I read your post. It was and remains a bad take. Who, precisely, was the PM supposed to meet with?
My post didn’t take sides, I simply said if he met with them and listened to their concerns things would have disolved quicker.
I didn't say I supported them.
As for who should he meet with? How about the ones charged for leading the protest? You say there was no clear leader but the media at the time mentioned Tamara Lich as the leader repeatedly.
Quote from Ottawa citizen about Tamara Lich "During the Ottawa protest she spoke at press conferences, urged supporters to remain peaceful, and was involved in negotiating an aborted deal with Mayor Jim Watson to move some trucks out of residential areas downtown."
As for the asshats that tagged along if the organizers left the asshats would soon follow, the whole cut of the head analogy would prevaile here.
What there wasn’t was any clearly accepted and defined core leadership at that time who actually could speak for the larger group. Meeting with any of them would have been essentially picking and legitimating a few from among them.
I am not a social media user but even i heard the media called Tamara the organizer even before the convoy set out.
And, quite frankly, I doubt the PM or other senior members of government would have been particularly safe in their company.
With an army, police force and media to protect him. Please.
You’re essentially endorsing public policy reform by tantrum and coercion. Maybe you’re cool with that, but that doesn’t get you to the grown ups table. Nothing I saw on the ground suggests that the core group of a couple thousand would be placated simply by “being heard”. They had demands that they tried to force through outside the lawful system, and they occupied the downtown core and denied its peaceable use to tens of thousands of others for three weeks over it. They were certainly seen and heard by everyone, but they wouldn’t take ‘no’ for an answer, and so it went the way it went.
I didn't endorse anything, I just stated the fact that when angry people feel heard they get less angry. I use this principal regularly when my children argue. I give each one the chance to say their peace when they are done the anger is 10% of what it was and a conversation can happen.
They made their intent clear on the way here. There was never any cohesive leadership acting in reasonably and in good faith for government to meet with. Just a bunch of disparate but overlapping groups counselling criminality. Some figures did emerge as more centralized, if loose, leadership once they got here and dug in, but there was nothing those people were doing that would have justified legitimating their tactics by bowing to demands to parley.
Name a protest, right wrong or indifferent that was listened to without causing disruption? If a protest doesn't disrupt someone it just gets ignored.
Being tax paying citizens justifies their voice, if they can't get heard using normal means than I support their right to protest peacefully. Farmers protest by clogging the highways with Tractors and when the get to parliament they don't get called racists and get their accounts frozen.
The core group of trucker protesting the mandates were peaceful. The groups being idiots happen. The same has happened with the Palestine protesters, some want peace and I fully support their right to call for it. Some believe the Isrealites deserved Dec 7 and are calling for Jewish blood, that I cannot support. Don't paint them all with the same brush, that's very juvenile.
AFAIK PMJT refused to meet with anyone relating to the convoy. That is my basis for my posts.
