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.
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.