Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

[FSTO]

Like I said it was still mostly virtual. So the workings of government was never really impacted. And as I said, I’m not sure if that particular reason was used to justify the use of the act.

I never followed the inquiry close enough to see if that was brought up. But I see many commentators who say the government was close to being overthrown by the occupiers.

 

[Remius]

I never followed the inquiry close enough to see if that was brought up. But I see many commentators who say the government was close to being overthrown by the occupiers.

I watched some of it but didn’t see anything like that.

Most of the comments I saw were in relation to their MOU essentially calling for that. But I’m not sure there was anything stating that the government was close to being overthrown. Certainly not from any officials.

If you have examples of those commentators that you’ve seen saying it was close to be overthrown, I’d appreciate it so I can make a more informed opinion.

 

[RangerRay]

My understanding was it was brought in because all levels of government and law enforcement were playing hot-potato with it and it made the country look like an international laughingstock. The Americans wanted the border crossings cleared and it sounded like some Ministers were scared of them. Not valid legislative reasons according to the EA, but ones accepted by most Canadians.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Government isn't "overthrown" until the "overthrowers" are issuing instructions which are being followed by the the civil service and complied with by the people.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Government isn't "overthrown" until the "overthrowers" are issuing instructions which are being followed by the the civil service and complied with by the people.

Don't you go taking Jan 6th away from them. ....some might need a complete new lifestyle.

 

[QV]

My understanding was it was brought in because all levels of government and law enforcement were playing hot-potato with it and it made the country look like an international laughingstock. The Americans wanted the border crossings cleared and it sounded like some Ministers were scared of them. Not valid legislative reasons according to the EA, but ones accepted by most Canadians.

Accepted by uninformed Canadians, since the borders were cleared before the EA.

 

[Quirky]

Accepted by uninformed Canadians, since the borders were cleared before the EA.

Canadians listen to what CBC tells them, our national, self-proclaimed, trusted news source.

 

[Good2Golf]

Accepted by uninformed Canadians, since the borders were cleared before the EA.

Windsor didn’t have its head up its

 

[FSTO]

I watched some of it but didn’t see anything like that.

Most of the comments I saw were in relation to their MOU essentially calling for that. But I’m not sure there was anything stating that the government was close to being overthrown. Certainly not from any officials.

If you have examples of those commentators that you’ve seen saying it was close to be overthrown, I’d appreciate it so I can make a more informed opinion.

Now that I re-read my post. I was wrong to say "close to overthrowing". The was no time that the occupiers were ever in the realm of threating the overthrow of the sitting government. (Even though the MOU stated a desire "replace" the government, that document was written by people who had no idea how a constitutional monarchy works)

The word overthrow was liberally used by all commentators opposed to the occupiers.

Canada defends emergency action as way to stop ‘overthrow’

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino says the movement is not driven by protest against Covid-19 measures.

www.politico.com

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino told a press conference Tuesday. “That is not what is driving this movement right now. What is driving this movement is a very small, organized group that is driven by an ideology to overthrow the government.”

Leaders of truck convoy protests sought to overthrow government, national security adviser says
Jody Thomas, a former deputy minster at the Department of National Defence who became Mr. Trudeau’s top national security adviser
“The occupation of Ottawa was dug in. They had supply chains. They had organization. They had funding coming in from across Canada but also other countries,” Ms. Thomas said. “The people who organized that protest – and there were several factions … there is no doubt – came to overthrow the government.”

Canada’s NDP leader says trucker convoy aims to ‘overthrow’ gov’t

Jagmeet Singh calls for emergency debate in Canadian parliament over ongoing trucker ‘occupation’ of capital, Ottawa.

www.aljazeera.com

New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh, Speaking to reporters on Monday morning, Singh said the convoy’s stated intent is to “overthrow the government”.

By liberally using the word "Overthrow" the government stoked the fears of people who should have known better that a rag-tag group of unorganized (which was born out by the inquiry) dissenters didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of overthrowing a local village council let alone the government of Canada.

 

[brihard]

Now that I re-read my post. I was wrong to say "close to overthrowing". The was no time that the occupiers were ever in the realm of threating the overthrow of the sitting government. (Even though the MOU stated a desire "replace" the government, that document was written by people who had no idea how a constitutional monarchy works)

The word overthrow was liberally used by all commentators opposed to the occupiers.

Canada defends emergency action as way to stop ‘overthrow’

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino says the movement is not driven by protest against Covid-19 measures.

www.politico.com

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino told a press conference Tuesday. “That is not what is driving this movement right now. What is driving this movement is a very small, organized group that is driven by an ideology to overthrow the government.”

Leaders of truck convoy protests sought to overthrow government, national security adviser says
Jody Thomas, a former deputy minster at the Department of National Defence who became Mr. Trudeau’s top national security adviser
“The occupation of Ottawa was dug in. They had supply chains. They had organization. They had funding coming in from across Canada but also other countries,” Ms. Thomas said. “The people who organized that protest – and there were several factions … there is no doubt – came to overthrow the government.”

Canada’s NDP leader says trucker convoy aims to ‘overthrow’ gov’t

Jagmeet Singh calls for emergency debate in Canadian parliament over ongoing trucker ‘occupation’ of capital, Ottawa.

www.aljazeera.com

New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh, Speaking to reporters on Monday morning, Singh said the convoy’s stated intent is to “overthrow the government”.

By liberally using the word "Overthrow" the government stoked the fears of people who should have known better that a rag-tag group of unorganized (which was born out by the inquiry) dissenters didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of overthrowing a local village council let alone the government of Canada.

A bunch of them wanted it. They were never close to achieving it, nor can anyone credibly claim that they were.

 

[FSTO]

A bunch of them wanted it. They were never close to achieving it, nor can anyone credibly claim that they were.

Agree, and maybe instead of running about with their hair on fire, the authorities should have said to Canadians that at no time was their government in danger of being overthrown.

 

[brihard]

Agree, and maybe instead of running about with their hair on fire, the authorities should have said to Canadians that at no time was their government in danger of being overthrown.

I don’t recall ever seeing that prospect being used to justify or defend any government or police action.

 

[FSTO]

Okay, I feel that you and I are talking past each other. We both agree that at no time the government was going to be overthrown. If I'm not mistaken you are of the opinion that the authorities never raised the prospect of overthrow as a reason for the EA. I'm of the opinion that the authorities (specifically the Liberal and NDP parties) liberally used the term overthrow in their public communications to enhance the concern of fence sitters to agree to the use of the EA to get rid of the occupiers.

This could be case of people seeing/hearing what they want to see/hear.

Cheers

 

[Remius]

Okay, I feel that you and I are talking past each other. We both agree that at no time the government was going to be overthrown. If I'm not mistaken you are of the opinion that the authorities never raised the prospect of overthrow as a reason for the EA. I'm of the opinion that the authorities (specifically the Liberal and NDP parties) liberally used the term overthrow in their public communications to enhance the concern of fence sitters to agree to the use of the EA to get rid of the occupiers.

This could be case of people seeing/hearing what they want to see/hear.

Cheers

Maybe the leaders of the convoy as well as the ones that decided to co-opt it should not have issued an MOU essentially stating that they wanted to remove the government. It isn’t a case of just misunderstanding how a constitutional monarchy works it’s a case of of trying to remove a democratically elected government that they didn’t like. They even wanted a seat in whatever coalition they were trying to propose.

It was an anti government protest. The fact that they are still planning more tells you this isn’t just about truckers, mandates or whatever.

I agree that an overthrow was never even close. Not sure anyone ever said that. I disagree though if anyone thinks that wasn’t what the MOU’s original intent was about. The reaction to it though saw them backtrack somewhat but by then they had already let that genie out of the bottle.

 

[brihard]

I'm of the opinion that the authorities (specifically the Liberal and NDP parties) liberally used the term overthrow in their public communications to enhance the concern of fence sitters to agree to the use of the EA to get rid of the occupiers.

I don’t believe they ever did, but am open to the possibility that I’m wrong. However if a claim’s being made that they did, the onus is to provide evidence of that.

So are you able to point to anything to give grounds to that belief? Any instances where authorities presented ‘overthrow’, or anything analogous, as a serious, realistic, or credible threat? I feel that had they done so we would have heard or read about little else for at least a couple days. That would have been a pretty massive claim, and probably quickly and loudly ripped apart.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don’t recall ever seeing that prospect being used to justify or defend any government or police action.

Part of justifying anything is massaging public opinion. Politicians aren't above overstating threats to use fear to move public support in favour of whatever it is politicians want to do.

 

[brihard]

Part of justifying anything is massaging public opinion. Politicians aren't above overstating threats to use fear to move public support in favour of whatever it is politicians want to do.

Ok, you’re included in my cordial invitation:

So are you able to point to anything to give grounds to that belief? Any instances where authorities presented ‘overthrow’, or anything analogous, as a serious, realistic, or credible threat?

 

[FSTO]

I don’t believe they ever did

I just quoted a trio of news reports where Mendicino, Thomas, and Singh said the very words Overthrow the government.

I'm done with this thread. Its just circling the drain. I feel that the EA was not needed and bunch of you feel it was justified. So be it.

 

[brihard]

I just quoted a trio of news reports where Mendicino, Thomas, and Singh said the very words Overthrow the government.

I'm done with this thread. Its just circling the drain. I feel that the EA was not needed and bunch of you feel it was justified. So be it.

It was accurately identified by a number of players as an intent or objective of a core group of organizers, as well as some who showed up. That’s not the same as anyone suggesting there was a realistic risk of that happening. I would say it’s fair to suggest that that desire on the part of quite a few, and intent on the part of a smaller number, did inform assessments of how likely it was they would simply leave or could be coaxed out.

Were there people there who wanted to overthrow the government? Of course; that MOU was published and received some support. They literally told us to our faces, as we faced off against them, that they wanted our help forcing our and replacing the government. But a relatively small fringe of people wanting something doesn’t make it a credible threat. Please note the way I worded it:

as a serious, realistic, or credible threat?

I don’t see from your examples where ‘overthrow’ or anything like it was used inaccurately, or in the way I asked about.

Finally: I have not stated that I believe the EA was justified or necessary, nor am I saying that now. What I’ve said repeatedly in this thread is that I remain unconvinced, but that I’m waiting to read and consider the final report before I come to a firm opinion one way or the other. However, without being convinced it was needed, I default to it wasn’t. The book simply isn’t closed yet for me.

(Minor edits for typos and clarity)

 

[Remius]

I just quoted a trio of news reports where Mendicino, Thomas, and Singh said the very words Overthrow the government.

I'm done with this thread. Its just circling the drain. I feel that the EA was not needed and bunch of you feel it was justified. So be it.

I never said it was justified. In fact quite the opposite.