The government gave three criteria for prohibited protests.
The Parliament Hill protest does not interfere with trade, and the Hill is not critical infrastructure.
This means only justification to declare it unlawful is 2(c), for which no evidence has been provided.
The Parliament Hill protest does not interfere with trade, and the Hill is not critical infrastructure.
This means only justification to declare it unlawful is 2(c), for which no evidence has been provided.
Please correct me if I'm misreading something, but I just don't see how the Ottawa protest (as opposed to border blockades) is even addressed by this order, though Ottawa police are using this order as justification to threaten arrest on anyone present.
This is a highly relevant question as the government continues to claim it is not infringing on the right to peaceful assembly. At what point does a peaceful, lawful assembly (many of which shut down streets, admittedly not for several weeks) become an unlawful one?
An assembly being "prohibited" is the trigger for the suspension of rights the government claims it's empowered to do under the Emergencies Act, so the semantics matter, and thus far aren't being answered.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
