You're entitled to be upset when someone blocks your car. But framing it as a civil rights issue rather than a practical one (and calling someone blocking your car "kinetic") makes you come across as un-serious.
If the government were to install roadblocks and check your identity card before letting you leave your town, that would violate your freedom of movement. If a local private militia did the same thing, it would be as well. But being slightly delayed by a bunch of environmentalists blocking a specific form of transit doesn't meaningfully violate anything.
The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
There is a whole slew of laws and regulations dealing with people who inconvenience others on purpose.
Freedom of movement specifically exists for when "your lives depend on it" - it is a vital right to preserve and the freedom to make that 40 km walk has saved countless lives over the centuries.