[clwg]

I live in Ottawa. We were failed by all levels of government, our police services, and our intelligence services.

The convoy drove across the country, broadcasting their intentions on social media. Yet, everyone acted shocked when they did exactly what they said they were going to do.

I hesitate to call them protesters because I don't think they had a permit or a cohesive message beside F* Trudeau, but they were completely disrespectful to other citizens, and I could never defend their actions. However, irrespective of how unpopular their actions were, the courts have deemed the federal government's response unreasonable and unconstitutional, and I agree with that assessment.

The government could have dealt with this earlier and more directly, but whatever passes for "leadership" these days in Canada has proven itself completely inept.

Personally, I would like to see an inquiry into foreign interference in our elections, but I guess that’s not considered a pressing issue anymore.

[selfmodruntime]

> I hesitate to call them protesters because I don't think they had a permit

The notion that the common people need permission to protest is exactly why we are slowly, but surely arriving at oligarchies. The French are right. You don't need permission to show the ruling class who's king.

[clwg]

Perhaps bad phrasing, it is an emotional issue having lived through it.

I like to think that I don't live in a country ruled by a King but rather in a community of citizens who have collectively agreed on a way of doing things. This includes the right to express dissent against other citizens to whom we have delegated certain decision-making responsibilities. A permit isn't about seeking permission; it's about ensuring an orderly process so that things don't devolve into chaos and bouncy castles.

At the time, I think we were also in stage 2 lockdown(which should have been enough to stop it), so the people bearing the brunt of these actions, whatever you want to label it as, were not the ones making those decisions. Our elected officials don't live inside Parliament Hill.

[selfmodruntime]

> I like to think that I don't live in a country ruled by a King but rather in a community of citizens who have collectively agreed on a way of doing things

That is what a protest is. The collective agrees, not their rulers.

> A permit isn't about seeking permission; it's about ensuring an orderly process so that things don't devolve into chaos and bouncy castles.

I don't agree here, and even if that were so, there's a stark difference between the original intention and the ultimate use of permission as a tool.

[brutus1979]

I don't agree with your last point. In a democracy, we have elections at a cadence. If you disagree with protest permits, you are welcome to stand up in the next election, or vote for a representative who will.

We can elections yearly or monthly but man .. how unproductive that would be. The lowered cost of tech may indeed improve participatory democracy.

I see the system working in all of this btw. I support Trudeau but am okay if the liberals get voted out.

[JellyBeanThief]

> A permit isn't about seeking permission

Then they need to be renamed.

[clwg]

In Canada, we have the inherent right to assemble as granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; therefore, I don’t need permission, which is discretionary.

Permits in this context represent authorization that establishes procedures for exercising this right on property administered by government, which ensure things like public safety without infringing on any rights or freedoms of the protestors or other citizens.

[ethbr1]

The inherent tension has always been "How much of an asshole does my freedom to protest allow me to be?"

Because protesting has always been about, to some degree, inconveniencing others to achieve your political aims.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>In Canada, we have the inherent right to assemble as granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Playing devil's advocate here: what if it wasn't mentioned in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What if the CRF didn't exist to start with?

(my point being that when things are very bad, certain things need to be done regardless of what a formal law states, you cannot let tyranny call the shots)

[lazide]

A permit is literally about seeking permission to do something from an authority - the absence of which, makes the activity illegal.

[Dalewyn]

>I like to think that I don't live in a country ruled by a King

Canada is ruled by the British king/queen, even if only symbolically.

>A permit isn't about seeking permission

A permit is permission in granted form. Perhaps you meant something else, it's a poor choice of words.

[Jakeale]

The monarch of Canada is the King of Canada. It's a completely separate role from the King of the UK even though it's the same person. Canada isn't ruled by the British King.

[bryanlarsen]

You don't need a permit to protest in Ottawa, on foot, unamplified in a location where you do not block others. You do need a permit to block the streets with your protest. Those are readily and regularly granted -- if the city didn't grant them the courts will force them to. Once you get that permit, you'll get a police escort to block the street for you.

[pyuser583]

I took part in one political protest in my life. The leaders spent most of their efforts screaming at us “stay out of the road and don’t block the sidewalk!”

We were encouraged to bring our kids, and criticized by the opposition for doing so. Our kids had a great time and learned the value political participation.

The protest was 100% successful at it achieving its one, narrow aim.

[tw04]

Except they weren’t protesting or inconveniencing the government or the oligarchs, just their fellow citizens.

[lazide]

Which seems to have inconvenienced the government enough they had an outsized reaction, yes?

[dennis_jeeves2]

>I hesitate to call them protesters because I don't think they had a permit or a cohesive message beside

What exactly would you do if you were a trucker? i.e your livelihood has been denied for a long time?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>I hesitate to call them protesters because I don't think they had a permit or a cohesive message beside F* Trudeau

I would assert that so-called "votes of no-confidence" in politicians are legitimate protest, even if they do not criticize any specific policy or behavior. It would be a strange world to live in where protests could or would be shut down and everyone would taunt the protesters with "but you didn't have a cohesive message except Stalin is bad".

[eumenides1]

There is a giant chasm between "F* Trudeau" and "Stalin is bad".

Some people would like you to believe it's close, and they would be wrong. Stalin murdered/tortured people en masse. Trudeau oversaw a government (democratically elected mine you) through a once in a century pandemic.

The convoy of protesters made a point, was allow to make it for sufficient period of time, and was told to go away when a majority of Canadians didn't agree with their stance.

When faced with reality of their unpopular nature and their inability to build a momentum or consensus. They dug in.

At some point, enough is enough. The Pandemic ended, public heath was restore, and none of what the protesters did mattered. None of the protesters continue to be persecuted by the Government of Canada, Ontario, or the City.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>There is a giant chasm between "F* Trudeau" and "Stalin is bad".

There might well be a giant chasm between Trudeau and Stalin, that's a matter of proper objective measurement which I don't think is easy and certainly has never been done. There is no chasm whatsoever between "fuck Trudeau" and "Stalin is bad". Not even much semantically. In choosing one politician/bureaucrat/whatever over another, I do not agree that anyone ever need justify their choices. Someone saying "I've stopped supporting this politician" whether don't politely or rudely, is valid. Protesting need not have any more message than this.

If protesting did require something more sophisticated than the assertion that one no longer supports them, then the weaseliest politicians and other charlatans could abuse that requirement (in fact, they already try to do so, and apologists make that easier for them to attempt it).

>and was told to go away when a majority of Canadians didn't agree with their stance.

It's unclear that a majority disagreed. It's unclear to me that there remains a majority at all in Canada.

>When faced with reality of their unpopular nature and their inability to build a momentum or consensus. They dug in.

Again, I'm not sure that's reality. If they could be deluded into thinking there were more of them than there were, what makes you immune to the reverse?

>and none of what the protesters did mattered.

We at least agree that it didn't matter in the ways that they hoped. But it mattered otherwise, when we saw the Canadian government use unjustifiable tactics to punish them even before they had been convicted of any crimes.

>None of the protesters continue to be persecuted

Well gee. When you put it like that, that "none *continue* to be persecuted" the complaints do sound kind of silly.