Canada has the right (just as the US does) to limit foreign influence in its domestic affairs and its democratically elected government is exercising that right.
It wasn't even limited to those who actually broke any laws. Multiple incidents have been reported by Canadians who donated as little as $50 to the protest BEFORE it was declared illegal, having their bank accounts frozen without any formal charges.
Given that they are not even charging these people with crimes, they are denied due process and their economic lives are destroyed for the crime of committing a lawful act that happened to be unpopular with the ruling party.
To portray this as a reasonable step to curtail foreign influence in domestic affairs seems intellectually dishonest. This was government overreach pure and simple.
This said, I love Canada and don't believe Canada should tolerate one iota foreign interference in our domestic affairs, especially if it sows division or reduces trust in Canada's institutions. Whether you believe the blockading of border crossings, occupation of Parliament Hill, and disruption of peace in Ottawa were peaceful protests or unlawful assemblies, they were amplified and prolonged by foreign money. Canada should rightly do what it takes to nip foreign influence in the bud.
I do wish we would apply those foreign influence and foreign funding rules more consistently though. A few years ago, the prime minister in question, accepted millions in funding from Chinese investors to his WE charity. In order to avoid having to defend those actions he even prorogued parliament.
It would also be nice to limit foreign investment in Canadian real estate so that more Canadians could afford a home in their native land, but I might be dreaming.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10535361/Canadian-M...
Canadians only have two hands. Even the Quebecois.
This was separatist group that for a time took control over the border, threatened and blockaded critical infrastructure and committed thousands of crimes (bribery, threats, assault, setting a fire in a building).
The criminal investigations are ongoing. Due process will be had.
The police unfortunately dropped the ball, they tried that option too. But just arresting specific people also wasn't enough.
Polling shows that the majority of Canadians supported the use of the act.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/191-arrests-later-ottawa-polic...
Maybe freezing accounts contributed to this particular outcome, but I don't accept that it was necessary.
1. WWI
2. WWII
3. FLQ Crisis - an incident that included the kidnapping of federal ministers by a terrorist organization
By contrast, this protest has been incredibly peaceful when compared to other similar protests or occupations. There is a debate happening in parliament right now on whether or not to extend the Emergency powers now that the government has successfully cleared the protestors and taken back control of downtown Ottawa.
I personally don't believe this incident warranted the suspension of civil liberties. It isn't clear to me that the government did what they could to apply the existing laws on the books. If anything the biggest issue was that the Ottawa police appeared reluctant to enforce existing laws on the protestors. That is a different issue and does not justify the imposition of the Emergency act.
Invoking the Emergencies Act after 3 weeks was warranted after the police failed doing it's job.
The government did not have a clear picture or control over the situation. A foreign organization could have used it to supply these people, which is what happened. This was a big hole in Canada's national security.
Assuming you are referring to the January 6th insurrection incident, I don't think the two are comparable. What happened in Canada could fairly be described as an occupation and would therefore be most similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Notably the Occupy movement, despite being equally frustrating for the local and national government as well as the civilian population, was allowed to go on for close to 2 years.
I don't claim that Canada should have allowed this protest/occupation to go on for that long, but I think it is clear that had the Ottawa police had the will to take action, the existing laws were sufficient to put an end to any illegal activity.
Peaceful protest, not occupation, is lawful under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So my hypothesis is that the Canadian Government implemented the Emergency Measures act in order to suspend the Charter so they could suppress an otherwise lawful activity.
Politically this is probably true, but ows never as far as I recall blocked main roads, and certainly not for extended periods. Whatever you think the legitimacy of that tactic is, it's not the same.
And fwiw the ottowa police claimed that they didn't have the resources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/16/ottawa-protest..., though I too question that claim.
Police need to be able to stop those who break the law, while simultaneously protecting those who are merely protesting. Even if they’re part of the same crowd.
This is especially insane because you can no longer distinguish between “protestors legally protesting” and “protestors illegally blocking critical infrastructure.”
That is very much the government being stupid.
But not, like literally making roads impassable at all hours for days (https://www.dw.com/en/canada-court-orders-protesting-trucker...).
(and there's something to be said for "the police shouldn't be able to put down a large scale protest of involving thousands of people and vehicles. Perhaps if the police force is powerful enough to do that, it's too strong?)
Lasted for a few days at most, not like in Canada.
Occupy protestors took a nearby park. Tried to stay out of the way otherwise.
It’s complicated whether they were responsible for blockage. Initially it was police who were in the way. After a while the police left but the activists stayed. The park and area around in became uninhabitable and unnavigable. Garbage in streets.
Very different protests. And very different from what’s happening in Canada.
This is what I don’t get. The Canadian police had the power to stop the protestors who crossed the line from protest to riot.
But they didn’t.
I don’t understand why. Why did they allow the ambassador bridge to be shut down so long?
They had the power to stop it. They just chose not to.
Only that the protest turned into an occupation and/or a blockade that caused economic damage and negatively impacted the residents of Ottawa.
These were remarkably peaceful protests, for the most part, by both the protesters and the police.
However it’s not acceptable to shut down public roadways.
The majority of southerners supported slavery and breaking away from the union.