3 Comments

"This right necessarily includes the right to a certain degree of “disruptive” behaviour."

But, is it really a 'right'? It seems that law enforcement grant a degree of latitude to seemingly organized protest (try putting your own barricade on a railroad track), but isn't this just a subjectively practical application of the law?

You can't have both "your rights and freedoms end where mine begin" and a right to disrupt.

Expand full comment
author

I think my claim is not that ANY particular activity is somehow automatically protected as part of the right, but that the right clearly contemplates a range of activities that would be inherently "disruptive". There's no way to gather a mass of people in a park, or in a march, without disrupting the daily lives or even freedom of enjoyment/movement of others. But yes, a law that prohibits someone from throwing a couch on a rail line is easily upheld as constitutional even if it interferes with the broader right to protest (peaceful assembly, expression). I used the rail disruption example not as evidence of 'the right to disrupt' but as evidence that - contra convoy sympathizers - no, Indigenous protests were not actually 'allowed' to put up blockades without sanction.

Expand full comment

Thanks for your reply. I agree amassing in a park could be disruptive, and people have the right to assemble there whether it is a protest or not. But, my point is that when people break the law, as in pedestrians on a roadway, being there as a protester ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ shouldn't override the law.

Coincidentally, right after I viewed your reply, I saw this on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/chrisdacey/status/1651970774444437506

Expand full comment