Define "supporting the free speech rights"?
I heard about freezes for people doing the protesting (including organizing). But that's an extremely different thing from supporting the free speech rights of the protesters.
Sometimes governments jail people for protests, and locking a bank account seems similarly or slightly less bad to me. Not great but not newly worrying.
Or is it that you don't consider direct organizational efforts to be a subset of taking part in a protest? I'm generally fine with it, I think. Do you have anyone in particular in mind that was in this role but shouldn't count?
And sticking someone in jail does those too.
The problem came with the freedom of assembly, which is bound up with the right to protest ... and long curtailed with restrictions from causing substantial disruption.
That last part was the line crossed when roads were shutdown for days on end, horns blared round the clock, etc.
Additionally, IIRC, the Canadian Gov't didn't debank individuals for the act of donating .. they froze accounts that donations were flowing into. The last time this came up in a forum several people linked to discussions in the Canadian Question time (or some equivilant) where "gotcha" questions were being posed about whether the law in question could be used to debank individuals .. as it was broad legislation targeted toward shutting down the protests by drying up funds the answer "yes, but ..." .. followed by a general failure to produce any non core individuals that had their general savings frozen - just the accounts used to collect donations and some(?) organisers taking part (again, IIRC).
It was surprising to see how quickly people turned around into saying that blue collar workers uniting and striking was a bad thing (with several suggestions that they be forced to work somehow), that protesting government authoritarianism is in fact fascism, that calling someone a Nazi is somehow supporting Naziism, and that the government coercing people by threatening their livelihoods due to their political activities (or refusing medication), and deciding what is and isn't "legitimate" political views, is actually defending democracy
And I have no faith in "yes the law has technical pathological cases but obviously nobody would do that". I used to, but I've just seen enough cases of the letter of the law being twisted with complete disregard to the spirit. E.g. practically any law to do with terrorism
don't get to close off access to and from work sites for days and weeks on end, nor do they get to block customers.
> protesting government authoritarianism is
A-OK in my book - but blocking intersections and pissing off fellow citizens and stopping their free travel is not.
The line crossed, in the view of many people who might have otherwise supported them, was the nature of their protest - not the fact that they were protesting and not the words that they were saying.
Depends on the circumstances - which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
What do you mean “blocked off transport”? Is that the only form of protest deserving of harsh measures?
Do you not think rioting in commercial centers and setting fire to businesses would rise to a similar level as blocking downtown streets as was done in Ottawa?
Clearly you feel blocking city streets is sufficient, so burning down businesses must as well?
Flawed conclusions.
> What do you mean “blocked off transport”
See the upthread link to the Canadian Charter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2_of_the_Canadian_Ch...
Follow the links to see how "freedom to assemble" allows the "Right to protest" but doesn't guarantee the a right to "substantial disruption".
Unions (for example) have (location dependant) a right to strike, to protest, but not a right to block access to a business.
> Do you not think rioting in commercial centers and setting fire to businesses ...
For which specific protest was this a stated core goal of that protest? Surely these were incidental actions by third parties that happened coincidental with otherwise peaceful protests?
In the Canadian case under discussion the entire purpose was specifically to blockade, inconvenience, and shutdown key areas until their demands were met - this took place over the course of a month.
Again, which which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
And whether or not the protest has that as the "stated goal" is irrelevant. It happened, thus in order to stop it you should be willing to apply the same force of law.
You seem fine having two different standards - one where blocking a street in protest deserves suspension of Charter rights and one where burning down businesses doesn't.
You're entitled to your belief, but I can state that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
There's no issue there with the protest, go nuts arresting the rioters, arsonists and looters.
You're all over the shop and struggling to make a point here ..
> just blocking the street temporarily
for a month, 24/7.
What exactly, BTW, is my belief?
Scroll to the top and my first comment - I simply correctly stated that the Canadian Trucker protest didn't have a Freedom of Speech clash with the Canadian Gov., they had problems as they overstepped their right to assemble.
That is my belief and I stand by that.
You seem intent on imagining things.
No there isn't. The point in question is the impact - one of them blocks streets, one of them sets fires to buildings.
You keep coming back to intent because otherwise your argument makes no sense. But intent is irrelevant to the impact in the end - temporarily blocked businesses (which can reopen after the blockade stops) versus businesses burned down (which won't open for months or even years, maybe not at all).
If you're willing to suspend Charter rights for a temporary blockade, then logically you should be willing to do the same for something with a far greater effect.
But you're unwilling to do so because you want the political goals of the protest to temper the force of the law against them. Unfortunately that's not not how the law works, we have (or are supposed to have) Rule of Law - every person is subject to the same law regardless of who they are or what they believe.
It is firmly established precedent here that murdering people and burning down buildings is a superior form of protest to slightly inconveniencing commerce.
I don't know what you thought you'd accomplish arguing on the basis of net harm on this site, but that doesn't happen here. You need to only understand the oppressor/oppressed dynamic. Protesting injustice against ten million gainfully employed oppressors is unacceptable. Protesting injustice against a single violent criminal is praised.
Your downvotes are well and truly deserved. Not for being wrong, which you're not, but for not knowing your audience.
Have you considered that the percent of the people in the crowd committing crimes makes a big difference for how some people want to enforce the law? Instead of that stupid strawman?
Thankfully the voting system here doesn't represent the beliefs of most Canadians/Americans when it comes to the Rule of Law.
I do get a kick out of calling out the logical inconsistencies of those who try and talk around it.
Am I understanding this right? They think the government should step in and freeze the bank accounts of people who haven't been tried or found guilty of a crime, and who just inconvenienced them?
As I mentioned in a comment above I'm not aware of any individual that had their personal savings frozen.
I recall a lot of reporting that it might happen and I recall a question time in which the accusation was made that it had happened but when pressed no actual details of to whom could be provided.
That dates back to about the time of your linked reporting which also talks about the potential for abuse but does not cite an example of abuse.
If you have an actual verified account of this actually happening it would be of interest.
Either. I don't really understand that anyone would think that a government being able to freeze someone's assets for protesting that government is a good thing.
This isn't the potential for abuse, in a sort of "price of freedom" way. This is an abusive power that, at best, was not used.
I actually count this as the primary positive outcome of COVID.
So many people woke up to the reality of state power during that period. No more "this couldn't possibly happen here" or "they'd never!".
And even more after COVID, once the propaganda relented and the veil dropped even further. You'd have to be really obtuse (or otherwise invested) to not get the memo by now.
The pool of people who got a taste of the oppressive medicine has extended from "fringe" / "criminal" to wide swathes of "normal", middle class population. A costly lesson for sure, but extremely valuable.
What a bizarre non-sequitur.
But why then complain when societies act? Having strong reactions to pandemics is historically normal nor can I see anything to wake up to in terms of oppression.