Excerpt from Wiki Definition of Human Shield: Human shields are legally protected persons—either civilians or prisoners of war—who are either coerced or volunteer to deter attacks by occupying the space between a belligerent and a legitimate military target.[1
I see your wikipedia and raise you a Merriam-Webster: “a person whose body is used as a protection from harm by someone else.”
Not that a writer is obliged to use terms only according to their meanings under law, or can’t string words together to convey his or her own interpretation.
Human shields are typically seen in the context of military operations. IMHO, peaceful protesters (and their children) should not be treated as military targets (and the police should not be given military operations to carry out). In fact, preserving families, spouses and children from harm is a societal good. I fear that society has forgotten prior lessons and we may have in Ottawa a 21st century replay of the attack on 6221 Osage Avenue, Philadelphia in 1985. See: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/8/8/20747198/philadelphia-bombing-1985-move
for pissing off Canadians by meddling in the internal affairs of Canada by supporting the anti-vaxxers.
Are you interfering in the internal affairs of Canada by initiating this thread (this comment is based on my assumption that you are a US citizen based in the US)?
IOW, I have assumed that you have no, or minimal, contacts with Canada (may, or may not, be a good assumption).
Are you interfering in the internal affairs of Canada by initiating this thread (this comment is based on my assumption that you are a US citizen based in the US)?
Are you interfering in the internal affairs of Canada by initiating this thread (this comment is based on my assumption that you are a US citizen based in the US)?
Relevance of the above MOL citation appears attenuated. The URL above links back to my 2016 critique of a CNN story issued apparently from CNN's Amsterdam bureau, or correspondent, regarding Geert Wilders and free speech.
In the original posting here, tjohn appears to be commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Rather than critiquing media reports of Canadian politics. Additionally, tjohn has made the assertion that "right wingnuts [have] piss[ed] off Canadians by meddling in the internal affairs of Canada by supporting the anti-vaxxers." .AFAIK, tjohn's initial thread posting is an analysis of Canadian politics (rather than a critique of a new agency's reporting of Canadian politics). This posting affects Canadian politics because this analysis favors one spectrum of Canadian politics (namely, the spectrum that believes that the truckers are a "fringe minority" that holds "unacceptable views"). .See: https://globalnews.ca/news/8539610/trucker-convoy-covid-vaccine-mandates-ottawa/ My goal in my posting above was to push-back on the concept of an overly broad definition of foreign interference. In my push-back posting on this issue I asked tjohn the following: "Are you interfering in the internal affairs of Canada by initiating this thread?"
In the original posting here, tjohn appears to be commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Rather than critiquing media reports of Canadian politics. Additionally, tjohn has made the assertion that "right wingnuts [have] piss[ed] off Canadians by meddling in the internal affairs of Canada by supporting the anti-vaxxers." .AFAIK, tjohn's initial thread posting is an analysis of Canadian politics (rather than a critique of a new agency's reporting of Canadian politics).
The thread title is "Credit to our Right-Wingnuts". The "our" seems important here, as it means the "right-wingnuts" are part of the community that tjohn and his fellow posters belong to.
You say that tjohn is commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Are you implying that tjohn, and the rest of us on MOL, are Canadian? Then the "our" in his title would be "The right-wingnuts belonging to us Canadians." That does make your claim that he is "interfering in the internal affairs of Canada" moot though. It also seems to suggest that you think most people on MOL are Canadian, or that you think tjohn thinks that?
Alternately, you think tjohn is American and the "our right-wingnuts" refers to American right-wingnuts interfering with Canadian politics. That makes a lot more sense, and is further supported by topical context -- at the time tjohn posted, there were stories in the news on American conservatives lending significant financial and other support to the protests, and even being part of the protests. That, too, though makes your claim that tjohn is "interfering in the internal affairs of Canada" moot as in this interpretation he's critiquing American right-winginuts' interference in Canadian politics.
In the original posting here, tjohn appears to be commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Rather than critiquing media reports of Canadian politics. Additionally, tjohn has made the assertion that "right wingnuts [have] piss[ed] off Canadians by meddling in the internal affairs of Canada by supporting the anti-vaxxers." .AFAIK, tjohn's initial thread posting is an analysis of Canadian politics (rather than a critique of a new agency's reporting of Canadian politics).
The thread title is "Credit to our Right-Wingnuts". The "our" seems important here, as it means the "right-wingnuts" are part of the community that tjohn and his fellow posters belong to.
You say that tjohn is commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Are you implying that tjohn, and the rest of us on MOL, are Canadian? Then the "our" in his title would be "The right-wingnuts belonging to us Canadians." That does make your claim that he is "interfering in the internal affairs of Canada" moot though. It also seems to suggest that you think most people on MOL are Canadian, or that you think tjohn thinks that?
Alternately, you think tjohn is American and the "our right-wingnuts" refers to American right-wingnuts interfering with Canadian politics. That makes a lot more sense, and is further supported by topical context -- at the time tjohn posted, there were stories in the news on American conservatives lending significant financial and other support to the protests, and even being part of the protests. That, too, though makes your claim that tjohn is "interfering in the internal affairs of Canada" moot as in this interpretation he's critiquing American right-winginuts' interference in Canadian politics.
TBH, I focused on the "Right-Wingnuts" rather than the "our Right-Wingnuts." As the attribution of the group(s) referred to by the "our" was too vague and attenuated for my taste.
In the original posting here, tjohn appears to be commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Rather than critiquing media reports of Canadian politics. Additionally, tjohn has made the assertion that "right wingnuts [have] piss[ed] off Canadians by meddling in the internal affairs of Canada by supporting the anti-vaxxers." .AFAIK, tjohn's initial thread posting is an analysis of Canadian politics (rather than a critique of a new agency's reporting of Canadian politics).
The thread title is "Credit to our Right-Wingnuts". The "our" seems important here, as it means the "right-wingnuts" are part of the community that tjohn and his fellow posters belong to.
You say that tjohn is commenting/supporting a particular strain of Canadian politics. Are you implying that tjohn, and the rest of us on MOL, are Canadian? Then the "our" in his title would be "The right-wingnuts belonging to us Canadians." That does make your claim that he is "interfering in the internal affairs of Canada" moot though. It also seems to suggest that you think most people on MOL are Canadian, or that you think tjohn thinks that?
Alternately, you think tjohn is American and the "our right-wingnuts" refers to American right-wingnuts interfering with Canadian politics. That makes a lot more sense, and is further supported by topical context -- at the time tjohn posted, there were stories in the news on American conservatives lending significant financial and other support to the protests, and even being part of the protests. That, too, though makes your claim that tjohn is "interfering in the internal affairs of Canada" moot as in this interpretation he's critiquing American right-winginuts' interference in Canadian politics.
TBH, I focused on the "Right-Wingnuts" rather than the "our Right-Wingnuts." As the attribution of the group(s) referred to by the "our" was too vague and attenuated for my taste.
TBH, I focused on the "Right-Wingnuts" rather than the "our Right-Wingnuts." As the attribution of the group(s) referred to by the "our" was too vague and attenuated for my taste.
If someone's going to make pedantic accusations, I expect them to pay closer attention to the text. Perhaps a sharpening of taste is in order?
If you place children, holding hands across the entrance to the border crossing bridge, you are basically using them as a shield. The other issue is, why aren’t these children in school? Playing hockey in the blocked off streets is teaching them to protect their freedom?
Can you imagine BLM shutting down Washington DC with trucks and farm vehicles… and playing basketball in the streets.
If you place children, holding hands across the entrance to the border crossing bridge, you are basically using them as a shield. The other issue is, why aren’t these children in school? Playing hockey in the blocked off streets is teaching them to protect their freedom?
Can you imagine BLM shutting down Washington DC with trucks and farm vehicles… and playing basketball in the streets.
We should ask Florida legislators and Gov. DeSantis their thoughts.
Given the high probability that the protesters expected law enforcement to advance and place them under arrest, the term "human shield" seems more than appropriate.
Jeez. That was disturbing. A younger PM speaking clearly and coherently explaining rationally and calmly the actions he is taking in consultation with provincial leaders and opposition leaders.
She was announcing that financial institutions could stop providing financial services to any account, personal or corporate, deemed to be supporting the protests.
She was announcing that financial institutions could stop providing financial services to any account, personal or corporate, deemed to be supporting the protests.
She was announcing that financial institutions could stop providing financial services to any account, personal or corporate, deemed to be supporting the protests.
yes, because it’s money being deposited into bank accounts to support these domestic terrorists. We did it with Al queda, 11 protesters were arrested for possession of guns and ammunition in the blockade.
now they’re blasting Baby Shark at them!! I should have read BBC earlier…
for pissing off Canadians by meddling in the internal affairs of Canada by supporting the anti-vaxxers.