One thing they do is raise the bar for "public interest" scales used in legal matters. For example, protests make it more difficult for a government agency to claim information retrieval is "unduly burdensome" when compared against the public's interest. That reinforces the capabilities of journalism and so their message is more easily consumed by a wider public. In theory, anyway.

A protest is a sign of disagreement, and a signal for change... not a "We are a small, non-representative but loud group. Now give us what we want."

If the point of a protect is go 'get your way', it's essentially a crappy "Might makes right" play. Might as well not vote, ignore all the rules etc. Society doesn't work if you pick-and-choose at scale.

Civil rights protests against segregation, for example, would see protesters filling up or blocking restaurants that would refuse to serve black customers. Basically - you won't serve black people, we will put you out of business. Sometimes the police would come and arrest people, and that would win sympathy for the protesters, because even people who thought "Maybe black people shouldn't eat be allowed to eat at restaurants" might feel pangs of sympathy at seeing people arrested for just sitting at a restaurant counter.

Now, you can say "The trucker protest isn't as important as civil rights" but that's just a "You shouldn't be protesting" argument. Racists thought civil rights protesters shouldn't be protesting too. If the protesters believe their cause is actually important then it makes sense to protest. But, it only makes sense to protest in ways that are likely to result in changes. Symbols are fine, but empty symbolism isn't enough for something you think is really important.

Sure, it makes sense to protest if the issue is important and overlooked enough to pay the price of cracked skulls and prison sentences to raise awareness. Civil rights seems like it fit the bill - I grew up later but at least with my modern sensibilities I'd have happily gone up against the police for that cause. The right to skip just another vaccination (probably the sixth or seventh that you've been forced to take in your life) without losing your job doesn't seem comparable to me, but if people want to make this their hill to die on, sure...

If it isn’t such a big deal why doesn’t Canada just let them have a pass?

Because they don't want a small group of logistics drivers becoming a cross-country contamination source.

Oh that’s right because you can’t get or transmit COVID if you’re vaccinated…

For most of us COVID is like a cold or at worse a flu if not vaccinated, and likely absolutely nothing if you are vaccinated. So the need to force people to get vaccinated is pointless because they’re only harming themselves, but it’s their own damn choice.

Clown world.

I doubt that one can make a universal case for a whole class of actions that always works. If you block critical infrastructure to 'have your way' because of a luxury position you're not trying to 'fix an institutional problem', you're being a dick to everyone around you while they can't fix anything for you anyway.

Imagine someone honking their horn at your bedroom window all night because they wanted a McFlurry but "the machine was broken".

If all a protest does is mess with society, it'll just end up with counter-protests and civil war light edition.

Exactly and the vast majority of people were racists at the time who I am sure did not agree with the protests.

Something has gone wrong though with this trucker protest because people should have already been arrested. LBJ wasn't granting himself power to deal with civil rights protests.

IMO now it is going to turn into some kind of Canadian Reichstag fire.

Some headline like 2/3rds of Canadians want the government to make sure there is never another Reichstag fire is just a matter of time.

If society keeps on "working", the protest wasn't effective. We never got any changes for the better by voting.