>The "occupiers" gave up their rights by holding an illegal protest.

The same can be said for any kind of protest once deemed by governments illegal, that gave you your current rights, from child labor laws to environmental regulations...

Also in what part of a democratic playbook is it written that if you "illegaly protest" you "give up your rights" to everything, including your financial assets, and by government fiat nonetheless. Because in 20th century plus western democracies at least, this is an unprecedented step.

One just has to consider how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

For instance, ~25 people died during the US protests in summer 2020. Not many, but probably more than in the convoy protests. If the US Government had gone ahead and frozen the assets of the people involved, how would one feel?

Gave up their rights by "illegally" protesting, huh? So basically if you protest the government, and that government says your protest is illegal, you lose your rights. I don't see that being such a healthy path for a free society.

A free society is not one where a few hundred idiots get to take a road trip to the capital and demand they form government. It is not the one where you are free to break any law you choose as long as you label it "protest"

This principle and precedent only seems digestible since the majority is on the side of it. In practice, one can imagine the SAME principle and practice being applied against us and in nefarious ways. It is indeed a slippery slope.

Banks in Canada are authorized to freeze ordinary citizens' accounts if they believe those citizens are associated with a protest, and the citizens have no recourse.

Well, business in the South were also authorized to not serve colored folks not that far ago.

It didn't make it right, just legal.

Freedom of association is dead.

A protest isnt a protest unless its illegal and disruptive, that is the point. You are protesting as last resort against laws that need disruption.