Hi Alex, like you I find this story, and the whole Canadian Truckers protest, fascinating as well as concerning and have been following closely. The underlying human rights / freedom topic is as central to my agenda as it so clearly is to yours. Equally clearly we have a different take, which I am trying really hard to understand.
I also think it is interesting that the UK media response is little more than "yawn" - peremptory mention only. Why that is, is I suspect tied-up in one of our takes - hence my wish to understand? As well as the specifics, some of my interest is meta - how highly intelligent people come to different positions on such important topics. You are one of three people I am in current dialogues with in various media, on exactly this topic, that I hold high regard for their combination of intellect and intuitive caring (emotional and well as intellectual intelligence), where I find myself divergent - which is reinforcing that "What am I missing?" feeling.
Specifically, you identify a key point as to the characterisation of the protestors by the authorities, Trudeau in this case, but parallels from what I can see in UK, US, Australia and Holland. Again whatever the specifics of which rights and freedoms are curtailed by authority, the labelling of the other is what I think of as identity politics, and misunderstandings / misrepresentations of these distort and polarise the dialogue. I hesitate to use the word debate, because frankly freedom isn't debatable.
Your closing quote: "‘This is the biggest issue of our times,’ says Emma. ‘If we don’t have our human rights, we have nothing. Zilch.’" I can't argue with. Any difference is in what we believe "the big issue" is. What am I missing?
My take on freedom and human rights in general? :-
"Freedom runs on rails" or "The marionette is free *because* it has strings".
No freedom is absolute. As a minimum it comes with responsibilities. As a minimum it is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. More importantly, the presence of socially agreed constraints at one level, supports and even creates greater freedoms at other levels.
The specifics of particular Covid measures vs personal liberty or the specifics of media free-speech vs cancel culture (etc)? :-
A a complex balance of those freedoms and constraints above, further complicated by self-inflicted (democratically elected) incompetence and lack of trust in our imperfect governance institutions, authorities and individuals. (Culture, media, information and communications a big part of that, and a lot more besides ... )
Obviously not worth elaborating the latter specifics if we don't have at least some alignment on the general principles of the former?
I should add, since you and I don't know each other Helen, there is a bit of history here. I'm a big fan of Alex (eg http://www.psybertron.org/archives/15512 ). Whenever I raise some variation of that generic "freedom runs on rails" point in dialogue, the suggestion is I'm missing some (or several) points Alex is making. Just trying to understand what that is / they are?
About how much the story is in the news? Here the BBC Web Pages - on the front page, but not among the 10 top stories - not noticed it prominent on the regular Radio & TV news bulletins. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60364821 Police, residents and truckers all quoted. This quote "Never has a tantrum cost so many people so much." suggests the protest motives are not really taken seriously. (And this sarcastic quote from Dawkins https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1492634895872450562 - can't stand the man, as you know, but getting thousands of likes.)
Hi Alex, like you I find this story, and the whole Canadian Truckers protest, fascinating as well as concerning and have been following closely. The underlying human rights / freedom topic is as central to my agenda as it so clearly is to yours. Equally clearly we have a different take, which I am trying really hard to understand.
I also think it is interesting that the UK media response is little more than "yawn" - peremptory mention only. Why that is, is I suspect tied-up in one of our takes - hence my wish to understand? As well as the specifics, some of my interest is meta - how highly intelligent people come to different positions on such important topics. You are one of three people I am in current dialogues with in various media, on exactly this topic, that I hold high regard for their combination of intellect and intuitive caring (emotional and well as intellectual intelligence), where I find myself divergent - which is reinforcing that "What am I missing?" feeling.
Specifically, you identify a key point as to the characterisation of the protestors by the authorities, Trudeau in this case, but parallels from what I can see in UK, US, Australia and Holland. Again whatever the specifics of which rights and freedoms are curtailed by authority, the labelling of the other is what I think of as identity politics, and misunderstandings / misrepresentations of these distort and polarise the dialogue. I hesitate to use the word debate, because frankly freedom isn't debatable.
Your closing quote: "‘This is the biggest issue of our times,’ says Emma. ‘If we don’t have our human rights, we have nothing. Zilch.’" I can't argue with. Any difference is in what we believe "the big issue" is. What am I missing?
For the rest of us, can you explain what your take is, Ian? Thanks!
Hi Helen, thanks for asking.
My take on freedom and human rights in general? :-
"Freedom runs on rails" or "The marionette is free *because* it has strings".
No freedom is absolute. As a minimum it comes with responsibilities. As a minimum it is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. More importantly, the presence of socially agreed constraints at one level, supports and even creates greater freedoms at other levels.
The specifics of particular Covid measures vs personal liberty or the specifics of media free-speech vs cancel culture (etc)? :-
A a complex balance of those freedoms and constraints above, further complicated by self-inflicted (democratically elected) incompetence and lack of trust in our imperfect governance institutions, authorities and individuals. (Culture, media, information and communications a big part of that, and a lot more besides ... )
Obviously not worth elaborating the latter specifics if we don't have at least some alignment on the general principles of the former?
That OK for a start?
I should add, since you and I don't know each other Helen, there is a bit of history here. I'm a big fan of Alex (eg http://www.psybertron.org/archives/15512 ). Whenever I raise some variation of that generic "freedom runs on rails" point in dialogue, the suggestion is I'm missing some (or several) points Alex is making. Just trying to understand what that is / they are?
About how much the story is in the news? Here the BBC Web Pages - on the front page, but not among the 10 top stories - not noticed it prominent on the regular Radio & TV news bulletins. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60364821 Police, residents and truckers all quoted. This quote "Never has a tantrum cost so many people so much." suggests the protest motives are not really taken seriously. (And this sarcastic quote from Dawkins https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1492634895872450562 - can't stand the man, as you know, but getting thousands of likes.)