On Twitter this morning Global News reporter Mackenzie Gray noted that PSAC, the federal union, “is calling on their members to keep escalating their actions” with efforts that include shutting down access to the Port of St.
"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.
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.
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:
"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.
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.
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