>If you're claiming that a government is abusing its power because it froze some funds, and it turns out it was done according to law, then the accusation is unsubstantiated. Maybe it was abusing its power, but we haven't been shown any evidence. And the burden of proof is on you to show that it was an abuse of power.

This is kind of the argument that Gerald Butts made. That technically parliament approved this misuse of power. In a way you are right. Here's the problem.

The Canadian media represented the protest as a bunch of nazis and maga military occupying ottawa and loooking to over throw the government.

The NYTimes thought it was the best story ever. They put boots on the ground and said... wait we don't really agree with the goal of the protest but it's a legitimate protest. That using force to end the protest would be wrong. That in a democracy protests are going to be annoying but these must be left to exist.

They are right. There can never be an exception to the charter right of peaceful protest. Right now, what the conservatives in Canada have been told is that they do not have the right to protest. They will simply declare another national emergency, seize bank accounts, and arrest them on 'mischief' charges.

So now what happens? The conservatives cant peacefully protest... media is smearing them to propaganda levels.

You can still do roaming protests where you keep moving making stopping the protest difficult to do. I suspect these kinds of protests will get tiresome.

Eventually you just say, ok, peaceful isn't allowed. Other than peaceful is our new option.