Bottled a forum post?
Behave yourself.
Whilst it's true there was significant disruption isn't that the aim of a protest, it would be pretty toothless otherwise. However disruption does not equate to violence or it being illegal and certainly did not warrant the use of a totally egregious emergency powers act, which is pure comedy to see a 'liberal' leader pull out the totalitarian truncheon. With merely the stroke of a pen he was able to take away peoples civil liberties, arrest them and cut them off from their finances before the ink had even dried. No veto and no courts. How anyone can deem that response acceptable in a democratic society, my word. It's alarmingly eye opening.
We should be outraged by Trudeau’s efforts to shut down the Canadian trucker protests
I disagree with everything they stand for, but I also believe in the right to protest disruptively in a democratic societywww.independent.co.uk
The impetus for all of these was, of course, that the protests were “disruptive” — the same logic now being used by Trudeau. But protests are meant to be disruptive! Civil disobedience is, after all, a hallmark of nonviolent protests.
Similarly, the Black Lives Matter protests of the past few years have frequently closed freeways and occupied the streets.
Many of us on the left rightly cheered these actions on as loudly and resoundingly as we condemned both Tom Cotton’s op-ed and Trump’s use of state violence against peaceful protestors. Protests are a democratic right, we pointed out, while the actions of the Republicans were the hallmarks of an authoritarian regime — not of a democratic society.
The invocation of the Emergencies Act paves the way for such a gross violation of civil liberties. Trudeau may think he can get away with it because these protests are so unpopular; nearly three-quarters of Canadians want the convoy protests to cease. But the mark of a democratic society is not how it responds to popular views. It is how it tolerates unpopular and dissenting views. And right now, Canada is not meeting its mark.'
His response to this has been nothing short of authoritarian and the manner in which he's orchestrated the Canadian COVID responses echoes similar sentiments. And yes he did vilify the anti-vax and the unvaccinated, repeatedly. It's one thing to bring in laws/measures to require vaccination it's another to publicly criticise, dismiss, shame and ostracise those who don't agree thus creating a divide.
I don't think a reasonable or proportionate level of disruption is how most would describe the scale of the Ottawa blockade. It forced the government to direct additional policing resources to Ottawa for over a month. Business were disrupted, local residents were intimidated, kept awake at night by lorry horns, and in some cases stuck inside their homes. You seem to take a very sympathetic approach to the truckers, but what about the local residents whose lives they disrupted?
I could understand if public opinion was overwhelmingly on their side, but it wasn't. Multiple opinion polls demonstrated the public didn't support the convoy's motives or methods, and even some conservative voices came out against the protest.
I understand that protest is meant to disrupt, but it isn't reasonable or proportionate to blockade a city for a month.
You ask how anyone can deem it acceptable to freeze financial assets or invoke emergency powers legislation. You don't seem to ask how anyone can deem it acceptable to blockade a city, to intimidate residents and to force businesses to close?
What exactly did he say that "criticised, dismissed, shamed and ostracised" those who didn't agree with his COVID policy?
It seems like you're backing the truckers because of their motives, if I'm honest. I have to ask - if BLM protestors blockaded a city in the exact same way, would you support it?