How about doing the obvious? Get rid of the mandates. The feds can get rid of all of theirs with the stroke of a pen, and can tell the provinces that their emergency Covid funding will be cut off unless they get rid of theirs within two weeks. After all, the government gave them money contingent on passports - it can perfectly well stop it.
We all know that none of the mandates are doing any good at all anyway, so why not get rid of them?
Everyone in that convoy, and supporting them, knows that the entire motivation for the mandates now is to make people like them suffer. That's why they are angry. That's why they should be angry.
In a sensible world, the judges would already have ruled the the desire to make people suffer is not a demonstrably sound reason for overriding their Charter rights. Too bad we aren't in that world.
Get rid of the federal mandates, cut off money for provinces that don't get rid of theirs, and everyone goes home happy. Keep persecuting these people just because you don't like them, and the results won't be pretty.
Matt. When you started this Line thing, you said it would be no bullshit. Are you sure -- really sure -- that you know what you are talking about here.
The WHO has come out against mandates as an 'absolute last resort'. Are they fringe? Or misinformed?
They have a 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination. Are we following them? Notably, "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio (1)."
They reference the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Are they fringe, or uninformed? They have an excellent report, "Public health: ethical issues" dating back to 2007. It's a great read. If it is too long, try Chapter 3.
Of importance is 3.37, the intervention ladder. Are we following it, or did we skip over it?
Or how about Section 3.7: "...media stories often turn out to be based on anecdotes, unpublished reports or preliminary results, or they overstate, misrepresent or misunderstand the claims of the researcher."
Or Section 3.8: "Perhaps only some of the literature will be cited, or explanations rely on a particular strand of scientific evidence, ignoring or excluding other evidence. All groups, politicians, the media, single interest groups and scientists are capable of this."
Or Section 3.9: "A related issue is the status of views that are not considered to be ‘mainstream’ or typical of the scientific community. Such heterodox views sometimes turn out to be correct, so it is important that they are not ignored."
Or 3.46: "Political interests can also have significant impact on public health matters when politicians are motivated by the need to be seen to be ‘doing something’. They may have to choose between an intervention that would be popular straight away but ineffective, and another having less immediate appeal but more likely to be successful in public health terms."
Or 3.11: "Although scientific experts may sometimes be tempted, or pressured, in these circumstances into offering precise answers to policy makers, the honest answer will often be “we don’t know” or “we can only estimate the risk to within certain, sometimes wide, limits”. It follows that claims of absolute safety or certainty should be treated with great caution."
“The idea of vaccine passports raises ethical questions concerning respect for individual rights and interests, public health responsibilities and social justice. We are concerned that bringing in passports in relatively uncontroversial areas (e.g. for entry to large events and clubs) could pave the way to passports being required in other areas of life. This, we believe, could lead to discrimination against and a loss of opportunity those who cannot provide proof of vaccine status. It could also exacerbate distrust by marginalised people and increase vaccine hesitancy, particularly if this is seen as introducing mandatory vaccination by the back door or building surveillance apparatus for communities that are already disproportionately monitored.”
"the Government has not provided adequate evidence of the proposed policy’s effectiveness, nor an evaluation of less intrusive measures, to justify mandating vaccination."
Or the whole article for that matter.
On this note, I have a PhD that minored in biomedical engineering, read both the literature and GoC science, and work with microbiologists, whom I can quote as saying "We don't know" and "This seems draconian". Are we all fringe? Are we uninformed?
To continue this certainty, how about the GoC science itself. Vaccine advisory comes from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), whose Advisory Committee Statement -- long after these mandates were initiated -- states, "There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although studies are ongoing. Evidence of protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is emerging for the mRNA and Janssen vaccines." And, in the section "Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission" it states that "the current data is insufficient to draw conclusions" and AstroZeneca "has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection".
Is NACI fringe or uninformed? Do the vaccines really reduce transmission? Is it really safer to be around a vaccinated person who was just in a restaurant with 50 other people, versus and unvaccinated remote worker who isn't allowed in a restaurant? Really? Based on what science? What risk calculation? (I get a different answer when I plug in the math.)
Notably, Section 7 lists risks and is quite honest. It says, "It is unknown whether COMIRNATY has an impact on fertility." and "The safety and efficacy of COMIRNATY in pregnant women have not yet been established. It is unknown whether COMIRNATY is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for immunization against COVID-19."
The other vaccine monographs say the same thing. Are these manufacturers and Health Canada fringe and uninformed?
It states: "An important limitation of the data is the lack of information on the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The identified limitations are managed through labelling and the Risk Management Plan RMP)." The RMP is also described in monitoring feedback and updating the product monographs. This is an excellent risk management plan because both the labelling and monographs diversify risk via one-on-one informed decision-making between patient and doctor. Coercive measures eliminate Health Canada's own risk mitigation strategy.
Other countries and states are ending or forgoing such mandates, such as the UK, something like 20 U.S. states, notably including Florida and Texas. Canada seems to be one of the most restrictive. Are they all fringe and uninformed? Are they worse off and unhappy with the results?
It looks to me that these truckers represent the mainstream science, bioethics, and risk management. All you have to do is actually read the scientific reviews and materials. Perhaps reading the actual materials is considered "fringe". Who would have thought.
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but giving politicians and "medical experts" a pass on the complete failure which was the western world's response to covid because they "didn't know better" is wrong and lazy. Information is coming out daily which contradicts a lot of what was preached to us as gospel. Society was divided for cheap political points at pretty much every turn. Worst case, experts and politicians outright lied to us. At best, they just "did what they were told". I believe most politicians and medical experts are in the latter camp, but is banality an acceptable excuse for decisions which seriously fragmented society? Is it an acceptable excuse for the considerable erosion of trust in the medical community? For the people that lost their jobs for not getting a jab, then finding out that it didn't even protect from transmission, hospitalization, and even death? We all should be angry.
Like Trump was in America in 2016 this protest is an unclean wrecking ball, but it doesn't follow that the disease of which both phenomena are symptoms isn't real and serious. Whenever a population, or a significant portion of it, feels its concerns are being trivialized or ignored it becomes more susceptible to siren voices at the extreme ends of the political spectrum (historical examples abound, and I won't insult anyone's intelligence by citing them here).
So, what are we to make of poor Justin? We can't blame him for having failed to inherit his father's abilities and formidable intelligence, but it's worth noting a couple of salient facts about the latter. Trudeau Sr. was a serious, lifelong Catholic, perfectly at home in a tradition that's quintessentially hierarchical and conservative; yet he governed as a liberal and gave Canada some of the most progressive legislation in its history. Not for him the narrow constraints of ideology: a true original, he always set his own pace and was flexible and pragmatic. This isn't to say everyone agreed wholeheartedly with all his policies, of course, but at least those policies exhibited a grasp of what the real problems were and attempted to address them.
Can the same be said of Justin? Anyone who's suffered through one of his speeches knows the answer. He isn't stupid, but neither does he have an original thought in his head. He's simply internalized every politically correct bromide of his era, and re-externalizes the amalgam like a parrot without, evidently, having subjected it to critical examination even once. Choosing sides between the protesters and the objects of their wrath is probably the best he can do; don't look to him for a nuanced understanding of what funds their grievances and gives them some legitimacy.
In the good old days my parents voted Liberal federally and Progressive Conservative provincially (Ontario), and nobody thought this incoherent. The Liberals were the party of national unity and enjoyed broad support in both French and English Canada (except in Alberta, of course, a virtual one-party state for decades). Ontario's Conservative government spent lavishly in the two areas that really mattered to liberals--health care and education--and created the community college system that has been so successful. No mainstream Canadian politician of the era would have dismissed supporters of another party as 'deplorables.' Every party made an effort to appeal to as wide a range of voters as possible, an approach so seemingly commonsensical that it's hard to believe the extent to which it's fallen out of fashion.
It should be obvious where such reflection leads us. Is it logical to complain of division in a political climate that makes it clear that, whoever wins elections, the losing side can look forward to having zero input into policy, and to having its concerns mocked or ignored? The leadership we need will rediscover the wisdom not just of compromise but of civility and respect for dissenting opinion--and, alas, there's no sign that Justin has this capacity. He 'knows' who the white hats and the black hats are, and every time he speaks he unapologetically offends half the nation.
A couple of points that Matt missed. 1st is the hypocrisy of the government and the media. Burning churches and minority owned businesses in the name of social justice, fine. Secondly watching the Liberal attack dogs go after them is adding fuel to the fire.
Secondly while I agree there are a lot extremists here the out pouring of support is unprecedented in Canadian history and the Liberals ignore this at their peril. 1000s of people out in minus 20 weather, that's more than a fringe.
As an aside I highly recommend this article on Canada by an American. It explains Canada in a way I've never seen. Better Days, On Canada, COVID, the Convoy, and Class
Aside from this being a great article, this Comments section reminds me of one of the things I most like about The Line. Its readers are sane and can write in actual sentences.
This is the inevitable consequence of moving the goalposts and not providing clear signposts back to normality. I get that the science is constantly evolving (in terms of our understanding of Covid), but our government still approaches this as if it's March 2020. Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, flattening the curve to help out the medical system, etc. were logical and essential in 2020. They no longer are. (I say this as a person who believes in science, who is vaxxed and boosted). With vaccines, oral drugs, monoclonal antibodies and other treatments, we have the tools to resume normal life, even if that normality means an endemic disease (like flu or the cold are endemic). But our Prime Minister needs to get off his high horse and understand that he has the obligation to demand a resumption of normal life. For those of us who believe in the vaccines — and the evidence proving their efficacy is overwhelming — avoiding public places and masking everywhere is both unnecessary and irrational. Justin needs to start guiding us to the off-ramp or there will be more convoys and other eruptions that will get angrier and potentially more violent as time goes on and we're stuck in stasis.
Good write up Matt. I think we need a moderate party in this country. The Liberals are too far left and the Conservatives have been swamped by extremists on the other end. There's nothing left for those of us who live in the middle. Problem is, crazies and extremists have unlimited time and the megaphone of social media. Us normal people are busy working and paying the piper. Can't stay like this forever.
Two years ago, a lot of non-Native Canadians were up in arms about the Native blockades that were being set up on roads and rail lines. A lot of people cheered when police and ordinary citizens broke those blockades up.
If the trucker convoy sets up a bunch of blockades in Ontario, will the same people who wanted the police to go medieval on the Native protesters be wanting them to go medieval on the trucking protest?
It's entirely possible that some of the white nationalists and Trudeau-threateners end up causing violence, and soon everybody associated with the convoy is going to be tarnished by association. Exactly what measures have the convoy's organizers taken to keep their members from doing anything stupid like that? And what steps are they taking to keep the white nationalists and Trudeau-threateners out of the convoy in the first place?
All it could take is one idiot doing something like attacking a healthcare official or politician, and the entire convoy becomes tarnished by association. Most Canadians are already suspicious of the convoy and don't support its goals. Even in Alberta, of all places, they only get 35% support:
Not to mention that a number of other truckers are trying to distance themselves from the convoy. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, nearly 85% of drivers are vaccinated:
Oh, and it's worth noting that the U.S. won't allow unvaccinated truckers to cross the border anyway. Even if Ottawa and the provinces repealed their mandates and requirements, anyone hoping to go to the States is going to be SOL anyway.
Good piece. But I'm inclined to give politicians and medical officials a big benefit of a doubt on how the pandemic was) initially handled (no masks, then compulsory masking, Covid not a big deal, then it is). But no government had the slightest experience in handling a pandemic so it's kind of natural that the initial response is made up as you go along. That's how humans work., like it or not. As for mandates, figures would indicate they have helped persuade others to get a jab. And the vast majority of us who are vaccinated like being in places where the unvaccinated can't go, although Gurney is right in saying they can't last forever. I don't know why the truckers can't get it through their skulls that the US also has mandates that truckers must adhere to if they want to cross the border, so it doesn't matter what the feds do. Lastly, the protesters' manifesto would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic that the authors haven't a clue how the country actually operates. Again, a good article and I'm glad I recently subscribed.
The news media has not told us who these people are. You would think they are all truckers. Hearing that they are not makes sense. And if they get their clues from the US as all right and left movements have these last two years all the verbiage will be based on the US situation. So expect violence. The federal government has been wrong about everything during these pandemic so expect them to handle this badly.
Overall, which group of commenters here seem more thoughtful, attentive to the evidence, and willing to consider all arguments rationally? The pro mandate side or the pro choice side? Matt, you should consider that question carefully.
Drawing a line between the common good and individual rights is always very difficult, and in today's "everything is a wedge issue" world things have gotten dangerously violent. We need more dialogue, more understanding and more respect. We won't get any of that today.
As this Omicron variant wave crests and wanes, it would be good to discuss if anyone who could be persuaded or "prodded" to be vaccinated has done so, and if perhaps a good chunk of the 15% that did not vaccinate acquired immunity through infection... then a vaccine mandate is less of a public health tool. Let's public health officers make the determination, not politicians or social media influencers.
Seriously? Just a fringe? Not sure if you are intentionally being dismissive but this anti-vax mandate protest is not more fringe than "Occupy Wallstreet" . (That said, I am leery of protest movements.)
How about doing the obvious? Get rid of the mandates. The feds can get rid of all of theirs with the stroke of a pen, and can tell the provinces that their emergency Covid funding will be cut off unless they get rid of theirs within two weeks. After all, the government gave them money contingent on passports - it can perfectly well stop it.
We all know that none of the mandates are doing any good at all anyway, so why not get rid of them?
Everyone in that convoy, and supporting them, knows that the entire motivation for the mandates now is to make people like them suffer. That's why they are angry. That's why they should be angry.
In a sensible world, the judges would already have ruled the the desire to make people suffer is not a demonstrably sound reason for overriding their Charter rights. Too bad we aren't in that world.
Get rid of the federal mandates, cut off money for provinces that don't get rid of theirs, and everyone goes home happy. Keep persecuting these people just because you don't like them, and the results won't be pretty.
Matt. When you started this Line thing, you said it would be no bullshit. Are you sure -- really sure -- that you know what you are talking about here.
The WHO has come out against mandates as an 'absolute last resort'. Are they fringe? Or misinformed?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vaccine-mandates-absolute-last-resort-who-europe-head-says-2021-12-07/
They have a 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination. Are we following them? Notably, "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio (1)."
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1
They reference the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Are they fringe, or uninformed? They have an excellent report, "Public health: ethical issues" dating back to 2007. It's a great read. If it is too long, try Chapter 3.
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/public-health
Of importance is 3.37, the intervention ladder. Are we following it, or did we skip over it?
Or how about Section 3.7: "...media stories often turn out to be based on anecdotes, unpublished reports or preliminary results, or they overstate, misrepresent or misunderstand the claims of the researcher."
Or Section 3.8: "Perhaps only some of the literature will be cited, or explanations rely on a particular strand of scientific evidence, ignoring or excluding other evidence. All groups, politicians, the media, single interest groups and scientists are capable of this."
Or Section 3.9: "A related issue is the status of views that are not considered to be ‘mainstream’ or typical of the scientific community. Such heterodox views sometimes turn out to be correct, so it is important that they are not ignored."
Or 3.46: "Political interests can also have significant impact on public health matters when politicians are motivated by the need to be seen to be ‘doing something’. They may have to choose between an intervention that would be popular straight away but ineffective, and another having less immediate appeal but more likely to be successful in public health terms."
Or 3.11: "Although scientific experts may sometimes be tempted, or pressured, in these circumstances into offering precise answers to policy makers, the honest answer will often be “we don’t know” or “we can only estimate the risk to within certain, sometimes wide, limits”. It follows that claims of absolute safety or certainty should be treated with great caution."
Or take their public statements: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/a-bioethics-view-on-the-latest-covid-vaccination-policies
“The idea of vaccine passports raises ethical questions concerning respect for individual rights and interests, public health responsibilities and social justice. We are concerned that bringing in passports in relatively uncontroversial areas (e.g. for entry to large events and clubs) could pave the way to passports being required in other areas of life. This, we believe, could lead to discrimination against and a loss of opportunity those who cannot provide proof of vaccine status. It could also exacerbate distrust by marginalised people and increase vaccine hesitancy, particularly if this is seen as introducing mandatory vaccination by the back door or building surveillance apparatus for communities that are already disproportionately monitored.”
Or this on healthcare workers: https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/news/mandatory-vaccinations-for-health-and-social-care-workers-nuffield-council-on-bioethics-urges-government-to-gather-more-evidence-and-explore-other-options-more-thoroughly-before-introducing-coercive-measures
"the Government has not provided adequate evidence of the proposed policy’s effectiveness, nor an evaluation of less intrusive measures, to justify mandating vaccination."
Or the whole article for that matter.
On this note, I have a PhD that minored in biomedical engineering, read both the literature and GoC science, and work with microbiologists, whom I can quote as saying "We don't know" and "This seems draconian". Are we all fringe? Are we uninformed?
To continue this certainty, how about the GoC science itself. Vaccine advisory comes from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), whose Advisory Committee Statement -- long after these mandates were initiated -- states, "There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although studies are ongoing. Evidence of protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is emerging for the mRNA and Janssen vaccines." And, in the section "Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission" it states that "the current data is insufficient to draw conclusions" and AstroZeneca "has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection".
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines.html
Is NACI fringe or uninformed? Do the vaccines really reduce transmission? Is it really safer to be around a vaccinated person who was just in a restaurant with 50 other people, versus and unvaccinated remote worker who isn't allowed in a restaurant? Really? Based on what science? What risk calculation? (I get a different answer when I plug in the math.)
Or how about the vaccine manufacturers. Are they fringe and uninformed? They have to produce monthly product monographs submitted to Health Canada. For example, the Comirnaty monograph was last updated Nov 19 here: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
Notably, Section 7 lists risks and is quite honest. It says, "It is unknown whether COMIRNATY has an impact on fertility." and "The safety and efficacy of COMIRNATY in pregnant women have not yet been established. It is unknown whether COMIRNATY is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. The developmental and health benefits of breastfeeding should be considered along with the mother’s clinical need for immunization against COVID-19."
The other vaccine monographs say the same thing. Are these manufacturers and Health Canada fringe and uninformed?
On that note, these vaccines themselves were approved in a process with a risk management plan, e.g., Cominaty: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/regulatory-decision-summary-detail.html?linkID=RDS00856
It states: "An important limitation of the data is the lack of information on the long-term safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The identified limitations are managed through labelling and the Risk Management Plan RMP)." The RMP is also described in monitoring feedback and updating the product monographs. This is an excellent risk management plan because both the labelling and monographs diversify risk via one-on-one informed decision-making between patient and doctor. Coercive measures eliminate Health Canada's own risk mitigation strategy.
Other countries and states are ending or forgoing such mandates, such as the UK, something like 20 U.S. states, notably including Florida and Texas. Canada seems to be one of the most restrictive. Are they all fringe and uninformed? Are they worse off and unhappy with the results?
Did you know that the WHO recommends against getting booster shots except for those in high risk cases, and against vaccinating children: https://www.who.int/news/item/22-12-2021-interim-statement-on-booster-doses-for-covid-19-vaccination---update-22-december-2021
It looks to me that these truckers represent the mainstream science, bioethics, and risk management. All you have to do is actually read the scientific reviews and materials. Perhaps reading the actual materials is considered "fringe". Who would have thought.
How's that 'no bullshit' thing going?
Best to you and yours.
Edit: In case you want the other monographs:
Moderna's Spikevax, updated Dec. 23: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
AstroZenica's Vaxzevria, from Nov 19: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
J&J Janssen, updated Nov 23: https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
Updated with more details: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but giving politicians and "medical experts" a pass on the complete failure which was the western world's response to covid because they "didn't know better" is wrong and lazy. Information is coming out daily which contradicts a lot of what was preached to us as gospel. Society was divided for cheap political points at pretty much every turn. Worst case, experts and politicians outright lied to us. At best, they just "did what they were told". I believe most politicians and medical experts are in the latter camp, but is banality an acceptable excuse for decisions which seriously fragmented society? Is it an acceptable excuse for the considerable erosion of trust in the medical community? For the people that lost their jobs for not getting a jab, then finding out that it didn't even protect from transmission, hospitalization, and even death? We all should be angry.
Like Trump was in America in 2016 this protest is an unclean wrecking ball, but it doesn't follow that the disease of which both phenomena are symptoms isn't real and serious. Whenever a population, or a significant portion of it, feels its concerns are being trivialized or ignored it becomes more susceptible to siren voices at the extreme ends of the political spectrum (historical examples abound, and I won't insult anyone's intelligence by citing them here).
So, what are we to make of poor Justin? We can't blame him for having failed to inherit his father's abilities and formidable intelligence, but it's worth noting a couple of salient facts about the latter. Trudeau Sr. was a serious, lifelong Catholic, perfectly at home in a tradition that's quintessentially hierarchical and conservative; yet he governed as a liberal and gave Canada some of the most progressive legislation in its history. Not for him the narrow constraints of ideology: a true original, he always set his own pace and was flexible and pragmatic. This isn't to say everyone agreed wholeheartedly with all his policies, of course, but at least those policies exhibited a grasp of what the real problems were and attempted to address them.
Can the same be said of Justin? Anyone who's suffered through one of his speeches knows the answer. He isn't stupid, but neither does he have an original thought in his head. He's simply internalized every politically correct bromide of his era, and re-externalizes the amalgam like a parrot without, evidently, having subjected it to critical examination even once. Choosing sides between the protesters and the objects of their wrath is probably the best he can do; don't look to him for a nuanced understanding of what funds their grievances and gives them some legitimacy.
In the good old days my parents voted Liberal federally and Progressive Conservative provincially (Ontario), and nobody thought this incoherent. The Liberals were the party of national unity and enjoyed broad support in both French and English Canada (except in Alberta, of course, a virtual one-party state for decades). Ontario's Conservative government spent lavishly in the two areas that really mattered to liberals--health care and education--and created the community college system that has been so successful. No mainstream Canadian politician of the era would have dismissed supporters of another party as 'deplorables.' Every party made an effort to appeal to as wide a range of voters as possible, an approach so seemingly commonsensical that it's hard to believe the extent to which it's fallen out of fashion.
It should be obvious where such reflection leads us. Is it logical to complain of division in a political climate that makes it clear that, whoever wins elections, the losing side can look forward to having zero input into policy, and to having its concerns mocked or ignored? The leadership we need will rediscover the wisdom not just of compromise but of civility and respect for dissenting opinion--and, alas, there's no sign that Justin has this capacity. He 'knows' who the white hats and the black hats are, and every time he speaks he unapologetically offends half the nation.
Wow talk about a hot topic!!!
A couple of points that Matt missed. 1st is the hypocrisy of the government and the media. Burning churches and minority owned businesses in the name of social justice, fine. Secondly watching the Liberal attack dogs go after them is adding fuel to the fire.
Secondly while I agree there are a lot extremists here the out pouring of support is unprecedented in Canadian history and the Liberals ignore this at their peril. 1000s of people out in minus 20 weather, that's more than a fringe.
As an aside I highly recommend this article on Canada by an American. It explains Canada in a way I've never seen. Better Days, On Canada, COVID, the Convoy, and Class
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/better-days?r=8ahwm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Aside from this being a great article, this Comments section reminds me of one of the things I most like about The Line. Its readers are sane and can write in actual sentences.
This is the inevitable consequence of moving the goalposts and not providing clear signposts back to normality. I get that the science is constantly evolving (in terms of our understanding of Covid), but our government still approaches this as if it's March 2020. Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, flattening the curve to help out the medical system, etc. were logical and essential in 2020. They no longer are. (I say this as a person who believes in science, who is vaxxed and boosted). With vaccines, oral drugs, monoclonal antibodies and other treatments, we have the tools to resume normal life, even if that normality means an endemic disease (like flu or the cold are endemic). But our Prime Minister needs to get off his high horse and understand that he has the obligation to demand a resumption of normal life. For those of us who believe in the vaccines — and the evidence proving their efficacy is overwhelming — avoiding public places and masking everywhere is both unnecessary and irrational. Justin needs to start guiding us to the off-ramp or there will be more convoys and other eruptions that will get angrier and potentially more violent as time goes on and we're stuck in stasis.
Good write up Matt. I think we need a moderate party in this country. The Liberals are too far left and the Conservatives have been swamped by extremists on the other end. There's nothing left for those of us who live in the middle. Problem is, crazies and extremists have unlimited time and the megaphone of social media. Us normal people are busy working and paying the piper. Can't stay like this forever.
Two years ago, a lot of non-Native Canadians were up in arms about the Native blockades that were being set up on roads and rail lines. A lot of people cheered when police and ordinary citizens broke those blockades up.
If the trucker convoy sets up a bunch of blockades in Ontario, will the same people who wanted the police to go medieval on the Native protesters be wanting them to go medieval on the trucking protest?
It's entirely possible that some of the white nationalists and Trudeau-threateners end up causing violence, and soon everybody associated with the convoy is going to be tarnished by association. Exactly what measures have the convoy's organizers taken to keep their members from doing anything stupid like that? And what steps are they taking to keep the white nationalists and Trudeau-threateners out of the convoy in the first place?
All it could take is one idiot doing something like attacking a healthcare official or politician, and the entire convoy becomes tarnished by association. Most Canadians are already suspicious of the convoy and don't support its goals. Even in Alberta, of all places, they only get 35% support:
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/01/27/unvaccinated-truckers-freedom-rally-poll-canada/
Not to mention that a number of other truckers are trying to distance themselves from the convoy. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, nearly 85% of drivers are vaccinated:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry-not-all-truckers-support-the-freedom-convoy-1.5757952
Oh, and it's worth noting that the U.S. won't allow unvaccinated truckers to cross the border anyway. Even if Ottawa and the provinces repealed their mandates and requirements, anyone hoping to go to the States is going to be SOL anyway.
Good piece. But I'm inclined to give politicians and medical officials a big benefit of a doubt on how the pandemic was) initially handled (no masks, then compulsory masking, Covid not a big deal, then it is). But no government had the slightest experience in handling a pandemic so it's kind of natural that the initial response is made up as you go along. That's how humans work., like it or not. As for mandates, figures would indicate they have helped persuade others to get a jab. And the vast majority of us who are vaccinated like being in places where the unvaccinated can't go, although Gurney is right in saying they can't last forever. I don't know why the truckers can't get it through their skulls that the US also has mandates that truckers must adhere to if they want to cross the border, so it doesn't matter what the feds do. Lastly, the protesters' manifesto would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic that the authors haven't a clue how the country actually operates. Again, a good article and I'm glad I recently subscribed.
It’s sad that the only sane commentary is coming from Stephen Harper (excluding you & Jen, of course.)
According to multiple sources, the immovable object is now in hiding in an undisclosed location.
The news media has not told us who these people are. You would think they are all truckers. Hearing that they are not makes sense. And if they get their clues from the US as all right and left movements have these last two years all the verbiage will be based on the US situation. So expect violence. The federal government has been wrong about everything during these pandemic so expect them to handle this badly.
Overall, which group of commenters here seem more thoughtful, attentive to the evidence, and willing to consider all arguments rationally? The pro mandate side or the pro choice side? Matt, you should consider that question carefully.
Drawing a line between the common good and individual rights is always very difficult, and in today's "everything is a wedge issue" world things have gotten dangerously violent. We need more dialogue, more understanding and more respect. We won't get any of that today.
And on top of this there is the uncomfortable issue of what the data tells you. The Economist published a story (it may be behind a paywall) showing that in Canada and Europe vaccine mandates actually worked: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/01/22/do-vaccine-mandates-actually-work
As this Omicron variant wave crests and wanes, it would be good to discuss if anyone who could be persuaded or "prodded" to be vaccinated has done so, and if perhaps a good chunk of the 15% that did not vaccinate acquired immunity through infection... then a vaccine mandate is less of a public health tool. Let's public health officers make the determination, not politicians or social media influencers.
Seriously? Just a fringe? Not sure if you are intentionally being dismissive but this anti-vax mandate protest is not more fringe than "Occupy Wallstreet" . (That said, I am leery of protest movements.)
Edited to correct autocorrect.