[sebow]

> You can continue to protest, but you can't be breaking the laws forever.

One of the reasons the right to protest is a fundamental one is because laws are made by people, for people, in the service of the public good and well-being of the citizens.

If the people protest against the laws then that's their right, the people and their will is above the law, the law is not above the people's will as a whole.

This is almost universally true, and you cannot make the argument of 'shutting down the right to protest' on the pretext of breaking a law, because protests are ultimately motivated on laws or policies being changed.Nobody protests forever.

[ahtihn]

> If the people protest against the laws then that's their right, the people and their will is above the law, the law is not above the people's will as a whole.

It's not the people's will as a whole though. It's a tiny minority of people that are protesting.

[sebow]

That's arguably true, though I'm also skeptical of any official numbers. The protests are not homogeneous at all: on one hand you have seemingly long convoys that are made up of small number of people, there are also very dense on-foot protests, it's somewhat hard to make an accurate estimation.

Still, making a statement doesn't require a majority.Usually if 0.5%-1% or more of the population starts protesting, the governing body responds, (or at least it should imo, having potentially more than 2-3% of the population actively involved in a political manner it's not a good sign: politicians don't want people too closely involved). This however vastly depends on the country, the culture, the people.Protests are also not accurate representations of the electorate.