Yes that's correct, our democratically elected government with a charter of rights and freedoms and independent judiciary is allowed to impose reasonable restrictions on citizens freedoms under specific circumstances. No, a mob of thugs who represent a minority public opinion are not allowed to impose their will on society. If that's supposed to be a mic-drop comment you're going to have to try harder.
I think there's difference in what "reasonable" means here, regardless of what the issue is and who is doing it. My argument is that there must be some form of protest that is always legal (even if not sanctioned by the government) and that minimal form of protest must be public. That no restrictions can be reasonable on this minimal form of protest.
All the people who are cheering this emergency powers move, have not made clear to me why this particular protest has surpassed that point outside of noise issues in private (and non-public) areas (which I do understand are difficult).
"Minimal" and "block important roads for weeks" don't intersect, in my view.
Nobody said they can't protest. Nobody invoked the Emergencies Act when they initially blocked the roads. When they remained blocked for a week, still nobody invoked the Emergencies Act.
Minimal protest? Sure, absolutely that should be allowed. Nobody's making it not allowed. But "minimal" isn't where these protest are, and they haven't been for a while.
It's nice that the government gave them permission to protest for a week, sure. For comparison, though, the Tiananmen Square protests lasted over a month before Beijing invoked their equivalent of the Emergencies Act. According to the Wikipedia article:
> The protests started on 15 April and were forcibly suppressed on 4 June when the government declared martial law and sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing.
The protests have been going on longer than that. The judicial injunctions have been violated for more than a week, however, and the protesters continue to violate them and the police continue not enforcing them. That is the reason we have escalated to the next step (for which Trudeau will pay at least some political price for).
Why bring up Tiananmen Square when this is Canada? We have plenty of comparable protests.
You're right, it would have been more helpful of me to find an example of a protest in Canada that blocked roads for more than a week, which would prove Trudeau's response is disproportionate by Canadian standards. I don't know of any example of that, or of judicial injunctions being violated for a week, so I accept your point.
The inability or unwillingness of the Ottawa police force to enforce the court-ordered injunction, and the additional inability or unwillingness of other provinces - like Alberta - from re-opening the border is the reason for this.
If the protests were in-person, not causing major, disproportionate interference with the Canadian economy and all injunctions were being both obeyed and enforced, there would be no need for this act.
The rule of law is breaking down and this is required to ensure that the fabric of Canadian society does not deteriorate.
"A mob of thugs"? Really? Type ottawa livestream into youtube, filter by Live and watch. You won't see "a mob of thugs" or even the remotest resemblance, even if you watch for hours. These are ordinary people and their kids.
Almost three straight weeks of multiple livestreamers documenting every aspect of the protest non-stop for hours unedited all day and all night, of thousands of highly-skilled resourceful people with a deep knowledge of logistics and shipping - including of dangerous goods, and including possessing truckloads of fuel - and the best you can come up with is one clearly-unassociated utterly moronic lone actor supposedly attempting to "burn down a building" by lighting a few bits of paper in the middle of a hard floor of a building filled with smoke alarms and sprinklers and in clear view of a security camera and the building residents?
1. This was not a lone actor, you can see two men in the footage!
2. This is not clearly-unassociated, this happened as a result of an interaction between residents in the building and protesters!
3. Stop downplaying attempted mass murder you ass, the two men clearly attempted to burn the entire building and kill all of its inhabitants. You can see in the footage that they attempted to tie the exit shut so that residents couldn't escape. Shame on you for defending this.
Do not accuse me of defending this/these persons actions. I am not "defending", and did not, "defend" the actions of this person or persons.
It's a completely abhorrent and utterly stupid and harmful action whether or not it was motivated to intentionally physically kill anyone or not.
As for whether it's one or two people, I make no apology for paying less attention when watching something from legacy media sources who I've witnessed continually falsifying stories on this subject.
I honestly thought I saw one man twice but if it's two it's two, and I update my statement to "lone actors". I'm not going to watch that crap again so I'll just have to take your word for it.
And yes, I did see someone attempt to tie a door shut with what looked like an old t-shirt, it seemed to me much more like someone trying to create the appearance of an attempt at mass murder (and always in the direct line of sight of a camera).
Regardless, the motivations of this person or persons, whether your interpretation or mine, either way does not at all fit the profile of the truckers as I and many others have experienced it.
Anyone who spends any time watching their official announcements, or independent unedited livestreams of what's happening there, can instantly see that setting fire to apartment buildings is not remotely something they'd want to do, nor would it at all serve any of their stated goals and instead only work to utterly dismantle them.
They have bouncy castles for kids to play on. They hold multi-ethnic prayer sessions. They're voluntarily cleaning the streets of snow and ice, laying flowers on monuments, and having hockey games police. In Coutts yesterday the police hugged and shook hands with the protestors (and their kids) and they all sang the national anthem together. Look it up, some of us watched it happen live.
Hence my interpretation that whoever did this crap at the apartment building evidently aren't the same people.
Their most recent announcement was that they have moved some of their trucks closer to the city centre in order to cause less disturbance to residential areas. That's hardly characteristic of murderous terrorists.
They also stopped honking, initially between the hours of 8pm and 8am, and since mostly altogether, and if you bother to watch any of their official announcements they are clearly reasonable and intelligent people - the "story" presented by your "news" source simply doesn't fit. (And the pathetic attempt to portray that story by filming two random people disagreeing on a city street really didn't make the case.)
The truckers stated goals are that they want the (useless, and clearly not-working) vaccine mandates dropped so they can return to work, not to overthrow the government or even cause any further disruption. They've been explicit about this many times. Specifically they've said they want to go home, and when the mandates are dropped they immediately will. But backed into a corner as they feel they are, they're not moving until that happens.
Half of Europe and UK has already dropped the mandates, so it's not at all an unreasonable request given the present situation.
You come across as never having actually investigated or even heard anything they've put out as an official statement. Probably this is because they justifiably refuse to speak to the legacy media that continually mis-portrays them.
But if you search (easier to locate on bitchute or rumble), you'll find their press conferences and quickly realise the characterisation by the legacy media and trudeau, as many here have pointed out, is entirely incorrect.
