[makomk]

If that's actually such an established principle, there wouldn't be such a problem with the way the law goes after "peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues" because the peaceful actions it's targetting are things like protesters gluing themselves to famous artworks in museums, public protest whose main goal is to shut down major roads, railways and other critical infrastructure rather than protest somewhere where they're likely to be seen by the public, and vandalism of company headquarters. After all, it's not like the environmental activists are at risk of not having their views heard if they can't sling paint all over the doors of fossil fuel and chemical companies and banks and call their employees murderers to their faces, especially since most of the mainstream media in this country is already on their side.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the comments, downvoted into the grey, someone even linked an article pointing out that these protests included roadblocks that stopped ambulances getting through. Clearly public safety only matters sometimes. (And to be clear, this wasn't an incidental side effect of some protest where the sheer volume of protesters caused disruption. Building blockades and maintaining them for days/weeks was the protest action.)