No, poll after poll has shown that Canadians were overwhelmingly against the truckers [1], and a strong majority supported the use of the emergency act (there was even a point where bringing in the military polled quite strongly with Canadians). There have also been a multitude of reports of violence, including at least one case where protestors attempted to burn down an apartment complex with its residents locked inside [2]. I don’t think it’s possible to understate how poorly informed you are about this, and as a Canadian I really beg you to stop spreading misinformation like this.
Protections for rights like this don't exist to protect speech that is popular. They exist to protect speech that is UNPOPULAR, because that's the very speech that needs to be protected. Early civil rights movements were not popular, blocked roads, and sometimes ended in riots. The idea of "MLK led a march on the capital and everyone agreed because he was so peaceful :)" is propaganda. Creating inconvenience for people is the POINT of a protest - the freedom to "protest" as long as the police are OK and you stay in your protesting zone far away from where it would be too much trouble isn't a right to protest at all.
The fact that Canadians are largely against this has absolutely zero bearing on anything.
> at least one case where protestors attempted to burn down an apartment complex
On the footage, he described seeing two individuals lighting a fire in the lobby shortly after 5 a.m. Sunday. After the suspects leave, another individual is seen coming into view and quickly extinguishing the fire near the elevators, Munoz said.
...
Police have not confirmed any link between their investigation into this incident and the ongoing convoy protest.
>Police have not confirmed any link between their investigation into this incident and the ongoing convoy protest.
I invariably see some version of this post every single time somebody posts about the attempted arson.
Are you of the opinion that in order for something to be true that it has to be publicly confirmed by police? Do you consider the statement that you posted to be positive proof that the arsonists are _definitely not_ involved with the silly trucker tantrum?
No, I assume the arsonists might be from any population, not excluding the truckers. I think the facts of the matter don't support the claim that "protestors attempted to burn down an apartment complex."
Looking at the photos of the arsonists, I see one is ear-wearing a mask. Having a mask at all seems out of character for the trucker-protestors given other photojournalism. Maybe it was a disguise?
Why would anyone think it is rational to tie the arson attempt to protestors? Have other incidents of arson been coincidental to the protests as in Minneapolis and elsewhere?
In fact, arson attempts are so common in Ottawa that you could probably make the argument that the convoy was preventing arson from occurring. /s
The news reported that someone in the building had a confrontation with some of the protesters that day, and then there is video of someone trying to burn the building down. I wonder if it could be related. The facts of the matter are that there is no linkage to the truckers because the cops don't know who it is. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Why don't we say instead that the occupation instead created an environment of lawlessness where the police had no control.
My anger isn't really placed at you, but I'm really sick of people from all over the internet telling the people who actually live in Ottawa that the protests have been peaceful. I wrote about this on my blog earlier this week: https://nsavage.substack.com/p/makeottawaboringagain. Everyone is keen to talk about what the truckers want, or what the government wants, but no one wants to talk about how the only people directly affected by the occupation are the people of Ottawa, who are faced with things like:
These things are obviously not okay and not signs of a peaceful protest. They should be beyond the pale for everyone. I'm working on a new article about the Emergency's Act and freezing bank accounts, and I think the government went too far, but that doesn't mean that any of the things that came before are acceptable.
> I'm really sick of people from all over the internet telling the people who actually live in Ottawa that the protests have been peaceful.
Your sickness is regrettable. It’s such a shame not everyone is on board with your pity-train of first world problems. Are you so out of touch that you even know what not-peace is?
An epistemologically closed assertion without evidence deserves pushback. I think you might agree with that given your lengthy response that barely addresses the claim at hand.
I doubt there was significant violence. If there had been, there'd be lots of criminal charges or video and photo evidence. The story you linked is vague and there's no evidence that people starting a fire in a building are linked to the protestors.
I agree with your other point, that Canadians largely oppose the protests.
What I don't understand is why the Emergency Act was invoked. I've heard no reasonsble explanation for why police couldn't disperse protestors blocking roads or arrest them and impound their vehicles if they refused to leave without the act.
You link to CNN and globalnews though. Not really unbiased sources. And I think we have learned about "polls" over the past few years, at least I have, in the US elections.
I have no doubt many Canadians are not happy about the protests. Maybe even most. But I don't believe these polls for one second. It looks like propaganda saying "see, everyone believes XX thing thing the government in power would like you to believe".
Jesus Christ, just go look at the Ipsos/Nanos polls. Do you think CNN made that up out of thin air? Those are reputable polling agencies. Barely 50% of CPC voters supported the convoy protestors methods.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/fact-check-canadian-...
[2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8600592/truc...