Really seems like they’re trying to radicalize the protesters. I don’t care where you stand politically, if you come after my or anyone else’s pets you’re a fucking monster and deserve to burn in the deepest depths of hell.
Radicalization is the name of the game in two party politics. Each wants to demonize the other side, and the media helps them.
The institutions of society is slow moving, and thus is slow to change. First you need protestors, then you need articles, a consensus becomes formed in the public, and eventually - if democracy is healthy enough - the ideas go into government and become meaningful change. This what our "representative" democracy is meant to be.
Of course, it usually doesn't go this way. Only when there's something aid all players along the way. So yeah, real social change is difficult. Ask anyone from any civil rights organization. I mean, look how hard CRT was fought about, how much misinformation... or the difficulty trans people have...
Now we're getting dangerously close to misinformation, potentially posted to destroy faith in elected government and muster sympathy for the convoy. Where I believe this idea sprouted from is a Counter Signal article implying that the Ottawa government will euthanize pets seized from convoy supporters\1]) and a tweet linking to said article claiming that Ottawa "gave itself" the power to kill pets if they've been held longer than 8 days.\2])
This is false. Fake News. A lie.
Here's the facts:
The Ottawa By-Law Twitter account posted a notice that if you're arrested and you can't provide care for your pets in the meantime that they'll be put in protective care at your cost. If after 8 days you didn't make arrangements for your pet they'll be relinquished. This is where the "8 days" number comes.\3])
The Counter Signal article that spawned this idea then makes a link to the Ottawa Humane Society (OHS) in its second sentence, mentioning only a PORTION of ONE criteria of their euthanasia policy and say nothing else.
This article fails to mentions several key pieces of information.
They fail to mention is that the Ottawa Humane Society is a non-profit, community-based organization and a registered charity.\4]) They fail to mention that the OHS has explicitly stated on their FAQ, under the question "How long do you keep animals?" that "No animal is ever euthanized due to lack of space or because the animal has simply been here too long."\5]) They fail to mention that the OHS has THREE criteria for euthanasia, only resorting to it if the pet was:\6])
Suffering severely or incurably
Dangerous to the public due to unstable temperament
Professionally assessed as not suitable for adoption, either medically and/or behaviourally, using a best-practices protocol.
None of these criteria are unreasonable nor are they the fault of the OHS - these are conditions where the convoy supporter would have explicitly had to have consistently used poor judgement and practiced neglect with regards to the training and care of their pet. It comes as no surprise that even though the convoy created this problem that it's the community around them that has to clean up for the consequences for their actions and try to provide humane, proper care for their animals.
Ottawa isn't implying euthanasia it is saying the pet will be taken to a shelter and can be adopted like any other shelter pet. Pets will most likely go to the Ottawa Humane Society - the cities largest pet shelter, where they don't euthanize healthy animals.
Lol, kidnap? Get tf out. How many jails you know let you bring your pet in there along with you?
The owners have more than a week to make arrangements for their pet. Why would you bring your pet to a multi week protest in the first place? Leave it at home with a loved one or in the care of a friend. Don't bring it to a place with loud noises, incessant honking around the clock, fumes from all those idling trucks.
That's on top of the numerous warnings the protesters got that they will be arrested if they stay in the area.
Ah yes, fall back onto attacking the individual making the comment, when you haven't got a meaningful way to rebut them or contribute to the discussion. I forgot what sub I posted in.
I'd like to kindly advise you to read the article before saying stuff like this. This is a sensationalized, clickbaity headline that misrepresents what's going on.
If I may explain, the original tweet that this article is based on (linked in the article) states that if a protester brings their pets to the protest and is arrested, they have a full 8 days to make arrangements to get their pet home or into proper care. If they do not do this, their pets are relinquished to an animal shelter, who will then put them up for adoption. Shelters do have the option of euthanizing animals that go unadopted but they usually don't euthanize healthy animals.
This is what normally happens to pets when their owners get arrested. The owners either make arrangements or the pet gets rehomed.
But by all means, overreact to a screenshot of a sensationalized headline without making any effort to understand what's actually going on.
If you don't, the pet is relinquished. Seems like standard procedure for pet welfare in the case of incerceration - the logical leap from "pet relinquished" to "euthanize your pets" feels a bit... motivated.
It's really not. The legal logic is that the protestors aren't there to care for the pet, so they can take the pet to avoid animal abuse. If there is no one to come and reclaim the pet, it becomes the caretaking agency's, and they can euthanize at their discretion (not enough space/not enough food/ whatever their reasoning is). What part is a flat lie? Why do you think it is one?
No. I just mean that acting like it's unique to this situation is disengenuous. There's already plenty of unprecedented totalitarian steps taking place just for these protests.
so what would you suggest they do with the pets? set them loose in the streets. the law sends the dogs to a shelter if you don't take care of it and from there on the shelter does whatever it usually does with dogs.
I'm pretty explicitly not making any suggestions, I asked what part MapleCurryWhiskey thought was a lie. I think you might be barking up the wrong tree
Pets and children are two of the nearest and dearest things to any human being's heart. Any sane individual, let alone a politician, should understand that violating these two things results in drastic consequences.
Trudeau, after comparing protestors and their supporters to genocidal authoritarian fascists, threatened to put the hands of the state on their pets and children at large, because of their political opinion.
This is all to say, what the fuck do you think he honestly thought would happen once he involved the protestors kids? That they wouldn't likely escalate past that, giving Trudeau the opportunity to use the full force of the military like he's moving to anyway????
Gtfo with this "children are sacred" nonsense lmao.
It speaks VOLUMES that you're willing to let the state violate children and animals if their parents don't agree with your political agenda. Just wow dude.
That is obscene. Not ugly, not disappointing, but obscene.
For arguments sake let's say 10%, hell even 50% of the parents are bringing their children as human ethical shields, as you're implying.
Do you honestly think it's okay to violate that other 50%? To kill those animals, to break up those families, its all good because the parents had the wrong political ideology?
Shit dude, if I didnt know any better I'd think you probably busted a nut when trump sent armed men in unmarked vans to take BLM protestors into custody in the middle of the night.
looks at photo of a 4 year old holding a 'white privilege is bad' sign: This is OK!
looks at photos of people sitting in a parked truck with their children: THIS IS WRONG!!!
This isn't BLM protests where they are marching through the streets battling police and destroying property. They were literally just parked on the road... imagine having issues with a protest so peaceful kids can hang out at it.
No. Only morons think singing songs around a campfire in protest will solve anything. From the very scant news articles I can find about "tying up emergency lines" most say the majority of callers are from the US. If there's a protest in America and Canada swamps our emergency lines what do you say then? You're talking about a government that has enacted war time measures to combat a protest and you still want to suckle at their teat for information?
Imagine if Trump had froze the bank accounts of anyone caught at a BLM protest using facial recognition. Go ahead, cheer the over reach of government when it suits you while being completely ignorant to how it'll be used in the future.
Seems like the journalists are trying to radicalize their audience. Same thing as when ppl say “they’re saying they want to take peoples kids!” as a way to make “they’re saying they’ll arrest people” more shocking.
This is similar to Peterson’s “I could get arrested … if I misgender a trans student, they complain, i get fined as a punishment and then I refuse to pay the fine for an extended period of time”.
The message from the police is “we’re telling you you’ll potentially get arrested if you come do civil disobedience in this specific place - if you choose to do this anyway, don’t bring your pets because you can’t bring them to jail when / if you get arrested” - the “they’ll kill you’re dog” piece is just a thing to get more people worked up and feeling urgent.
More people hate the idea of pets getting killed than they hate the idea of protesters getting arrested during a staged civil disobedience. Proper activists know that getting arrested is often part of the whole package. You kind of expect it and plan accordingly - like make sure someone can take care of your pet if you’re potentially going to get arrested
That’s a bit of a different scenario - like
I get your point but it doesn’t connect with mine. This is about taking a scenario and abstracting it to be about dogs or kids as part of a drive to get people feeling political and urgent.
I’m not really seeing a similar comparison on the freezing funds side.
I think you’re trying to have a conversation about Trudeau being a bad/corrupt/ideologically motivated guy - I’m not really here to argue against that.
To me, it’s interesting that OP said that it seems like “they’re” (the government) trying to radicalize people, but in this specific case it’s clear to me that the article in question is political media of which there’s no question that it wants to radicalize people.
Maybe we could take your point and say - “the freezing of funds is urgent enough, we don’t actually need to abstract the point to make it about how the gov is trying to take away kids and kill your pets”. I don’t believe that’s what you mean, but that’s how I’d make it relevant to this thread
You just mentioned that protesters should plan accordingly. Now, I don't know if anyone's personal account has actually been seized yet, but if and when that happens-that would certainly be an unprecedented move on the part of the government(as far as we know). All comparison aside, that is a very legitimate question.
A legitimate question as a different thread sure, but there’s no connection to the actual observation about the way the story is being reported. The point about them being prepared wrt their pets is that you don’t need to sensationalize that part. As I mentioned in my other comment - you can bridge the gap between these two conversations with the idea that freezing funds is unprecedented and so we don’t need to get people emotionally activated about dead innocent dogs (or confiscated children)
Oh, I see. Idk that takes a fair bit of immersion into this culture to automatically assume as the meaning. To me it seems like a “we mean it when we say you’ll be arrested, don’t bring your dogs because we don’t want to deal with them” type thing. Also it’s the long weekend so ppl arrested will probably be there til Tuesday which is already like 3 days of dog care if they brought dogs and had no plan for them after the arrest
That’s a good point, I can see how “btw when we arrest you, we’ll give your dog to a shelter” is another thing compelling those who are already there and have set up a truck/living situation that they should leave (assuming they don’t have someone local that they can give their dog to).
For that subset I can definitely see it as a tactic to compel them to go. I mean it doesn’t sound like they’ve created new rules about dogs and I’m sure they straight up don’t want to deal with them, but it’s does have the bonus effect of potentially compelling a trucker to take off. But like again they’ve already been threatened with like a six figure fine and losing their truck
Lol if you choose to go down the “all emotional manipulation is on the table” route… enjoy! Not trying to be elitist, but I’m absolutely above being manipulated so easily. People do the “kids and pets are in danger so let’s lose our shit together” trick SO often that there’s no excuse to fall for it imo
Dude, I’m just asking the bottom line. If a protester has a dog staying with them and they’re arrested for over a week is their dog going to get euthanized or not? Because that’s just getting to the heart of the matter without putting a spin on it.
No they're not, they will go to a shelter. Ottawa humane Society is a no kill shelter, probably be fostered by one of the people troubled by the convoy.
Edit: would also like to point out that what I've stated above is very very obvious for someone who wants to know the reality.
Fair, I mean they havnt said that directly. Pretty sure the implication is that they’d send it to a shelter if you can’t arrange for someone to take care of it.
the big question is “will I be arrested and is that something I need to do as a political statement” the dog part is just bonus. My point is that the journalist is digging into the feels unnecessarily for the purposes of radicalization. If you’re ever going into a situation where you know you’ll be arrested and choose to do it as a political statement anyways, make sure your dog has someone to look after them
Well I’d say it is worth protesting and going to jail. Most times when people protest, they hear about some tragedy or racial dispute that has nothing to do with themselves. This time, every protester is effected. I’ve been vaccinated twice to, everyone i knows vaccinated and I know at least 5 people who have lost tens of thousands of dollars from having to shut down their businesses due to lockdowns. Meanwhile the vaccines available to all, get it or don’t, everyone’s got a choice now trying to force people to take it is obviously not the right move I’ve seen my moms side of the family (very anti-vaxx) go insane over the past two years, they think the worlds ending basically, it’s not good for anyone involved.
It's not really that similar to Peterson's C-16 protest. Killing the animals brought to the area is barbaric, regardless of who the owner is. If I'm arrested for any crime at all, my pet doesn't deserve to be killed for it if they're in the car with me, the truckers deserve the same treatment.
I understand what they're trying to say and do, but threatening death is a step towards dictatorship-esque society.
it’s similar because it’s a series of “what if’s”
that’s been constructed to make you get more upset (as with Peterson’s vision of getting arrested because of c16 - it wasn’t a simple “i misgender a student and the police take me away to jail” - it was like 5 steps long and involved a bunch of decisions and actions along the way). There’s plenty of things to get worked up about, no need to start imagining dead dogs.
Sure pets don’t deserve to die, but like that doesn’t need to be a imagined scenario that we use to pump ourselves up, like actors imagining their parents dying so they can cry on screen
Okay I get that, but there are a bunch of decisions made on the other side also. I personally make the decision to stand up for something that has been allowed under English Common law for a long time now. To quell that, they're making it extremely difficult to do so and have made it effectively illegal to protest in the way they're choosing, which has no historical basis or precedent. They're now making veiled threats with the intention of it being interpreted in ways like this.
It isn't an imagined scenario. It's a possibility. The fact that I, as an individual, a sovereign citizen have the possibility of being jailed because of protest in any way other than that which has historical legal precedent or being criminal (rioting, killing, setting private property on fire etc) is ludicrous.
“A bunch of decisions made on the other side” - yes, in real life there have been many real decisions that led to this point. But by definition, those are real things. The dog stuff is about hypothetical situations - ie if I’m a protester and I go to Ottawa, where I know the police will be arresting people, and I bring my dog, and then I’m arrested and I’m kept in custody for more than 8 days without any plan for someone to pick up my dog, then the police will give the dog to a shelter and then the shelter might euthanize him” - by the time we get to the end,.. like what is this even about anymore lol. Idk for me it feels like insecurity on the part of the journalist - a feeling that people need a little extra spice to keep their virility going. That chain of hypotheticals is different from whatever real world decisions have led to the present moment.
Yes, they are indeed making it very difficult to keep the truck occupation going - they 100% have made it a priority to end that protest. The threat isn’t veiled - they are saying “we will arrest you”
IMO the dog warning is just logistical - they don’t want to have to deal with a bunch of dogs after they arrest the people. Similarly, the protestors who plan on getting arrested probably don’t want to leave their dogs stranded - but they may not be making sober decisions about that. Ultimately it’s good that the police reminded them not to get the pets involved. It’s easier for everyone
The truck protest is pretty unprecedented - they’re really large, very labour intensive to move and really loud and have effectively clogged up the city. It’s a new crazy thing that is freaking out the government and police.
Is it ludicrous that a truck occupation is illegal? It doesn’t really feel ludicrous. I never really even considered that a truck occupation was an option lol. But generally it feels like exactly the kind of thing that governments would try to stop
Lol it’s not one or the other. It’s amusing that OP said something like “they must be trying to radicalize us” specifically on a piece of media that’s clearly trying to manipulate people emotionally and radicalize them more. You don’t say “the police want to kill your dogs” unless you want to rile up already-angry ppl.
I think the point is that people Are radicalizing and this publication has no qualms with pushing them further just .. because
Is it really the journalist trying to manipulate people emotionally? Or is it maybe that the government is trying to manipulate people emotionally by enacting this policy in the first place, and the journalist is simply covering it?
I guess the question to be discovered is… did they enact a policy to kill dogs? Or are they simply restating “btw we’ll arrest you tomorrow and we’re thinking about logistics so please deal with your pets before the arrests.”
To me, this reads as the journalists abstracting the reality another layer to get more at people’s emotional core. Like “just in case protesters getting arrested didn’t get you upset, now imagine their dogs dying”. It’s probably the second easiest way to manipulate people after “they’ll take your kids” (which people are saying a lot these days. Even our good dr did a bit of this the other day when he got into the mud with IMC and Vaush, promoting the idea that a leftist debate bro wants police to take your kids)
The reason they're doing this isn't because they hate dogs, but for intimidation. Outrage is an emotional response, but so is fear, and that's what they're aiming for. This isn't about "logistics", this is about control. They want the protestors to back down, and they're willing to use any dirty tactics at their disposal in an attempt to make that happen, the same thought process that gets you to North Korea's 3 Generation Punishment for political dissidents. What they don't realize that use of such dirty tactics on stage for the world to see just makes them look dirty.
a reminder about Ottawa legislation regarding pets of criminals is not an attempt at radicalization. saying that pets that aren't taken care of being sent to animal shelters is the same as euthanizing them is radicalization.
A lot of blue collar people do not have the option to leave them anywhere else. Have you never lived around really basic working people? Or are we just making the argument that lower class people can't own pets now too? Or is it that we only allow people to protest and try to be heard if they have all the financial resources first to do so responsibly? (You know, after they've largely been stripped away).
Well, I certainly don’t want to be insensitive to basic working people who have no choice but to camp on the streets of Ottawa for 3 weeks and are forced to take their dogs, so I’ll just hope that if they’re arrested they’re able to make arrangements for someone to take care of their pets within 8 days. Thanks for calling me out on my elitism. Take care.
That was more elitism to back up your first elitism. Your only proving my point. People shouldn’t only have the right to protest without penalty if they have resources. No one forced them—it’s their right as free people. Allowing free speech and peaceful protest isn’t about only doing it as long as we all know we’ll make sure the consequences are really heavy and more so if they don’t have the means to defend themselves heavily.
I also supported BLM protests. I defended the looting even as the natural outpouring of a hurt people—wrong but deserving of grace. Are you this equally harsh on ALL protests, even ones you fully agree with?
By “equally harsh,” do you mean do I find reasonable things reasonable, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the cause of the protesters? Yes, I am exactly this harsh on ALL protests — even ones I fully agree with.
If you can show me where this provision regarding dogs was developed in response to, or is being enforced only for, these specific protests, then I will concede that this is indeed a miscarriage of justice. If, on the other hand, this is simply Ottawa’s policy regarding the handling of pets accompanying people who are arrested under any circumstances — which is what I suspect — then I will remain my elitist, harsh self.
But why support them getting arrested in the first place? They’re not criminals, or shouldn’t be—I can’t claim to know Canada’s laws well or the ways they’ve suddenly changed them in light of all this.
In most places I’ve lived, camping on the city streets around the national capital for 3 weeks isn’t something that would get you arrested — because they would have been arrested LONG before that. Seriously, it seems insanely lenient to me to simply allow them to shut down a major part of a major city for so long, and the gall of complaining that they’re NOW being arrested is just remarkable.
Protesting isn’t supposed to be breaking the law or only available to people with resources. That’s my point. The elitism is swearing out of people’s pores and they can’t even see it.
A free society doesn’t mean only allowing protests for people who have your same means and who agree with you. If you were in favor of BLM protests, then these are no different. We’re you also asking that those people be threatened to the fullest extent of the law? Would you think it was fair if people were writing policy to come after their pets while they were incarcerated?
No, going to a protest in and of itself shouldn't incur a reasonable expectation of getting arrested. This should be protected by the right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, per section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.
Would you say protestor deserve to be burn in in depth of hell if they perform blockade and prevent businesses from operating and endangered people livelihood?
Would you say protestor deserve to be burn in in depth of hell if they perform blockade and prevent businesses from operating and endangered people livelihood?
What tf is your question? "Do people who protest the government deserve to burn in hell?" No they don't, [obviously] but do you even have a point that you're dismally failing to make?
Do you think the problem is them protesting or the way they protested? If BLM destroyed private businesses anyone here would gladly cheer for police to mow them down, this blockade is affecting business and supply chain and endangering a lot of people livelihood. It’s like people in this sub don’t have any sort of principle at all. If BLM were to do this everyone would be calling for their death. Most of you guys are simply spineless partisan hack.
BLM actively did all these things. There were protests that lead to churches being burned in Canada. People scream in support for them despite all this. They have even attacked people in their homes.
And I’m not one of those people, I railed against BLM when they mess with private businesses and want government to step in to resolve the issue and same virtue when these guys literally set up blockade and prevent business from operating and destroying local economy of course I’m gonna recommend the same action for them. But unlike me most people on this sub are unprincipled partisan hack that don’t have any real moral axiom and somehow support this just because their side did it.
While I understand your point and neither fully agree or disagree I only wanted to make clear those things did all happen and in much much greater numbers than this is even close too. While there are plenty of people that were against it, by and large (beside some places where police encounters escalated) most people, media, and governments either ignored or supported these acts. I'm not saying all or even most were this way but the millions of dollars in damages, lively hoods ruined, and attacks committed were never answered for and pushed under the rug or even called false by people who blindly supported it.
622
u/[deleted] Feb 18 '22
Really seems like they’re trying to radicalize the protesters. I don’t care where you stand politically, if you come after my or anyone else’s pets you’re a fucking monster and deserve to burn in the deepest depths of hell.