Comment by mardifoufs
4 years ago
The trucker protest has absolutely nothing to do with qanon, but I guess that proves he does support crypto for a specific use case. Being against emergency measures and doing away with due process for freezing accounts is hardly something very extremist imo.
Let me just say that, as someone who lives in Ottawa, that his takes on the convoy occupation are complete bullshit.
The fact that he describes it as "just three weeks of honking, blocked streets and bridges, bouncy castles and flag waving", then refers to the response being "shockingly authoritarian" and "martial law" is a sign that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
To be fair, the emergency measures are our own version of martial law. Like there is no martial law in canada and if we went into a state of war, the law that would be invoked would be the exact same act. Don't forget, the emergency act was the direct replacement of the previous war measures act!
And to be honest, I have my opinion on the protest and I'll probably disagree with you on whether even what you described justified such an unprecetended response by the government ( i dont think it even happened once in the past 50 years for a western government to suspend it's own constitutional rights, even over much more violent or disruptive event). Though I still get your point!
But I think it's still very unreasonable to say he's a qanon supporter type because of his opinion on the ottawa protest, don't you agree? Like those are massively different things, and even if you agree with how trudeau handled the events it's very reasonable to think that such a controversial move might result in disagreements without being a completely insane cultist like the qanon believers usually are? Not to mention it's a very american centric accusation anyways.
They're not 'our version of martial law' because the term 'martial law' has a specific meaning, about suspending civil rights and putting the military in charge of civil security. The Emergencies Act does neither, and indeed no law in Canada allows the government to suspend the Charter.
You're right that we may disagree on some details, but I think where we'll agree is that this should not have been a situation that required a federal emergency. I fully believe this could have been handled just fine at the municipal level and, failing that, provincial level, and should not have required a federal response.
The way I see it the real emergency was that the Ottawa Police and then the Ontario government were spectacular failures, and this created a scenario where, I believe, the federal government was entirely justified in enacting the Emergencies Act and the mandates they did.
But regardless of whether it should have been invoked, what happened was not 'martial law' nor would I call it 'shockingly totalitarian', and that's why I said DHH's hot takes were bullshit.
On Twitter there is no nuance, you must pick a side.
>On Twitter there is no nuance, you must pick a side.
On Internet. It turns out 30 years later, the information super highway just isn't a good fit for discussions.
Written that way, it seems the fault is on the Internet. I'm more inclined to believe the fault is on the people... but of course, this doesn't change the facts.
1 reply →