If the government can shut down your income, your banks, your saved wealth, and financial assistance because the politicians don't support your message...you don't really have free speech.
You just have the mirage of it.
Free speech means you defend SPEECH YOU DON'T LIKE.
Again, this is all so stupid.
If Canada wants to remove the truckers, forcibly...remove them. They absolutely have the legal right to do so.
They simply are too cowardly to pay the 'political costs' involved.
Imagine other protests movements that government could use this against.
This is leading edge of authoritarian rule. Arresting them and putting them up for trial? Fine. Accusing them of a crime and just libeling them? That shouldn't be how govt works.
In many of these places, the power of the govt to paint protesters as some kind of terrorist organization is DANGEROUS.
And in a free society, those groups should be able to use money to push back against these accusations.
But these govts are stopping that!
Again, lot of these countries like to pretend they support free speech...but ultimately don't really feel comfortable with it, in practice.
Again, the convoy protesters have a right to say what they want. They have a right to spend their money as they wish.
If you want to arrest them for specific actions? FINE. That is what is supposed to happen in a fair society. Arrest them, put them on trial, let them defend themselves.
But what is happening here is not what a free society does.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"The Emergencies Act outlines four different types of emergencies: public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies. If the legislation is invoked this week, it will likely be under the 'public order' category."
"Again, the criteria here is strict - lawful protests do not qualify.
Instead, the situation must be considered a threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act."
Mandates made sense when: 1. Vaccines obviously save lives, which is still true today. 2. Vaccines virtually stopped transmission...WHICH IS NOT TRUE TODAY.
Point #2 really is important, and Fauci/Walensky don't want to answer it.
Lets stipulate point #1. There is no question that vaccines save lives, and everyone should choose to get vaccinated for their own sake.
Agreed?
Here is the problem: the real benefit of mandates, as stated by Biden himself, is to protect SOCIETY.
But in the age of Omicron, that isn't really the major benefit of vaccines. Vaccinated individuals were only marginally less likely to get infected and transmit the virus.
I think masks work in kids. I also think mask MANDATES in schools have had only very limited benefit, even at peak surges, when you look at the data. I believe the benefit is greater than zero, but it so far is not shown to be statistically significant.
ROFL: “Somebody made a compilation of every time I said that word...put it on YouTube, and it turned out that was racist as fuck. Even to me! I’m me and I’m watching it saying, ‘Stop saying it!’ I put my cursor over the video and I’m like, ‘Four more minutes?!'”
“I talk shit for a living — that’s why this is so baffling to me,...if you’re taking vaccine advice from me, is that really my fault?...If you want my advice, don’t take my advice.”