Truth be told, that "MOU" was so preposterously unaware of basic civics that it would embarrass a not very adept ten-year old. Just to start with its ridiculous title, "Memorandum of Understanding". That requires two parties to agree. What made the writers of this scribble think that the Governor-General and Senate would agree? And if t…
Truth be told, that "MOU" was so preposterously unaware of basic civics that it would embarrass a not very adept ten-year old. Just to start with its ridiculous title, "Memorandum of Understanding". That requires two parties to agree. What made the writers of this scribble think that the Governor-General and Senate would agree? And if they didn't, who was going to make them? If you're going to take over the government by force, you likely wouldn't ask permission and agreement beforehand. I know I'm off the pearl-clutching zeitgeist on this, but I never saw the protest as - absent the few weirdos - anything but a bunch of really, *really* frustrated people who, having endured two years of it, were up to their back teeth with being bossed around. The fact that the bossing was necessary does not take away an inch from the frustration. And I should mention that I live 6 blocks away from the protest and never felt either unsafe or hampered in my daily activities.
Let's also not forget that the entire episode, including the Emergencies Act, could have been averted but for the incompetence of Ottawa's then-police chief, hired by a City Council that should be a Harvard case study on municipal governance incompetence, who insisted on a warm and fluffy candidate so they could feel better about how police interact with citizens. Pro tip: the rule of law ultimately depends on the projection of force. If you can't either accept that or think that some "woke" formulation would somehow allow the dismissal of the "f-word" part of the equation, then you are too naive to ever be elected to anything.
I'll reiterate (in agreement with you) that the MOU was a dumb thing to do. It's likely it was written by a well-meaning and enthusiastic early supporter of the convoy, and was posted on the website by way of Abilene Paradox.
I'm willing, however, to read it through a most charitable lens and, like you, I see deep frustration in it. Nobody was setting out to overthrow the government; they were hoping to be taken seriously — and just months prior, the same people who wrote the MOU had watched our government negotiate with the organizers of the rail blockades; the precedent was set.
Add to that, that the only person to do anything useful early on was that 21-year-old lady who, having suffered several nights of horn-honking, went out and secured an injunction against it. Something that could have been done by City Council, of course, but it was too taken with pearl-clutching deer-in-the-headlights blather while listening to Chief of Police Hug-a-Bunny complaining of being overwhelmed (after not having taken the elementary precaution of blocking off streets leading to the Parliamentary Precinct before the truckers got here, causing the misery in the first place). As I said, a whole Harvard Business School course in municipal incompetence.
I don't attribute the Chief's mismanagement to incompetence. I believe Trudeau and others wanted escalation. There were only three ways out of it for Trudeau: either he could admit the mandates are nonsense, but the truckers would appear to have won; he could talk with the truckers, but doing so would be an admission that their grievances are valid; or turn the event into a political crisis such that he appears, to his base, as the saviour. For a narcissist like Trudeau, the latter option was his preferred course of action.
Truth be told, that "MOU" was so preposterously unaware of basic civics that it would embarrass a not very adept ten-year old. Just to start with its ridiculous title, "Memorandum of Understanding". That requires two parties to agree. What made the writers of this scribble think that the Governor-General and Senate would agree? And if they didn't, who was going to make them? If you're going to take over the government by force, you likely wouldn't ask permission and agreement beforehand. I know I'm off the pearl-clutching zeitgeist on this, but I never saw the protest as - absent the few weirdos - anything but a bunch of really, *really* frustrated people who, having endured two years of it, were up to their back teeth with being bossed around. The fact that the bossing was necessary does not take away an inch from the frustration. And I should mention that I live 6 blocks away from the protest and never felt either unsafe or hampered in my daily activities.
Let's also not forget that the entire episode, including the Emergencies Act, could have been averted but for the incompetence of Ottawa's then-police chief, hired by a City Council that should be a Harvard case study on municipal governance incompetence, who insisted on a warm and fluffy candidate so they could feel better about how police interact with citizens. Pro tip: the rule of law ultimately depends on the projection of force. If you can't either accept that or think that some "woke" formulation would somehow allow the dismissal of the "f-word" part of the equation, then you are too naive to ever be elected to anything.
I appreciate your comments.
I'll reiterate (in agreement with you) that the MOU was a dumb thing to do. It's likely it was written by a well-meaning and enthusiastic early supporter of the convoy, and was posted on the website by way of Abilene Paradox.
I'm willing, however, to read it through a most charitable lens and, like you, I see deep frustration in it. Nobody was setting out to overthrow the government; they were hoping to be taken seriously — and just months prior, the same people who wrote the MOU had watched our government negotiate with the organizers of the rail blockades; the precedent was set.
Add to that, that the only person to do anything useful early on was that 21-year-old lady who, having suffered several nights of horn-honking, went out and secured an injunction against it. Something that could have been done by City Council, of course, but it was too taken with pearl-clutching deer-in-the-headlights blather while listening to Chief of Police Hug-a-Bunny complaining of being overwhelmed (after not having taken the elementary precaution of blocking off streets leading to the Parliamentary Precinct before the truckers got here, causing the misery in the first place). As I said, a whole Harvard Business School course in municipal incompetence.
I don't attribute the Chief's mismanagement to incompetence. I believe Trudeau and others wanted escalation. There were only three ways out of it for Trudeau: either he could admit the mandates are nonsense, but the truckers would appear to have won; he could talk with the truckers, but doing so would be an admission that their grievances are valid; or turn the event into a political crisis such that he appears, to his base, as the saviour. For a narcissist like Trudeau, the latter option was his preferred course of action.