So clearly you would have supported the same things - suspension of Charter/Constitutional rights, during the BLM protests when businesses were burnt down?
Please don't paraphrase and assume my position, it weakens your position to strawman in that manner.
Depends on the circumstances - which specific protest in the US continuously occupied and blocked off major transport thoroughfares in the USofA for a month?
I’m not paraphrasing and assuming, I’m drawing conclusions from your statements.
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?
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?
I already asked if you don't consider burning down stores to be at least as impactful to commercial trade as blocking roads, but you didn't answer. I'd argue that burning down multiple businesses has a far higher impact than just blocking the street temporarily when it comes to "blocking access to a business", as you put it.
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 a world of difference between a protest that sets out to blockade and gets shutdown for blockading because that goes beyond the granted freedom to protest, and a protest that assembles, protests, and incidently, coincidently has additional actors rioting and looting.
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.
There's a world of difference between a protest that sets out to blockade and gets shutdown for blockading because that goes beyond the granted freedom to protest, and a protest that assembles, protests, and incidently, coincidently has additional actors rioting and looting.
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.
> It is firmly established precedent here that murdering people and burning down buildings is a superior form of protest to slightly inconveniencing commerce.
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?
