Anti-lockdown protest – yes, here
There was an anti-lockdown protest Sunday morning in Montreal, and then these geniuses went to Quebec City and joined others to demonstrate at the National Assembly about how the lockdown “attacks their rights and liberties.” They’re apparently also afraid of vaccinations.
We could laugh (bitterly) and leave these Einsteins to their fate, but unfortunately we risk sharing space with them any time we leave the house. It’s not just themselves they’re putting at risk, it’s all of us.
Update: good photos from TVA including a sign saying “J’accuse Justin Trudeau d’incitation à la haine contre son peuple!!!” showing that overuse of exclamation marks is a sure sign of lunacy, whether on a sign or online.
david100 21:09 on 2020-05-17 Permalink
Was better when we didn’t have access to US television/media.
Kate 21:16 on 2020-05-17 Permalink
Was that ever true? There were US TV channels when I was a kid – WCAX Burlington and WPTZ Plattsburgh – and before that I know Montrealers could pick up American radio, because my dad was a fan of the Boston Red Sox long before the Expos were thought of. And before that, the New York Times and other U.S. newspapers would’ve been brought here by train.
david100 22:04 on 2020-05-17 Permalink
When I grew up in the late 1980s and 1990s, I distinctly recall that we suddenly had a flood of American teevee channels. Including Plattsburgh and – unless I’ve gone crazy – somewhere in Michigan?
But there’s nothing even remotely comparable to what we have now. I have an off-island cousin who knows A LOT more about the minutia of US politics than he does about Quebec or Canadian politics, which amazes me (and forget about local or even regional issues, aside from property tax and traffic). That’s not the sort of thing that was possible until fairly recently, without an enormous amount of work.
Kate 23:22 on 2020-05-17 Permalink
It’s true that some folks here feel that U.S. politics is more interesting – worse, more important to follow. Yes, it affects us, but not directly, and since we can’t vote there it’s somewhat academic to follow it.
I worked with a guy fairly recently who found my interest in local politics laughable. He lived in town but didn’t vote in city elections, then he’d go on to complain about things his borough did or didn’t do. I told him I’d got things done (minor street-level repairs and things, but stuff that can really affect a neighbourhood if they’re not fixed) by emailing my borough councillor – and he didn’t even know who his councillors were! But he didn’t want to know, and insisted it was useless to know, all while complaining about borough-level issues and listening to U.S. news radio in the office in the morning.
Mark Côté 00:47 on 2020-05-18 Permalink
Ready access to US news is only really a problem because of the revocation of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which directly led to the extreme partisan reporting that is commonplace now, which in turn feeds into some of these conspiracy theories.
Ephraim 12:33 on 2020-05-18 Permalink
Lots of things infringe on my rights. No drinking and driving infringes on my rights. Are they saying that’s okay too? At some point, you have to decide what is the greater good… passing around a disease or driving and killing people… I mean, let’s be realistic, less people die by drunk driving accidents… does that mean that we should just allow drunk driving… NO. And the same is true here. You don’t have a right to kill people.
Laura 13:39 on 2020-05-18 Permalink
That’s the beauty of democracy. You can can choose to stay home until there’s a vaccine. This virus is here to stay and life has to go on.
Chris 13:40 on 2020-05-18 Permalink
>No drinking and driving infringes on my rights
Which right? I don’t see “driving” in the Charter at all. I do see freedom of assembly though.
>You don’t have a right to kill people.
Not directly, but indirectly you sorta do. Driving your car emits pollution that kills people. Mining rare earth metals to build your smartphone kills people. As you said, you have to decide what is the greater good. There are good reasons to keep the lockdown and there are good reasons to end it. Different people have different life situations. For some, the pros and cons balance differently.
Kate 19:40 on 2020-05-18 Permalink
Laura, I don’t know you. You’re making remarks here with assumptions but no substance:
That’s the beauty of democracy.
Nothing to do with democracy here.
You can can choose to stay home until there’s a vaccine.
Two points here:
If work resumes generally, what happens to people with existing health conditions and many people over 60 who would choose to stay home, but can no longer get benefits enabling them to do so? That is not a choice.
There’s no guarantee we’ll ever arrive at an effective vaccine. In addition, work is already under way to scare gullible people into refusing it if we do.
This virus is here to stay and life has to go on.
In other words, a lot more people have to accept that they, or people close to them, have to die so you can get a haircut or have dinner on a terrasse. Is that correct?
Chris 13:54 on 2020-05-19 Permalink
>In other words, a lot more people have to accept that they, or people close to them, have to die so you can get a haircut or have dinner on a terrasse. Is that correct?
1.3 million die every year from motor vehicle crashes, 6 million die prematurely every year from air pollution, all so you can drive around in a cushy motor vehicle. Is that correct?
Kate 19:09 on 2020-05-24 Permalink
I don’t know who you’re addressing, Chris, but I don’t drive.