Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that much to require that:
> A person must not participate in a public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace by:
>
> (a) the serious disruption of the movement of persons or goods or the serious interference with trade;
> (b) the interference with the functioning of critical infrastructure; or
> (c) the support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property.
I think it's possible to respect that approach, but still be mad as hell and get your point across.
Not sure what your point is here, though. I agree with you, but the right way to deal with people who violate this is to arrest them, charge them with a crime, and put them on trial. Not freezing their bank accounts without due process or recourse. The latter is undemocratic and authoritarian.
Agreed. I've watched the news this past week. We somehow went from A) allowing most illegal activities to B) completely disallowing any form of actual protest.
(EDIT: according to rescripting, there are protests still happening in Ottawa. See thread [0])
They are clearing the entire city. Anybody who doesn't work or live in Ottawa is not allowed to be there - you get arrested for being there. The new Ottawa police chief said something to the effect of "We are doing everything we can to ensure there are no more protests happening in Ottawa."
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that much to require that:
> A person must not participate in a public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace by: > > (a) the serious disruption of the movement of persons or goods or the serious interference with trade; > (b) the interference with the functioning of critical infrastructure; or > (c) the support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property.
I think it's possible to respect that approach, but still be mad as hell and get your point across.