Freedom of expression features prominently in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is included in Section 2, which details fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. It strains credulity to argue that this protest somehow exceeds protest norms when bullhorns, drums, honking, and other noisemaking has been a key part of protests for decades.

Civil disobedience was always a crime. Blocking streets without a permit is a crime. Excessive noise making at all hours of the day and night is a crime. These actions don't become legal if you label them "protest".

All of those "crimes" result in a ticket, not the person in question being hauled off to jail, and they typically aren't enforced on protestors. The government could direct the police to crack down, but that would just throw any pretense of evenhanded enforcement of the law out the window, and harden the protestors' resolve.

The notwithstanding clause kind of renders all those rights and freedoms a joke. The legislature can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, just like in every other country, albeit with less pretense about it.

This is the second time someone has implied this protest isn’t valid because they’re doing it efficiently. It sounds like boomer “in my day” type rhetoric but is irrelevant to the legitimacy of any protest.

Why does the insurance status of property matter? Why does it matter if it belongs to a corporation (also don’t many truckers have their own trucks)? Do you also think megaphones shouldn’t be used to protest? What about amplifying platforms like Twitter? I feel like the line drawn in Canada is unprincipled, if it is as you describe, since truckers are using their property and platform of choice to enhance their protest, which fundamentally isn’t very different to me.