[flyingcircus3]

You're disregarding my premise, and arguing against something else. The severity of the BLM protests in no way sets precedence for other protests, nor informs the minimum level of violence/destruction/disruption that must occur before other protests are criticized and acknowledged as traumatic for the people whose lives have been disrupted. These events stand on their own, and aren't somehow offset by another protest, or absolved by another protest. It's not an overton window.

[cato_the_elder]

> The severity of the BLM protests in no way sets precedence for other protests, nor informs the minimum level of violence/destruction/disruption that must occur before other protests are criticized and acknowledged as traumatic for the people whose lives have been disrupted.

But the comparison does inform us on how biased and hypocratical the media and the ruling class are.

[pyuser583]

You’re arguing that the deprivations suffered by the victims of one civil disturbance are not lessened in any way by the deprivations of a different disturbance.

That BLM, the Night of Broken Glass, and Selma do not make the lives of those affected by the “truckers” any better.

Those events create neither a defense nor condemnation of the “truckers.”

This is true, certainly.

But it does allow third parties (most people on this forum) to create a figure out how bad the situation is.

Likewise, it allows Canadians to assess the actions of their leaders decided if they are appropriate.

[pyuser583]

It sets a precedence in regards to the correct way to respond.

If BLM protests were encouraged or tolerated by authorities, yet the trucker protestors are harshly target it raises the question “why?”

It’s possible the response to BLM was wrong. It’s possible that America and Canada have different concepts of political liberty.

But it’s also possible offialdom is playing favorites.

These are legitimate questions, and Canadian voters should seek answers for them.