We Canadians had a fairly single issue election in the fall around vaccine mandates and the Liberal party won. The question is not “are mandates allowed” but “can a group be allowed to take cities hostage while trying to overthrow democratic rule.” The issuing of mandates was not even passed through fiat like an American executive order, this government is a minority government and at least one other party must support them to pass legislation.
One man’s authoritarianism view can be another man’s view of the state protecting it’s people. There certainly should be limits, but our election was highly focused on determining those limits (whether you like the FPTP system or not).
Maybe the better question you should be asking is whether a simple majority (50%) is enough to justify drastic and extreme countermeasures mandated by the government, two years into a pandemic, with no end in sight. You might think this is a perfectly reasonable and responsible thing to do, but half of your neighbors strongly disagree. Now that vaccines, testing, and masks are widely available, does the government have a right to continue interfering in people's lives? If so, when does it end?
There's really been nothing drastic or extreme about Canadian health mandates at all (I had a lovely dinner at a restaurant last night) and health officials have been telegraphing that the end is in sight for weeks before this protest even started.
Right now the hospitals continue to be overloaded and so long as that is the case the government's health officials absolutely have a right to limit risky activities that are likely to explode the amount of people going to the hospital.
If governments recklessly open up here the system could fall apart. Already Alberta and Saskatchewan have conceded to the protestors and are winding down health measures so we'll see what happens. I hope the worst fears don't come to realization.
> Right now the hospitals continue to be overloaded and so long as that is the case the government's health officials absolutely have a right to limit risky activities that are likely to explode the amount of people going to the hospital.
The hospitals here in Quebec have been overloaded and badly managed ever since I was of age to vote, and that's more than 20 years ago.
Most hospitals here have been operating above 100% capacity (you can find this information btw) for years. Waiting time in ER are crazy and the time to see a doctor have been reported to take in average 15 hours and up to 20 hours (pre-covid data in 2019) [1]. God forbid if you need to be hospitalized, as it can reach 24-48 hours.
Firing nurses over COVID measures before Christmas certainly didn't help, which is worth pointing out.
The politicians are trying to shift the blame of the bad healthcare systems happening under their watch to COVID.
Two things to consider: first, is this is Canada’s imperfect democratic system and I do wish for reform, but it’s what we have. The second is that it isn’t a fair comparison to look at just the Liberals and not consider the other parties mandate stances:
“The People's Party was the only party opposing vaccine passports, mask mandates and lockdowns”
The PPC received 4.94% of the vote, which implies more than 90% of voters chose a party which in some way supported mandates.
The majority of vaccine mandates are provincial. The federal government has only issued them for workers in federally regulated industries.
what you're describing is "tyranny of the majority" and not how democracy works.
the minority is retaliating because they feel their rights have been violated.
i'm not taking sides and i'm not asking you to, but you're kidding yourself if you think these truckers are a greater existential threat to you and your way of life than your government with its self appointed "emergency" powers.
For good or ill, "tyranny of the majority" is exactly how democracy works - and it's only ever "tyranny" to those who don't like the democratic outcome. Did you mean constitutional democracy, perhaps? Most constitutions, definitely including Canada's, enumerate rights that are supposed to be beyond the reach of normal legislation or executive action, but that's the "constitutional" part rather than the "democracy" part.
> i'm not taking sides ... but you're kidding yourself if you think
Given we're talking about Canada's democracy, constitutional democracy is implied. Thanks anyway for performing the tedium of explaining the differences for our fellow readers.
And respectfully, no I'm unable to take sides because I don't have skin in the game.
It's entirely possible to take a side on the ideological issue(s) without having a stake in a particular application, and it's extremely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Don't pretend to be a disinterested observer and then selectively repeat one side's claims. The fact that you haven't supported those claims with anything but insult ("you're kidding yourself") doesn't make them neutral.
You're trying really hard to get this dunk but you're just completely wrong. I'm not being disingenuous and I never claimed to be a disinterested observer; in fact, an interested observer is exactly what I am.
That's also very different from "picking a side". Like watching the superbowl because you care about the outcome, but don't support one team over the other. You just want to see a good, fair game.
Having an ideological stance is also very different from "picking a side". I'm not automatically friends or allies with people who happen to share a view with me. I'm not automatically enemies with someone that holds different or opposite views.
Further you've conflated an objective observation with an ideological one. The sky is blue. Water is wet. Executive figures with armies are a greater threat to the people than the freight labor class. This claim doesn't need "proving", it's reinforced by history. Feel free to challenge yourself to find evidence to the contrary instead of trying to saddle the burden on someone else.
We Canadians had a fairly single issue election in the fall around vaccine mandates and the Liberal party won. The question is not “are mandates allowed” but “can a group be allowed to take cities hostage while trying to overthrow democratic rule.” The issuing of mandates was not even passed through fiat like an American executive order, this government is a minority government and at least one other party must support them to pass legislation.
One man’s authoritarianism view can be another man’s view of the state protecting it’s people. There certainly should be limits, but our election was highly focused on determining those limits (whether you like the FPTP system or not).