> This is what a protest is.

They became occupiers when they started living in their trucks. There is no right to occupy in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If they had slow-rolled their trucks to create traffic jams that is a protest and would have been quite another thing (but also generally illegal, e.g., Ontario Highway Traffic Act §132).

If you don't like what the government is doing elect a new government: that's what elections are for. You don't get to throw a hissy fit and mess up other people's lives and livelihood every time there's a decision you don't like.

Every society is about balancing the rights of the individual and the rights of the collective, and their responsibilities as well. About balancing of different rights when they are in opposition to each other.

Not a Canadian, but no, a protest protests and gives voice to the disagreement. Blocking other people's rights is not just a protest and is likely to trigger action to protect others. That's how it goes everywhere that has rights. Normally, some effort is made to do it peacefully, but there are no countries where you can halt the economy whenever you want to force people to negotiate with you.

A protest which isn't allowed to do anything other than raise voices is a powerless and toothless protest.

Preferably online, but not on a website that everyone sees. Something silent. On the side. Also please have the dignity to die in peace, not commit suicide in a place where everyone can see it.

I don't agree. There were a bunch of university protests over Gaza (slapped down for stupid reasons by university administrators under pressure from government), and, really, they just made noise, but they got a lot of people to notice, including myself. And to ask ourselves, what do I think about this?

If you are expecting protests to force someone's hand, that isn't protest or protected political speech, that's coercion. Some forms of that are legal (e.g., strikes), but there are pretty sharply defined limits.

That's a good point, but the Gaza protesters would of course counter that they were slapped down (for stupid reasons) and the war in Gaza (which is illegal and genocidal, though initially provoked by Hamas) continues to be supported. So their protest, while not useless, wasn't effective in bringing change.

I mean, this is the French way. SNCF striking (a yearly occurrence) is arguably halting the economy each time it happens.

As a sympathizer to the HK protests, I've heard all these talking points before -- that the protesters are ruining the economy and making things miserable for everyone. Usually the protests can really only get so big when there is a shared grievance that keeps getting ignored by the administration.

In the case of HK, the grievance was the possibility for criminals to be extradited to Chinese mainland.

In the case of convoy protests, the grievance was the vaccine mandate in order to work a trucking job that's mostly solitary with minimal human contact.

I think a better comparison would be the jan 6 protests in usa in 2021.

so you were okay with BLM blocking freeways, and city roads?

What are you going to say if the answer is yes?

If you are okay with the Truckers doing the same, then nothing.

I respect principled people a lot more than people who flip flop out of self interest even if I might agree with the latter some of the time.

Did this ever happen for more than a day?

Speaking as someone who has been in dozens of protests in my life: yes, that is what protest is, and as a protester engaging in civil disobedience you expect the response from authorities. That is exactly the point. When I have been on the receiving end of tear gas, there was no surprise. Big duh.

Crying because your illegal civil disobedience led to civil reaction by the law is the height of "oh no the leopard ate my face" idiocy.

They weren't punished by the law though, they were debanked in an era where you need to use the banks to eat, pay rent and to merely survive. That is above and beyond any legal punishment. It is economic banishment and it is se excessive that it alone should be shunned by any person who wants civilization to survive.

Please, disagreeing on a topic and providing arguments is one thing, but suggesting somebody go live in another country because you don’t agree with them on something that happened in their country is disrespectful.

I mean, the South in the US waged a really big protest because they wanted slaves, and we murdered each other enough that they sort of changed their mind. Not every political grievance is on the right side of history.

> the right side of history.

A particularly odious moral framework, mostly used to justify mass murder.

Everyone thinks they're on the right side of history :)

I guess it's time for slavery again, then.