whether these Memorandum of Unity people are merely seriously delusional and brainwashed from too much Facebook and QAnon or actually coordinated with some militia-types to do serious violence remains to be seen.
If those people are not prosecuted for treason or sedition it will be a big mistake!
Absolutely. You can't dismiss the demand that a duly-elected government be overthrown as just nonsense. The demand itself suggests the group who actually signed the thing were serious, although deluded and conned. A `Central Committee'?
Again, not too bad. It is more even handed than usual. Getting closer to the "no bullshit" tagline. But, not quite there yet. It does still shows strong bias amongst the attempts to temper it.
Let's take some examples:
"We maintain a very healthy skepticism of government claims that lack strong evidence."
OK, great. Skepticism against government claims is good. Skepticism against the press is also good, though not mentioned for probably obvious reasons. Evidence is good. Strong evidence is even better. Do you live up to it?
"But this does, generally, align with what The Line was hearing last week about a hard-core element hidden among a larger, frustrated protest movement."
What do you mean by "hearing last week", and what do you mean "hard-core elements". That's not even a claim. It's vague innuendo. Do you mean Matt's spidey sense about "hard men"? That not any kind of evidence, not even anecdotal. That's literally just saying he didn't like the look of somebody, and he has an admitted bias against the Ottawa protest.
Do you mean Jen's experience in Alberta? While that too was just a personal perception, that group has nothing to do with the Ottawa group.
Can you be specific. Heard from whom? Heard what claims exactly?
"If the feds have concluded, as we believe they might have, that there is an organized, anti-government faction at play, then the government could indeed make a case that such a threat would be beyond the ability of any province or local jurisdiction to handle alone."
As of yet there's been zero evidence presented publicly for any of this. What I read this as is that the government (and perhaps pseudo-apologists in the press) are now in the business of hypothetical pre-crime as justification? If you have some actual evidence please present it. Real evidence can actually sway support. Smears and empty hypothetical claims just reinforce support by noting the opposition is just psychologically biased and has nothing real. Evidence matters.
I'm not saying you are claiming it is true. You do say, quite nicely, "We aren't saying we buy it, and we'd like to see the feds make this case more explicitly. But it's worth thinking about."
It's that last line. Why is it worth thinking about? Right from its origins this has been a peaceful protest by design, with very public discussions, and so far has lived up to it completely as far as the actual protest (as opposed to a few fringe people that are at best unaffiliated and unrepresentative of the protest and at worst are intentional agent provocateurs -- and rejected by the protesters and organizers.
The Freedom Convoy 2022 goals were openly posted on GoFundMe, then GiveSendGo and still there, with videos. They had public messages as well, all stating their cause was only about the mandates and digital passports, and that is was to be peaceful. Their Twitter posts are all there as well, all saying it is to be a peaceful protest. Read them yourself: https://twitter.com/Tamara_MVC
Jan 21: "Just so I’m clear you are reporting a Métis woman working with Clan Mothers across the Nation to support a peaceful protest with a group of people losing their livelihoods."
Jan 22 list of demands:
"1. Federal & provincial governments must Terminate the covid passport and/or any and all other obligatory vaccine contact tracing programs or inter-Canada passport system.
2. Terminate covid vaccine mandates and respect the rights of those who wish not to be vaccinated.
3. Cease the decisive rhetoric attacking Canadians who disagree with government mandates.
4. Cease to limit debate through coercive means to censor those who have varying or even incorrect opinions."
(They have since simplified it to the first two, though still complain about the last two.)
Or watch this early video (Jan 22): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YATLJuopMc&t=65s
Tamara (Metis) talks about working with other First Nations for support, all walks of life, all races, all religions.
Are you sure you weren't biased by the PM and press that tried to smear them, and/or confused them with a completely different group, Unity Canada, who had a "Convoy for Freedom" in October 2021 and a MOU that they tried to deliver to the Senate on Dec 10, 2021: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/protesting-the-pretext-of-the-protests?r=p061j
To continue:
"The second observation we would offer is that many of the most notable features of the encampments — the bouncy castles, the saunas, the BBQs — serve as an incredible PR move. These amenities give the protests the aura of a peaceable street party. This deceives not only the broader public, but also the protesters themselves who believe they are merely attending a happy fun times event to show their support for ending mandates etc. "
See, why would you say it like that. That's almost defamation. Does it deceive? Do you have any evidence that there is more to it? Or is this just spidey sense pre-crime premonitions, or perhaps divine revelations?
"For most attendees, that is entirely true. We believe that the majority of these protesters have no connection to extremist movements. Pretending otherwise — and presenting the entire convoy as a collection of racists and misogynist radicals because of a few bad actors — is not only inaccurate, but serves to drive distrust between mandate-skeptics and mainstream media."
Great. But what "few bad actors"? Do you mean the mention those flags again? Those people unaffiliated with, and not supported by, the protests?
I mean, at what point do you associate things? If you see on the news a "few bad actors" caught committing a crime who happen to be of some race, do you then associate all people of that race with them? If a "few bad actors" commit crimes in Canada, do you associate Canada with those bad acts? When people commit crimes at Canada Day celebrations, do you associate them with the celebration, and smear the organizers with those acts?
What matters here is what the protest is about, not whether or not anybody anywhere in the vicinity has done anything wrong, especially if it is an obvious attempt to smear. That's irresponsible journalism. Do you have evidence of the protest organization itself, and the purpose, to be about something nefarious? If not, then stop suggesting it. If there are bad actors afoot somewhere in their midst, then that is independent of the protest and you blame those individuals, or that infiltration group.
"But the hot dogs, the concerts, and the entertainments for kids, all of this also serves to camouflage a small dark seam in this movement. It may be allowing a small minority with bad intent to operate under the cover of an otherwise non-violent protest."
What's with the phrase "it may be allowing"? You wouldn't shut down a Canada Day celebration if the police catch some bad people in the crowd. Would you say that the Canada Day celebrations "may be allowing" bad actors in the crowd? Attributions and labels matter. Unless the protest organizers and/or protesters themselves are aware of, and condone or allow, those bad actors, then it has nothing to do with them or the protest and they are blameless. You then need to separate the protest from the bad actors completely, even complaining that the bad actors are undermining the peaceful protests.
None of this suggests any justification for the Emergency Measures Act. I know you are skeptical about it too, and well documented here. Kudos. But, I don't see that anything you suggest provides even remotely a potential justification. If the police do know of bad actors, then they can act on those bad actors using existing police and laws, get them out, and address the protest separately on its own merits. If they don't know of specific bad actors, then it's just about addressing the protest directly.
Perhaps one might suggest that to end both the protest and remove any risk of bad actors, that they actually talk with the organizers and plan out the ending of the mandates and passports. Like the provinces have been doing. (Did you give credit to that in the ending of the Coutts case?)
Or, you know, like other countries are doing, or recommended by the WHO and health policy orgs: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking?r=p061j
To give a nice "sandwich" here. I'll end on a higher note as I started with. I like this article. It's not perfect. It is hurried. It clearly has biased phrasing and implications. But, it is trying really, really hard to be fair. I recognize that and appreciate it. Maybe a few stray turds, but definitely no bullshit. Thank you and good work.
The bouncy castles were a little inferior, on the PR job, to Occupy feeding the hungry.
That offered the double-whammy of Good Works, plus pointing out that the homeless even exist in a country that spends $7000/house/year on the military, which was part of Occupy's whole point. Nothing like demonstrating your thesis, live, with examples right at the protest site. The protesters should have set up a "Free Restaurant, No Masks, No Vax".
The doxxing is obviously wrong, but I think it could have been avoided but for two things: the air horns, and the "memorandum" that was right out of the Sovereign Citizen movement. I haven't seen any North American media point out how Sovereign Citizen that document looks, but George Monbiot at The Guardian spotted it right off:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/16/solidarity-sovereign-citizen-protests-ottawa-truck-blockade
...and the spreading around of the material might have been less aggressive but for that chilling photo of the guns. The particular Ottawa vengeance-seeking probably wouldn't have happened except for the air horns costing a week of sleep.
I have some faith in Canadians, however: if the trucks leave over the next day or so, it'll all blow over.
I think this piece is awfully generous in giving Trudeau the benefit of the doubt regarding invoking the Emergency Measures Act. This government has a long record of substituting performance for actual action, and focusing on image rather than substance. After 7 years, I think the burden is really to show that the government needed to invoke the act for any reason other than a gesture that now they're Doing Something after weeks of doing nothing.
The other problem with the Trudeau government's record has been their conviction that because they mean well, they should be able to do what they need to do. There's a straight line from Trudeau barreling onto the floor of the Commons to grab an MP by the elbow before a vote to attempting to interfere with the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin to trying to assert unchecked budget authority for 2 years early in the pandemic. Trudeau's resistance to being challenged or admitting he's wrong raises a real risk of abuse of emergency powers authority, particularly if the NDP caves again.