Thread by @davidfrum

Hints for those commenting on invocation of Canada's emergency legislation:

1) This law was passed relatively recently, 1988. It is explicitly subordinate to Canada's charter of rights. It replaced the much more draconian emergency laws that were invoked in 1914, 1939, and 1970

2) The legislation allows for a *range* of actions by authorities, proportionate to the civil disturbance. Proportionately is the thing that the courts will probably examine most closely when they review any actions taken.

3) It's not "fascist" for an elected government to invoke duly enacted emergency laws, reviewable by courts, to deal with disturbances. What is a lot more fascist-y, on the other hand, are extremist groups who blockade commerce in hopes of coercing the state to yield to demands

4) In a free society, citizens can expect many rights. But there's no "right" to obstruct traffic indefinitely. There's no right to "self-defense" against police enforcing traffic laws. Shooting cops as they enforce traffic laws is strongly frowned upon in any working democracy.

5) Protest is a precious right. Democracy is built on the principle of majority rule, but majorities aren't always right. Sometimes a passionate 20% has something to say that the indifferent 80% needs to hear. Protest enables the 20% to force attention and prove their commitment.

6) But Canadian governments have given this truck protest a *lot* of leeway. Governments allowed protesters to blockade the downtown of the national capital for weeks! To break all kinds of laws along the way! They were allowed to make a spectacular point, they got their hearing

7) At some point, the passionate 20% need to play by the rules of democracy too. Fortunately, it seems that most participants in the blockades do deep-down understand that truth. If arrested, most of them will go peacefully. Any who don't ... they cease to be "protesters." END

... ProportionaLITY ... sorry