[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.