A "protest" that prevents people from crossing a border or shuts down a city isn't a protest. It is hostage-taking.

The US First amendment has some good language on this: the people have a right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Imposing a blockade does not qualify. If they just sit in front of Parliament and hold up signs and shout, but don't impede anyone going about their business, then they have a right to make their voices heard.

But what about (some other protest)? Civil rights protesters are usually ordered to disperse after a short time and get arrested if they don't. Sometimes they engage in civil disobedience, but they can be arrested if they do that.

> A "protest" that prevents people from crossing a border or shuts down a city isn't a protest. It is hostage-taking.

If I go through your post history am I going to see a consistent belief expressed in mid 2020?

The trick is to categorize protestors as "domestic terroists", despite having not done any extreme violent actions, as the Canadian government seems to be doing here.

The govt didn't coin that, the public did, by virtue that protesters are terrorizing the residents. Harassment, 100+db horns at night, vandalization, etc.

> The govt didn't coin that

https://twitter.com/FrischReport/status/1493344853421436946

They are using terrorism financing laws to execute this.

Good.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

A common misconception is that anyone who terrorises someone is a terrorist. It's an understandable mistake but it's wrong. Terrorism has quite a specific definition.

So Trudeau is a terrorist for terrorizing those who simply don’t want to get vaccinated.

Let's see it:

1. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

2. Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods.

3. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.