Military Response to Truckers

The truckers in Alberta have cleared one lane going north and one south. I imagine there was enormous pressure from the truckers stuck and unable to do their jobs. They are stopping goods from going on Alberta shelves. 

25% of Albertans own guns. The rest of Canada is at 14%.

90% of truckers are vaccinated. These are not them. Some truckers at the demonstration are normal but organizers are off the wall so I'm sure there are others there. There are t-shirts with a noose hanging over Trudeau's head. These are wannabe trumpers. 

I thought it was common for truckers to carry protection. I didn't think of it as a slur or that gun ownership is limited to white conservatives. Furthermore this is the far right not ordinary run of the mill conservatives.

eastnoireast wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The military was also used during the Oka crisis to keep the peace. 

pondering's assured, racist, and clueless analysis of recent canadian history.

I lived in Chateauguay at the time and supported the Mohawks. They wanted to deal with the military as they trusted them more than the provincial police. Provincial police had and still have a terrible relationship with the indigenous peoples of Quebec. The military guarded the barricades rather than police and when the Mercier bridge was reopened (through negotiation) it was the military that managed it.

Sovereignist were against the war measures act but it was requested and welcomed by Quebecers. The FLQ put bombs in mailboxes. They were holding politicians and murdered one before they were done.There are 10 army bases in Quebec. Most of the soldiers used were Quebecois. The military didn't do any policing. The problem wasn't the military it was that the War Measures Act also allowed provincial police to hold people for up to week without charges among other things.

The left lives in a political echo chamber every bit as much as the right. We are just as dogmatic.

The far right convoy has been warned. There will be injuctions and deadlines for them to comply. They have used their rigs to intimidate Ottawa police and residents. We didn't elect them yet they think they have the right to demand that laws be changed to suit them.

From the press conference with police and politicians they are going to move very slowly. The only goal of the police is to minimize the truckers footprint and prevent violence from breaking out. They expect more trucks will come on the weekend and there will be no effort to stop them.

I know that it is important that the military never be used against the people of their own country lest they be used for a coup.

The rigs are being used to intimidate police to prevent them from enforcing the law. Using the army to guard buildings will make truckers think twice about refusing to leave or resisting arrest. They could also be used to prevent food and fuel from entering the red zone.

NDPP wrote:

You seem to have forgotten about the CF beating almost to death Mohawk defender spudwrench, or the bayonetting of 14 year old Waneek Horn.

Sorry, no sale here on Canada's glorious military actions at Oka, torturing children to death in Somalia, destroying Libya, or training Nazi 'Punishers' in Ukraine.

I'm not saying the military isn't guilty of a lot of crimes in a lot of places but in Quebec Mohawks wanted military rather than police or RCMP with which they had a bad relationship. They won't have much of an opportunity to commit evil when they are acting as guards on Canadian soil and being video taped from multiple angles at all times. Military could be used to prevent food and fuel from being delivered.

I know absolutely nothing about military or police tactics. I can't imagine the complexity of the planning that is going on right now in deciding how to deal with the truckers.

Even though I see the hypocrisy in how they are dealing with this situation vs how they deal with indigenous protest I still think the police are probably doing the right thing by priorizing preventing violence. I think they are right to consider that arresting truckers might inflame them and worsen the situation.

That's what we always want right? Deescalation rather than confrontation.

NDPP wrote:

You seem to have forgotten about the CF beating almost to death Mohawk defender spudwrench, or the bayonetting of 14 year old Waneek Horn.

Sorry, no sale here on Canada's glorious military actions at Oka, torturing children to death in Somalia, destroying Libya, or training Nazi 'Punishers' in Ukraine.

I'm not saying the military isn't guilty of a lot of crimes in a lot of places but in Quebec Mohawks wanted military rather than police or RCMP with which they had a bad relationship. They won't have much of an opportunity to commit evil when they are acting as guards on Canadian soil and being video taped from multiple angles at all times. Military could be used to prevent food and fuel from being delivered.

I know absolutely nothing about military or police tactics. I can't imagine the complexity of the planning that is going on right now in deciding how to deal with the truckers.

Even though I see the hypocrisy in how they are dealing with this situation vs how they deal with indigenous protest I still think the police are probably doing the right thing by priorizing preventing violence. I think they are right to consider that arresting truckers might inflame them and worsen the situation.

That's what we always want right? Deescalation rather than confrontation.

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

25% of Albertans own guns. The rest of Canada is at 14%.

On 14 July 2016 a 19-ton cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.

A shotgun pales in comparison to the destructive power of a large truck.

I agree which is why the rigs themselves are such a serious threat. All I said is police have to consider the possibility that some of the truckers are armed either with guns or some other weapon. It was in response to the suggestion that the police could use the jaws of life if truckers locked their doors.

They managed to get an agreement to open two lanes in Alberta but another blockage popped up farther north to stop trucks from getting to the border.

I think if police thought they could just arrest the truckers and tow the trucks without risk of violence they would do it. Maybe I am wrong and police are doing this for reasons I don't know but if so it is both Alberta police and Ottawa police. Quebec city and Toronto are expecting convoys so we will have to see if those police are any more successful.

All I know about police and military operations is what I have seen in the movies or on cop shows so I really don't know what the solution is.

Maybe the police are lying and they could end this within a day with relative ease but no one is mentioning how that might happen. Do people think there is no danger for police if they start arresting the truckers and forcibly removing them from their trucks?

It seems to me stopping the fuel from being delivered should be possible but I am no expert on those sorts of logistics. Now they have begun to stockpile fuel in a fenced area and they are building a structure.

It's really easy for us to be critical of police for saying there might not be a police solution. It seems plausible to me that police can't solve the situation.

How do you deal with the unspoken threat of rigs being used as weapons? I would think the unspoken threat of military guarding buildings while police do the arresting. Maybe there is some other approach. Maybe bringing riot police from around Canada would work but I don't think so.

The current Ottawa occupation isn't the problem in and of itself. The problem is it is creating a precedence of using rigs to physically intimidate police and politicians into complying with demands.

So I am seriously asking. What would you do? How would you handle the situation? Ignore it indefinitely? Fire the chief of police if he doesn't order action?

Paladin1 wrote:

The police and politicians like to say police don't take marching orders from politicians but they do.

Jim Murphy does a great job of explaining what's going on with the police in Ottawa based on his experience in the Toronto Police.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489232877095112705

As for what I would do? Tricky question. Truckers are used to living away from home and living out of their vehicles. Could deny them food and fuel, but non-protesting truck drivers would suffer. Then Ottawa would start running out of toilet paper and wouldn't be getting those online orders.

Going in and arresting everyone runs the risk of turning them into martyrs and causing more truckers and supporters to flock in - especially when the government has seen fit to let other protests linger for months.

 

Other protests didn't include rigs idling constantly, blowing their horns incessantly and using those rigs as weapons of intimidation. In Canada I have never heard of a protest that leaves the entire neighbourhood frightened to the extent that a major mall has had to be closed indefinitely and people are afraid to go for groceries and are being driven mad by the noise.

I meant denying fuel to the truckers having fuel delivered in containers to the red zone. Eventually they would run out.

Most truckers don't support them. They are giving truckers a bad name. They aren't protesting they are terrorizing citizens and using Parliament Hill as a campground for tailgate parties.

This is nothing like any other protests ever in Canada. In this context the trucks are weapons of deterence every bit as much as if they were guns.

Progressive protests never have nazi symbols because anyone who dared show up with one wouldn't last 5 seconds without being surrounded by an angry crowd and the flag destroyed. You won't see t-shirts with a noose hanging over O'Toole's head. Nor do they use speakers to blast noise to drive people nuts.

During the nightly student protests in Montreal with pot banging we stopped when passing by hospitals and we didn't stay on one spot driving people insane. Other people banged pots at 6 PM but then stopped.

I agree that politicians at all levels are definitely involved. They are stupid to say otherwise. Of course they don't order police operations but they participate in discussions on direction and focus. So I am wondering what the reasoning is on the approach being taken so far.

The organizers finally agreed to an MSM interview to try to plead their case with the public. They are losing the PR war in a big way. Sympathy is with the residents whose lives are being made a misery and the mall workers and women from the shelter too afraid to go outside. A buddy system has been organized so no one has to walk alone to get groceries.

The organizers are saying we should blame the government because as soon as the mandates are all lifted they will leave. They don't want to be there. That's obnoxious.

Here's another idea. Warn them that their trucks are going to be kettled and impounded and do it. Block all exits with heavy machinery leaving only one opening for departures then close that one too.

I want injuctions and I want the truckers to pay as heavy a price as indigenous people pay when they demonstrate peacefully on their own unceded territory. I want police to bring out the big guns and handcuffs like they do when they are arresting unarmed elderly women.

I want to see snipers on the roof tops. That might make truckers think carefully before resisting arrest violently.

Thank you Paladin. I'm not so sure I would be the same if I had grown up leftist or being more politically aware in my 20s and 30s. My instincts lean left but I haven't absorbed all the theories and the history leftist ideals were build on.  I am constantly checking dictionaries for the meanings of words like capitalism and neoliberalism because unless I am looking at the definitions I forget the difference between them. 

At the same time I have come to realize that questions like "Why do you support Trump" are gotcha questions.  I can't always come up with the reasons I support or condemn an idea or a person on the spot. I don't think fast on my feet but just because I can't call up my reasons at will doesn't mean I made an ignorant choice. 

As an example, I am an abolitionist when it comes to prostitution whereas many on the left, probably the majority, believe it should be legal. I can't come up with all my reasons on the spot but I know I have invested a lot of time in coming to that conclusion. But if someone put a mic in front of my face and said defend your position I would sound vague and ill-informed. It wouldn't make me wrong. 

I prize intellectual honesty over debating skill and I believe in the long run it's more successful. If you win with debating skill the person goes home and reverts to their original ideas. If you lose, but you made points the other person can acknowledge as meaningful you can at least approach mutual understanding if not agreement. 

So I will apply intellectual honesty to the trucker convoy.  I think the "free speech" argument for Nazi symbols is mostly disingenuous coming out of the mouths of the leaders of the convoy but I agree the attendees are a very mixed bunch.  Given that it is called the "Freedom Convoy" it is reasonable to believe that many are dedicated libertarians so while they may object to a Nazi symbol their first instinct would not be to interfere physically. It would be to defend free speech no matter how abhorent the message. 

I appreciate your posts as well Paladin. They are always thoughtful and often informative.

Paladin1 wrote:I agree with you. Just like calling someone a Nazi is a weapon now, these trucks are weapons too.

The trucks are there to physically intimidate the police.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coutts-border-blockade-protest-alberta-1.6334990

As teams of officers approached truck cabs, a handful of drivers began slowly peeling off and driving away, Peters said.

At the same time, north of Coutts, other protesters breached an RCMP roadblock on Highway 4 and joined the blockade, driving through the ditch and south toward the border in the northbound lane at high speed, Peters said.

Meanwhile, several trucks driving north, away from the border, were also driving in the same lane in the opposite direction. A head-on crash happened at that time, which resulted in an assault, police said.

At that point, RCMP said they decided to pull back.

Police don’t have the kind of equipment that can stop a rig. The rigs are being used as an unspoken threat but when someone is pointing a gun at you words are not required to understand that you are being threatened. How many police/people could be killed by one rig before it could be stopped? They’d have a better chance against a shotgun. Police are not pretending the situation is dangerous it actually is dangerous.

That is what prompted me to think of the military. Not to actually act, just to serve as an intimidation tactic the same way the trucks are an intimidation tactics. It’s very unlikely a rig will be used to run over police or police cars. The possibility is still strong enough that it can’t be ruled out. Since then I discovered that the RCMP are so militarized at this point that they have everything short of tanks.

Paladin1 wrote: No but communist and che guevara shirts are all the rage. The former killed more of their own people than Nazis. The latter murdered people and forced homosexuals into labour camps.

 Nazi symbols have come to represent white supremacy. Che Guevara is a symbol of rebellion and represents support for socialism. Those who promote communism like those who promote democracy are promoting a system not a particular country’s application of it. Some people may come from socialist or communist countries and not like those systems but they are not threatened by them. There are no communists or socialists physically attacking anyone in Canada. Vandalism and violence against minorities is happening. Confederacy flags and Nazi symbols are threatening because they provoke or encourage people to go on shooting sprees or run people over in the streets because they see them as a threat.

Paladin1 wrote: Progressive comments turn just as violent as right-wing ones online. Using speakers to blast noise and drown people out IS something progressives (just like right-wing) does.

I’m not aware of any specific incidences but I could see using speakers to drown out someone promoting racism. Purpose and duration matters. There is a huge distinction between the right and the far right for which there is no equivalent on the left in terms of North America and much of the modern world. Extremists on the left are a tiny fraction of those on the right. The left does not generate violence against people based on race or political views. Nobody is threatening or heckling straight white men when they walk down the street unless they are homeless. The Liberal Party contains nothing that could be compared to the right wing of the Conservative party. The NDP doesn’t either. The far right aims their guns at the most vulnerable. The far left "threatens" the powerful.

Pondering wrote: During the nightly student protests in Montreal with pot banging we stopped when passing by hospitals and we didn't stay on one spot driving people insane. Other people banged pots at 6 PM but then stopped.

Paladin1 wrote: Sliding scale of using noise to harass people.

The intent was not to harass people and no one felt harassed. It was a message to the government of support for the students. Those marching were passed any area in maybe 10 to 15 minutes at most. The 6PM banging was limited to 5 minutes. If the truckers were sounding their horns for 15 minutes at day at a specific time even though they are much louder the complaints would be minimal and even people on the left would be supportive on the basis of the right to protest.

Paladin1 wrote: I don't think they need to win the PR war. Trudeau has already divided the country. These guys raised 10 million dollars in a few days.

The country is not evenly divided. The grand majority are against the occupation and want action to be taken against them. The majority supports vaccine mandates whenever transmission is high enough to threaten the hospitals. The support for lifting restrictions is high in the moment but that doesn't mean they support never having vaccine mandates or other restrictions. If there is another surge that threatens hospitals vaccine mandates will be the most welcome restriction for most people way ahead of any other restriction.

Nobody ever claimed the right is short of money. For all we know 100 people donated 90% of the funds and they could all be Americans. I’m sure they have much more support than that but you get my drift. Leftists tend to be middle-class or lower and there aren’t as many on the far side.

Paladin1 wrote: As for sympathy being with the residents, maybe. How empathic were Ottawa citizens towards the Wet'Su'Weten, Lobster issues out east, other protests? Pipelines and such? Ottawa citizens strike me as rather apathetic.

Across most of the country not just Ottawa people are identifying with the residents impacted by the horns and harassment on the street. The demonstrations of convoy support along the way do not represent even close to majority support.

Paladin1 wrote: Your buddy organizing it so people don't have to walk alone is nice. Why wasn't he doing that before the truckers came? I guarantee the crime rate in the core with all the police around is lower at this time.

Not my buddy, a buddy system run by aid organizations. The area around the parliament buildings is not a high crime area. Women’s shelters are not placed in areas the women are likely to be harassed. The mall is high end and there is also a hospital. This is not skid row.

Paladin1 wrote: What do you find obnoxious about it? Lifting the now-useless mandates is much more achievable than what other protestors in the past (and present) have asked for.

It’s the intimidation factor along with the desire to overthrow the government giving control to the senate and themselves.

Pondering wrote: Here's another idea. Warn them that their trucks are going to be kettled and impounded and do it. Block all exits with heavy machinery leaving only one opening for departures then close that one too.

Paladin1 wrote: Another example of something previously viewed with disdain (kettling) being an acceptable tactic and behavior when it's for something we support.

I would not support kettling the truckers or any protesters, only the trucks themselves. 

Pondering wrote: I want injunctions and I want the truckers to pay as heavy a price as indigenous people pay when they demonstrate peacefully on their own unceded territory. I want police to bring out the big guns and handcuffs like they do when they are arresting unarmed elderly women.

Paladin1 wrote: Eye for an eye. So not just about clearing the protestors but punishing them.

No, it is to discourage continued occupation and repeat occupations. If an extreme response is required to safely address a small peaceful blockade in the middle of nowhere, with snipers just in case, then it is surely needed to address the truckers blockade. Snipers on the roofs would discourage truckers from swarming police. The truckers have made it clear they are serious. They won’t leave until they are afraid rather than confident that they have the upper hand.

I don’t support the response to the Wet'Su'Weten blockade. It is massive overkill. There is no reason for RCMP to suspect they will come under fire. They claim it is in an abundance of caution.

The trucker’s occupation is far more threatening. The trucks themselves are deadly weapons if just one driver decides to use it to intimidate police and miscalculates. Truckers speeded towards police in Alberta and I believe they need a long stopping distance. Police did jump out of the way but there was also a head on collision. When police say they fear escalation they mean they are physically afraid they will be attacked.

Police handle much larger demonstrations without fear of being swarmed. There is never any doubt that they control the situation even if they need bring in the riot squad to clear the last of protesters. There is no doubt as to who is going to win, ever. The same should be true of the trucker convoy. 

Right. But setting a precedent stemming from a legal decision shouldn't impact the decision-making process. That would be like you taking me to court and the judge saying you're obviously in the right and I'm obviously in the wrong but they won't rule in your favor because it might set a bad precedent.

Not a legal precedent a behavioral one. 

https://blackburnnews.com/sarnia/sarnia-news/2022/02/06/farm-convoy-head...

He said the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa sparked the movement by farmers.

“We’re proud of the truck drivers, we’re proud of the movement that they’ve made,” he said. “I think everybody has been motivated by the truckers. The way they’ve gone about it has been so professional. They’ve been so safety conscious, they’re very polite, they’re very friendly. It’s been a very positive thing.”

Ottawa police have been saying for days that they can't manage it. Province said they can't step in without a request. Police say the convoy is on land the city doesn't own. The feds say nothing. Police claim they need a court injunction to act. Quebec provincial police didn't need one to arrest a trucker for blocking the road nor to tell the others that their tolerance was over and they had to move or get arrested and towed. 

Apparently in Ontario it is legal to block traffic by setting up trailers to live in. It's only illegal if you do it in a park. Why shouldn't the homeless set up anywhere they please as long as it is in the middle of the road instead of a park?

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/21-infractions-and-one-arrest-on-third-day-o...

One arrest has been made as of Saturday evening, according to police. Around 8 p.m., a 31-year-old man was arrested for blocking the road, which was being reopened to traffic, with his pickup truck.

end

Ontario should look into Quebec's laws.

Police tactical teams get training shooting through windshields and door glass. If the truck is moving it's more difficult. Shooting through the body of the cab is hit or miss.

This is a good "but what about" example when citizens oppose police officers purchasing heavy "military-like" equipment.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-police-armoured-vehic...
It's actually not illegal in Canada for civilians to own armored vehicles, even tanks.

Semi-tractors can be turned into devastating weapons- something next on the ban list perhaps.

Police can't shoot first and I am not suggesting they actually shoot protesters unless the protesters assault police. If protesters see big guns they are less likely to swarm police. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-protest-convoy-length-ticke...

"I know the public says, 'Just get in there and ticket,' but police officers are being swarmed … We have to use judgment and common sense."

Your link https://abacusdata.ca/freedom-convoy-public-reaction-february-2022/

 Large majorities of Liberal (75%), NDP (77%), and BQ (81%) voters say they have little in common with the protestors. Even 46% of Conservatives agree. Together that's a majority. It's true they were not asked if the convoy should be allowed to remain but they are against the aims of the convoy and the convoy won't leave until it achieves its goals. I doubt people are supportive of the convoy staying put for months or years. 

I think you're falling for some of the propaganda here. Political parties love saying they're made up of the middle class. I've seen middle-class income suggested being between $20,000 - $200,000 a year, quite the span.
Do you think there were many middle-class people joining Trudeau at his $2000 a plate parties?

Just because the Liberals are left of the Conservatives doesn't make them leftists. We're talking about the kind of people likely to donate money to a protest. That isn't centrists. The far right is much larger than the far left. 

Maybe we're both guilty of confirmation bias here. My friends and peers are sitting at around 50% for support/not support.

Your friends and peers likely lean Conservative. The majority of Canadians are left of the Conservatives. 

Cops can't push and shove trucks with riot shields though. I'm not sure how it would work with 12 ton trucks.

Trucks could be kettled by blocking all exists with garbage trucks and snow clearing equipment and buses and whatever else is needed. Truckers would get one warning. Leave or the trucks will be impounded. The protesters themselves could leave whenever they choose. 

https://torontosun.com/news/national/convoy-plans-to-replace-canadas-ele...

A document posted on the group’s website entitled the “Memorandum of Understanding” seeks an agreement with Canada Unity representing the people of Canada, the Senate represented by speaker George Furey, and Governor General Mary Simon. Some things the document does not mention include Parliament, the elected House of Commons, cabinet or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Canada Unity is the main organizer, I didn't vote for them. They have no right to to try to coerce the government to give into their demands. That's insurrection. 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insurrection

an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:

They are using the threat of violence in the form of the rigs. They have stated, repeatedly and firmly, that they will not leave until the laws are changed. Like Kropotkin I can see the weaknesses in our democracy but Canada Unity does not have the right to even try to force the elected government to bow to their will through coercive and threatening means. 

A missed shot runs the risk of hitting a bystander or other cop. If truckers rushed the police the snipers may not be able to shoot. There's quite a bit involved with their use of force rules.

I don't think it would come to that. I think the mere presence of RCMP snipers would deter protesters from swarming police. Riot squad should be deployed as well. 

It makes a good argument these giant machines should be banned. Only smaller lighter trucks with speed limiters and limited cargo capacity should be allowed.

A car can be used as a deadly weapon so banning isn't feasible. If they are being used in a threatening manner they are being used as a weapon. Baseball bats can be classified as a weapon if used to intimidate or attack.