Friday, February 11, 2022

OH CAN-A-DA

 

I have been watching the Canadian Convoy Protest for almost a week now and decided that I had to convey my observations to my readers.  First, this protest is serious.  While there have been wild exaggerations about the size of the crowds, there has been very little written about any accurate estimates of crowd sizes.  Let me clear up some of the confusion.  There are thousands of vehicles and tens of thousands of people involved, non-stop for over a week now.  These people are paying a price, literally and figuratively.  They believe in their cause, and that cause is freedom of choice.

These men and women are also not confused about what they are fighting for – Liberty.  They are articulate and consistent with their message and they are incredibly peaceful.  I haven’t seen one Canadian small business or automobile on fire, in fact the only fires I have seen have been in grills or in campfires to keep people warm.  They actually have “bouncy houses” for kids to play in, something I can’t say was found in any of the 574 riots in “the summer of love” in 2020.  While the riots of 2020 were described as “mostly peaceful”, these protests could and should be described as completely peaceful.

Maybe the biggest question is, are the truckers’ demands reasonable?  At a time when eight entire countries including the UK, France and Italy are canceling restrictions and returning their citizenry to normalcy, Justin Trudeau is punishing and demonizing Canadians, his own people, for even suggesting a similar position in their own country.  Trudeau, Canada’s Prime Minister, is judging the protestors beliefs as “unacceptable”.  Is this even consistent with Canada’s Bill of Rights?  Does Canada even have a Bill of Rights?  The answer is – Yes and no.

In 1960, Canada established a Canadian Bill of Rights, which was proven to be ineffective because it applied only to federal statutes and not to the Provinces.  It was replaced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 which is still in effect today.  Interestingly, section 2 of that charter states that all Canadians have “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”.  That section also guarantees Canadians’ “freedom to peacefully assemble”.  It seems that Trudeau’s statement in front of their Parliament violates these truckers’ freedom of thought, belief and opinion, and his hostile handling of the protestors violates their right to peacefully assemble.  It all depends on how you define “peaceful”.  These protests are clearly not violent, but they are making inter-province and international commerce inconvenient.

Trudeau also seems to be misreading the growing support for the truckers.  The latest polls show that 46% (almost half) of Canadians support the protestors.  Is Trudeau suggesting that nearly half of his constituents, about 18 million people, have “unacceptable” thoughts, beliefs or opinions?  And this support is growing.

Finally, is this the right time to take this stand or group of people to attack.? At a time when infections are plunging in Canada and the US and entire countries and states here in America are eliminating vaccine passports, is now the time to be so stubborn?  Eighty per cent of Canadians are fully vaccinated, one of highest rates in the world and well above the 64% level here in the US.  And according to Johns Hopkins, 90% of the Canadian truckers are fully vaccinated.  Are these the people Trudeau should be demonizing?  Clearly these people are not anti-vaccination.  They are simply anti-mandate.  Plus, truckers practically define the concept of self-isolation.  They are in their trucks by themselves for most of their working days.  Do we really need to take away their livelihoods and destroy their lives when they pose virtually zero risk to anyone else in Canada or the US?  These truckers were our heroes just a year ago when they kept our stores supplied when the vaccines were not available.  They have not turned into racist, Nazi demons since then.

The only question anyone might have about this strike is if it is causing too much financial damage to Canada and the US.  Clearly it is not violent.  Is it too inconvenient?  That’s a good question.  But in addition to that question I would add a couple more.  Given Justin Trudeau’s disdain for the truckers’ opinion and plight, what is the likelihood that he would even listen to them without the financial pressure?  Also, do you support the right of unions to strike here in America which always includes the shutdown of plants and facilities with the intent of causing financial discomfort?  It is this discomfort that our unions and these truckers depend on to force negotiations.

Given an impartial analysis of this situation, I support the truckers and see Justin Trudeau as a stubborn, out of touch elitist who will only yield when his personal legacy is in jeopardy.  Come on, Justin.  Just talk to the truckers before you try to destroy all of their lives.

13 comments:

  1. Good post, Kevin! I totally agree!

    God Bless the Truckers…God Bless the Canadian and American Citizens who are standing behind the Truckers…and God Bless Liberty! Let Freedom Ring! Amen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Amen, Bobby. Notice I added one line at the end of my original post. It says, "Come on, Justin. Just talk to the truckers before you try to destroy their lives." So far he has been pretty cold and uncaring to his own citizens.

      Delete
    3. Your post is humorous given these people are clearly breaking the law. For years you supported a guy who yelled "lock them up" at anyone who said something he didn't like, regardless of whether it was criminal. You had no problem with that, but Trudeau is supposed to spend weeks negotiating with lawbreakers?

      Again, there's no fixed principle here.

      Delete
  2. First heard news of this from a Canadian born pastor serving a church here in Kilimanjaro region Tanzania. He strong supports truckers “freedom of choice”.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As we all should. Thanks for the comment, Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. By "this" I don't mean the post - that's pretty standard stuff. I mean the whole Canadian trucker fetish in GOP circles. Just so strange.

      Delete
    2. Matt,
      Don't you think it's a little heavy handed on Trudeau's side? Emergency powers? Really? What's next for the truckers? The death penalty? And criticism of Trudeau is not isolated to conservatives here or in Canada. Trudeau is acting like an authoritarian dictator which is unpopular in both of our freedom loving countries.

      Delete
    3. I think trying to extrapolate partisan American issues into another country's politics, with different laws, customs and traditions, is mostly projection. A "conservative" in one country may have an entirely different meaning in another.

      I am reminded of this however: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reagan-fires-11359-air-traffic-controllers

      I wonder, did you say Reagan was acting like an authoritarian dictator? Also, I think you're using authoritarian far too loosely unless Trudeau is not following existing law.

      I do find it weird how American "conservatives" who last year cheered all kinds of anti-protest laws, including some that would have given immunity to anyone who hits a protestor with their car, are now celebrating this. Particularly when it hurts the economy that America First "conservatives" claimed they wanted opened up. And complained about how protestors were preventing people from getting to work and earning a living. Now they're cheering foreigners hurting the US economy by not following their own country's laws. America First indeed. Yet more proof of how the GOP isn't really a party of fixed principles anymore - it just jumps from manufactured outrage to manufactured outrage.

      The greatest irony of this whole thing is that there are already multiple vaccines you have to have to enter into this country, and have been for decades. Yet no one complained about their freedom before. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

      Delete
    4. To answer your last question first, this vaccine is very new and has not gone through the normal vetting process that others have. I can understand some skepticism for not taking this one. Again, I'm vaccinated, but especially when you have 80% of the country and 90% of truckers vaccinated, is there room for some religious, health or even emotional tolerance here?

      Also, we are experiencing so many crossover cases with this vaccine, there is much we don't know.

      Second, It's all about where you draw the line and what kind of punishment you attach to the civil disobedience, because almost every act of civil disobedience includes some inconvenience and even breaking of the law. In the summer of love BLM and Antifa rioters caused over $2 Billion in damages and approximately 36 people were killed, and I didn't see freezing of assets or even more than a few hours of jail time waiting or Kamala Harris to bail the rioters out.

      The truckers are far from that now, especially now that the bridges are open, and Trudeau hasn't even made an attempt to talk to them. Even 5 of Canada's provinces have already said that Trudeau's enacting of the Emergency Powers was way over the line. Those are Canadians. I think this could be easily resolved it Trudeau would just talk to them. They are willing to negotiate.

      Delete
    5. How long after any of the other vaccines they must received were invented did they become required? If you don't know, then the whole "they are new" thing doesn't fly.

      "So many crossover cases"? Huh?

      Room for "emotional tolerance"? What does that even mean? You sure you want to start down that slippery slope?

      Your third paragraph illustrates the double standard, and regrettably repeats a lie (the Kamala Harris story) that you know to be a lie.

      I do not understand this need to "talk to them." What does that even mean? Who is their leader?

      You're really getting far afield when you're declaring that this or that action in a democratic country whose laws you don't know was "over the line."

      By the way, what did you think of Reagan's action re: the air traffic controllers?

      Delete
  5. We all recognize that however you feel about all this, that it's a manipulation campaign designed to weaken two close Western allies, right?

    Tell me you see that.

    ReplyDelete