I am saying that protest by its nature is supposed to be disruptive on some level, and laws prohibit the type of disruptive behaviour typical of a protest clearly don’t apply _if_ you have a right to protest.
Blocking roads and occupying public spaces are some of the most fundamental features of a protest, so if you have a right to protest, then you certainly have a right to do that within the context of a protest.
If a protestor decides to commit a crime during their protesting, like destroying property, arson, assault… then they should still have full criminal liability for that. Nobody is disagreeing with you on that point. To me it seems you are simply trying to invent some contention out of nothing, in order to fit your view that the entire protest itself is illegal.
I don't think you would say that it would be ok for protesters to physically attack random civilians because "it's a protest and that's their protest strategy". There are obviously limits to the illegal behaviour generally allowed to protests.
> It is no longer a lawful protest against federal government policy. It is now an illegal occupation. It’s time for people to go home.
- Trudeau in his speech justifying the use of the Emergencies Act.
The quote you brought out does not say that an illegal protest is the basis for using emergency powers. It says that an illegal occupation is the basis.
We have had many many "illegal" protests where streets have been blocked temporarily and there were no calls to break out the emergency act.
Every protest in history has “done something illegal” like blocking roads or disrupting access to public spaces, at an absolute minimum. So if you have the right to protest, then you have the right to do those things that would otherwise be illegal within the context of a protest, or you don’t have the right to protest at all.