[cmonagle]

> People generally support what they represent.[...] The smearing is going to have an effect.

It's not smearing to accurately describe them based on their actions and words. We have a free press in Canada and they're right to report on the backgrounds of the organizers. They're holding press conferences demanding the dissolution of the government that we just elected, the organizers (not just participants) have documented white supremacist rants. This isn't popular, and I'm not surprised most Canadians haven't fallen for what some people on the internet are trying to represent them as.

> Like what? That's the thing about peaceful assembly charter right

Repeating "peaceful assembly" over and over again doesn't change the nature of the occupation. Constant 150 decibel noise is damaging to health and well being. Stockpiling illegal arms is not legal. Threats to bodily harm are not peaceful. Attempted arson is not peaceful. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "city bylaws have no [bearing]", we're all subject to the same laws.

Re injunctions:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/protesters-violate-cou...

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/judge-hears-argument...

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/judge-grants-injunction-against-no...

You can disagree, but the courts have decided, and they are the authority on legality.

I think the most interesting point is this:

> I have a right to peacefully protest. Someone else showing up and being violent doesn't remove my right.

That's absolutely correct. If you're not violating noise limits, not parked illegally, and comply with the same laws as everyone else, you can ABSOLUTELY continue demonstrating. The Emergencies Act doesn't change that.

[sleepingadmin]

>That's absolutely correct. If you're not violating noise limits, not parked illegally, and comply with the same laws as everyone else, you can ABSOLUTELY continue demonstrating. The Emergencies Act doesn't change that.

We seem to consume different news sources. It's remarkable to read responses today. Shock from the far-left to the far-right. This isn't political anymore. Here's a Libertarian socialist antifascist with 190k followers on twitter: https://twitter.com/VaushV/status/1493511896351211520

As you are aware, the emergencies act doesn't allow the government to really do anything different than what has already happened to this peaceful protest. It doesn't allow them to remove any charter rights.

What's about to happen will infringe the rights of the protesters. Under the act...

Compensation

48 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the regulations made under section 49, the Minister shall award reasonable compensation to any person who suffers loss, injury or damage as a result of any thing done, or purported to be done, under any of Parts I to IV or any proclamation, order or regulation issued or made thereunder.

When Trudeau finally orders the protest to end and infringes their rights. The Crown will be paying significant compensation to the protesters.

[cmonagle]

I'm not sure what more proof I can provide that the blockades and occupation are both an unpopular and illegal.

These responses are non-sequitors and proclaim with confidence what will happen in the future (as though we have a crystal ball). This seems like a good time to stop engaging.

[sleepingadmin]

>I'm not sure what more proof I can provide that the blockades and occupation are both an unpopular and illegal.

Well you jumped into this conversation providing a link saying people are sympathetic to the freedom convoy but 'not to read into it'. I believe I have been fair in my discussion.

Popularity is fairly irrelevant. It was extremely popular to imprison japanese canadians during world war 2. The point of your right to peaceful protest is to ensure your grievances are heard. If the government wishes to ignore the protest and not respond, that's fine, you can keep on protesting. This convoy has been tremendously successful in their protest thus far. Their grievances are being heard.

As for the legality of the military occupation. I don't believe you have provided sufficient argument to justify qualifying it as a military occupation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation If you would like to justify this I am willing to listen. I would agree that a military occupation would be illegal.

Trying to suggest that some municipal bylaws make it 'illegal' is certainly not something even in the realm of being able to remove your charter right to peaceful assembly.

>These responses are non-sequitors and proclaim with confidence what will happen in the future (as though we have a crystal ball).

Lets be realistic here. My predictions are hardly crystal ball worthy. The more practical response to this declaration by Trudeau. This act or equivalent was deployed during the world wars. Which is appropriate. Trudeau's father deployed it during the october crisis but there was bombs and death occurring. There's reasonableness that can be debated with Pierre Trudeau's use. This misuse by Trudeau is what got them to remove that legislation and replace it enshrining the requirement to maintain human rights.

>This seems like a good time to stop engaging.

Here's the thing. Bill Maher got to associating Trudeau with Hitler and what Hitler did. There's an awful lot of those predictions today from the left and right wings. I haven't gone there. I have been trying to be reasonable.

If you think I am wrong with my predictions, I bet you think those predictions are even more wrong? Frankly, if my predictions are wrong, I'm headed that direction comparing Trudeau to Hitler.