[ktkoffroth]

Isn't significantly disturbing the peace kinda the entire point of protest? I would wager many of the protests and demonstrations done during the Civil Rights Movement in the US "significantly disturbed" the peace, and yet they were effective at creating needed change.

[yorwba]

You can have a successful protest that doesn't disturb the peace simply by gathering a large enough number of people to demonstrate that there's significant support for your demands.

Disturbing the peace will also inconvenience other people who might not have had an opinion before, but end up opposing your protest simply because they want to live their lives undisturbed. Unless you have a realistic plan to seize power, remaining peaceful is probably a better idea.

[542458]

Again, Canada is not the US.

> Section 2(c) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; it does not protect riots and gatherings that seriously disturb the peace: R. v. Lecompte, [2000] J.Q. No. 2452 (Que. C.A.). It has been stated that the right to freedom of assembly, along with freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: Guelph (City) v. Soltys, [2009] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26.

So an hypothetical protest that, for example, had set up on the lawn of parliament or major’s hill park and did not sound loud horns at random hours of the night would not be dispersed.

[bombcar]

A protest almost by definition is a disturbance of the peace - otherwise it’s just a gathering of like minded people doing something.

[oh_sigh]

> Isn't significantly disturbing the peace kinda the entire point of protest?

No.

[tylersmith]

Yes but Canada doesn't work like the US. They don't have constitutional free speech or rights to assemble.

[542458]

My link is to the section from our charter on the freedom of assembly. Our freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are understood differently than yours.

[sudosysgen]

Our Charter is not an analogue to the US constitution. It can be suspended (and routinely is) by the government.

[542458]

The charter is explicitly part of the Canadian constitution. The notwithstanding clause or override is only very rarely invoked (and in many provinces has never been invoked).

[sudosysgen]

It has been used repeatedly, and it's not just provinces either, the federal government can also use it. It's not really rare, it crops up every few years.

[542458]

Legislation invoking the clause has been enacted only five times across all of Canada. In one of those cases no rights were suspended and invoking it was unnecessary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_C...

I would count 4 invocations that actually did something (all of which were limited to single provinces) across the past 40 years to be fairly rare.

[FpUser]

I consider this notwithstanding clause as a public embarrassment. It basically castrates our freedoms.