Translation: "If it's for a Just Cause, then anything goes. If it's for a Unjust Cause, then we should arrest you at the slightest infraction of the law and punish you to the fullest extent of the law".

This is hilariously backwards. Black protestors in Ottawa are arrested all the time. These people have been paralyzing a massive part of downtown and violating the law for 3 weeks and they're finally now seeing some consequences.

Also, yes, some protests are moral and some aren't. If there's a Nazi march shutting down main street I have no objections to shutting it down. It's not logically inconsistent to say that people shitting in the streets, having drunken discos and harassing people day and night aren't really "protesting" at this point.

>This is hilariously backwards. Black protestors in Ottawa are arrested all the time.

I was making fun of the parent poster's normative theories, not describing how police in ottawa actually behave.

>These people have been paralyzing a massive part of downtown and violating the law for 3 weeks and they're finally now seeing some consequences.

I'm sure you could say the same for hong kong protesters. I'm going to go on a limb that flooding the entire island with millions of protesters is pretty "paralyzing", if not more.

>Also, yes, some protests are moral and some aren't. If there's a Nazi march shutting down main street I have no objections to shutting it down.

Sounds like you're agreeing with my previous comment?

>It's not logically inconsistent to say that people shitting in the streets, having drunken discos and harassing people day and night aren't really "protesting" at this point.

that sounds awfully like the CHAZ.

I have family who live in an authoritarian dictatorship and there is a lot of news coverage of Trudeau's decision - why? Because they parade it around as "evidence that allowing protest is dangerous to a countries stability" and "see what hypocrites the so-called democracies are?"

And the next time farmers protest because their land is being taken away and given to multinational corporations, they crackdown and say "see? we're just like Canada, these people are criminals and we need to restore order".

Being admired by thuggish dictatorships doesn't exactly reflect well on Canada.

Justice means appropriate measures for relevant actions. Not wanting to take responsibility for your own decisions like these truckers is a far cry from being repressed and abused because you look like someone the men who control the money don't like. The tolerable level of their civil disobedience should be commensurate with the severity and legitimacy of their complaint.

So all causes are equal? Is it bad to apply informed judgement on society issues? If you go by that, then the US revolution should have been a bad and illegal thing.

>So all causes are equal? Is it bad to apply informed judgement on society issues?

Are all speech created equal? Is it bad to apply informed judgement on society issues? I mean, why do we want Bad Speech to proliferate? The government should ensure only Good Speech is allowed!

>If you go by that, then the US revolution should have been a bad and illegal thing.

"all causes are equal" =/= "all causes are a bad and illegal thing".

In Canada, there _is_ permitted prior restraint on hate speech. The American view on "unrestricted" free speech is an anomaly.

Another way of saying this is you only support the right to protest if it’s a cause you support.

Or perhaps it’s because on the one hand we have a cause which seeks to protect marginalized groups, and on the other hand we have a cause which opposes the protection of marginalized groups.

1. this sounds awfully like to the "modern" definition of racism, which basically justifies any sort of action as long it's for the "marginalized" group.

2. What counts as "marginalized" here? I could plausibly make the argument that anti-vaxxers are marginalized because the government is cutting off their access to common services and threatening their livelihoods.

1. On the contrary, this is about giving everyone a fair chance. In no universe are protections for marginalized groups "racism". I would strongly encourage you to read about John Rawl's "veil of ignorance" concept. [1]

2. Pretty much 1:1 correspondence with the social determinants of health. [2]

[1] https://fs.blog/veil-ignorance/

[2] https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promo...

>1. On the contrary, this is about giving everyone a fair chance. In no universe are protections for marginalized groups "racism".

this is exactly my point. back in the day "racism" really did mean "treating people differently based on race". https://web.archive.org/web/20071014174747/https://www.merri.... under that definition, "giving everybody a fair chance" or "protections for marginalized groups" could count as racism in certain cases. eg. "this scholarship is for black students only", or "you can't apply for this scholarship if you're asian or jewish".

>2. Pretty much 1:1 correspondence with the social determinants of health.[1]

So going off that list:

1. if you're a rich person protesting then that's bad because you're not marginalized

2. if you're employed and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

3. if you're well educated and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

4. if you haven't suffered childhood trauma and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

5. if you didn't grow up on the wrong side of the tracks and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

6. if you have social support and coping skills and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

7. if you have a healthy diet and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

8. if you have "access to health services" (live near a hospital and can easily take time off work?) and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

9. if you have better than average genes and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.

10, 11, 12. if you're [redacted] and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized

If we're talking about truckers, we can definitely check off #3, and probably check off 1, 5, 7, and 8 as well. Does that check enough boxes to earn them "marginalized" status?

It’s not about who is protesting, it’s about what they are protesting (and about how they do it).

>it’s about what they are protesting

So protests are only just if they are against the 14 things listed by the government? I thought "free speech zones" were ridiculous, but this idea of approved protest topics takes the cake.

>and about how they do it

What does "marginalized groups" have to do with "how they do it"? Are you saying that if you're protesting against the 14 approved protest topics, you get additional leeway regarding illegal things to do?

Wow, I give up. No matter what I say, you'll find a way to not hear what I'm actually saying and distort my words in a nonsensical way.

If people blockade an important international crossing or trying to deny access to government buildings I expect that the authorities will promptly clear it, even if they are doing it in the name of a cause I support.

Yes, BLM sometimes blocked roads. In every case they were promptly removed if they did not disperse when ordered to.

BLM blocks intersection, police protest them: https://www.the-sun.com/news/2850067/blm-protesters-clash-fu...

BLM march on highway in California: https://abc7news.com/los-gatos-black-lives-matter-protest-hi...

2 women were killed in Seattle when BLM and police shutdown a highway for a protest: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/police-2-women-hit-by-car-on-clo... >Protesters had shut down the interstate for 19 days in a row, Mead said at a press conference. The State Patrol responded by closing sections of the interstate to keep drivers and protesters safe.

It's ok when we do it!!!