I think that's what laws are for in the end, am I wrong?
Can't you make the same argument for all protesters? Or do also think that when your preferred side is protesting, they should stick to holding up signs in free speech zones?
The protests of the truckers was not the problem. The illegal occupation was.
It was only after they failed to disperse (and due to the incompetence of the municipal and provincial governments) and occupied cities streets for days/weeks disrupting the lives of residents that an emergency was declared.
In other words, they should have kept their protests within free speech zones? Note, my previous comment wasn't arguing for whether their actions were illegal or not, it was to ask whether people would hold up their standards to protests for their preferred side.
The Charter does not grant people the right to set up occupations.
Again, I'm not arguing for unlimited protests, I'm simply expressing skepticism that people are consistently applying their standards for "protests that aren't okay and we should get the cops to crack down on". Based on your responses it seems like you agree that some level of illegality should be allowed, but draw the line at "a day or three". Was this arrived at a principled way? How do you feel about the following protests, which probably lasted more than that?
* Cop City protests in Georgia
* George Floyd protests in the Minneapolis area
* Capitol Hill Occupied Protest
* Hong Kong protests
* Occupy Wall St
* 1989 Tiananmen Square protests
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650
Effective and non-effective tactics—as determined by the historical record of >600 movements over the last 120 years—are discussed, as are all of the above events.
In oz we have a 50yr occupation protest. Maybe the limit reached wasn't so much the time, but more the nuisance.
However, almost any protest could be labeled as a disruption of some sort. Furthermore, when it comes to laws, this was exactly what the protest was about. They were contesting the authority of the government to take certain actions in manners that many perceived as unlawful.
You may want to expand the timeline: They were asked to disperse, they did not. They became an illegal occupation, and still didn't leave when told. Only after they occupied Ottawa for days/weeks, disrupting the lives of residents, was the Emergencies Act invoked and all the above actions taken.
No one forced them to commit illegal acts.
If you feel strongly about something and wish to practice civil disobedience, go ahead, but then don't complain about the consequences. Even Gandhi went to prison.
> Campaigns to discredit their grievances such that the population doesn't understand what they were protesting and why.
They were protesting public health measure that were needed to protect the public (quarantines, vaccines).
Probably worth noting that the folks in the convoy didn't have broad support in their industry:
* https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/embarrassment-for-the-industry...
* https://cantruck.ca/canadian-trucking-alliance-statement-to-...
* https://cantruck.ca/statement-by-canadian-trucking-alliance-...
* https://globalnews.ca/news/8635963/south-asian-canadian-truc...
That said, by your logic, any protest can be shut down as soon as it starts to work by declaring it illegal. That's part of why trains keep derailing in the states too - those that care about safety and working conditions, and have the power to change both by striking, cannot legally strike. That's why nurses unions keep getting the short end of the stick: they cannot bargain effectively, because they're chained to the bargaining table due to an inability to legally strike as long as they need to.
Simply declaring protests as illegal can leave us feeling like we took the high road with the Canadian trucker protest, but doesn't lead to a world I especially want to live in.
Yes. The question is: what kind of society do you live in and where do the authorities of said society draw the line on allowing protests/demonstrations? In some societies any opposition to government actions/decision at all is illegal. And when it is declared illegal or you are perhaps asked to stop/disperse, what will your reaction be? How serious is the issue that you are demonstrating about? Are you willing to go to prison for it (e.g., Gandhi was)?
Remember also, it's not just the authorities that you are protesting that you are messaging to, but also to your fellow citizens. Occupying a city and generating noise 24/7 so people can't sleep is not a way to get people onto your side.
I coïncidentally just finished reading a book on the subject:
> Civil resistance is a method of conflict through which unarmed civilians use a variety of coordinated methods (strikes, protests, demonstrations, boycotts, and many other tactics) to prosecute a conflict without directly harming or threatening to harm an opponent. Sometimes called nonviolent resistance, unarmed struggle, or nonviolent action, this form of political action is now a mainstay across the globe. It was a central form of resistance in postwar anti-colonial movements, the 1989 revolutions, and the Arab Awakenings, and people are practicing civil resistance at higher rates than ever before around the world, including in the United States. If we want to understand the manifold protest movements emerging around the globe, we need a thorough understanding of civil resistance and its many dynamics and manifestations.
* https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/civil-resistance-wha...
* https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978...
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/44096650
If you wish your movement to succeed you have to broaden your support to the wider population, so you have to be mindful of how your actions are perceived. So these truckers (and the organizers) maybe should have asked themselves 'how will an illegal occupation would go down with the general public?' How was this action helping their cause?
> Simply declaring protests as illegal can leave us feeling like we took the high road with the Canadian trucker protest, but doesn't lead to a world I especially want to live in.
Once again: it was not the protests that were declared illegal but the occupation. Nowhere in the Charter does it say you can camp out in a city and generate noise throughout the night:
* https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/more-than-annoying-what...
* https://globalnews.ca/news/8586606/ottawa-trucker-protest-ha...
Or if there is, I would love a citation to it, or a court ruling saying occupations are legally okay.
Media and governments today control how protests are perceived. That is the issue. The division over this exists within the media. Same for the US, whether it was BLM, lockdowns, elections etc. The protestors don't get to decide how it will be perceived. The major established media narratives will control that perception.
So does social media and the messaging you put out on your accounts. Hint: if you want broad(er) societal support, don't (e.g.) fly Confederate flags (which tend to be associated with the KKK and racists), which will show up in the messaging you own and what is also broadcast on television. A news story by CTV on just such an occurrence interviewing the dude:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQdBNPXMiC4
It's also why you need outreach: if all you're doing is talking in your own little echo chamber, the broader public may not get your side of the story (or a distorted version).
Really recommend Chenoweth's book where this is discussed.
If they are not unscientific anti-vaxxers, they failed to communicate that. If they don't have associations with racists, they failed to communicate that. If they felt that illegally occupying a major urban centre—making the life of residents hell—was a good thing, they have failed to communicate that.
Basically the truckers involved failed to usefully communicate to the broader society why anyone should support them (assuming they're not just racist anti-vaxxers).
And when the Emergencies Act was invoked, who would object to it being used against anti-vaxxer racists that were illegally occupying the city of Ottawa?
Since when does any protest, movement, etc, need to begin by proving a negative. This is an expectation only setup through propaganda. Any movement can be destroyed under this context whether legitimate or not as we would never know.
And when the Emergencies Act was invoked, who would object to it being used against anti-vaxxer racists that were illegally occupying the city of Ottawa?
Again, perfectly making my point. The framing of the narrative.
To start, when they fly Confederate flags. If you do that you have to show that you're not a racist (see previous link to CTV news story).
> Any movement can be destroyed under this context whether legitimate or not as we would never know.
Yes, as discussed in Chenoweth. Which is why community/societal outreach is important with any movement that wants to effect change.
> The framing of the narrative.
Which the Convoy Truckers failed to do in their communications.
The onus is on the movement itself to properly communicate their desires and the goodness of their causes to the larger community. This communication is done not only via words and communiqués, but also by actions.
I mean that's the kind of thing that left wing protestors do all the time.
You have things like the 40 hour workweek due to protestors doing illegal things like that, and often getting flat-out murdered back in the day.
> They were protesting public health measure that were needed to protect the public (quarantines, vaccines).
> Probably worth noting that the folks in the convoy didn't have broad support in their industry
You have to be very careful with these kinds of arguments because you'll find that tactics which get used against people you don't like may get immediately flipped around and used against people you do like, or even yourself.
That's the whole problem with all the PATRIOT Act nonsense in the US. Once you give authorities the license to use tactics against one group that everyone clearly agrees deserves it, they never stop there.
Some problem with the death penalty and whoever your favorite serial killer is who clearly deserves death. Once the state can put people to death they start looking for more and more people to kill.
Yes, and they kept at it until they won because they believed in their cause and were able to gain more and more public support.
>> Probably worth noting that the folks in the convoy didn't have broad support in their industry
> You have to be very careful with these kinds of arguments because you'll find that tactics which get used against people you don't like may get immediately flipped around and used against people you do like, or even yourself.
It is the job of a movement to convince others that their goals are noble and that others should support them.
If the Convoy Truckers failed to convince that others in their industry (and the broader public) to support them, (a) they're bad at communicating, or (b) folks concluded they're a bunch of anti-vaxxer cranks and didn't want anything to do with them, (c) …?.
Being arrested/charged and the seizure of their assets is what they wanted?
The public health mandates that the truckers were protesting is what helped reduce COVID's effects and allowed for the reduction of the various health measures. Vaccine mandates did not end because of what the Convoy Truckers did, but despite what they did. The Convoy Truckers were working against their own interests (as the rest of the trucking industry realized).
The vaccines themselves were not benign.
The whole COVID pandemic was poorly handled. Lockdowns destroyed businesses and workers livelihoods alike. Unless you were an office worker who could remote, COVID was an absolute disaster.
While there was certainly incompetence/negligence from authorities, no one forced the truckers to start an illegal occupation of Ottawa. They could have shown up, done their thing to get their grievances across, and left.