Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 7

Vkk did not support freedom convoy finland
Vkk leader ano turtianen on twitter denounced the protests calling for law and order 86.114.213.188 (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't mentioned in the article, and I see no reason to list the very belated opinion of a minor Finnish politician in this article about a Canadian protest. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
There is no need for this article to mention the weapons cache recovered in Coutts. It has been established that it is completely unrelated, and mentioning it in the article in spite of that is misleading at best and deceptive and dishonest at worst. 206.188.65.136 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Where was it established that it is completely unrelated?  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The last time similar edits were requested editors did not appear to reach a consensus. --N8wilson 🔔 20:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From this globalnews article on 7 September 2022 I gather that the RCMP alleges the weapons people were indeed involved with the blockading too. I don't see a need to change the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to Statement and Reactions - Canadian Politicians - Liberal Party -
small business workers and steal food from the homeless" The afforementioned quote by Justin Trudeau needs to be clarified as while this may have happened in an isolated incident or two, my friend who walked by the protests in Ottawa daily on his way to work observed homeless people being given free food by the truckers. In fact they stuffed as much food as they could in their backpacks.  Indeed my friend was offered free food on several occasions as he walked by.  In his opinion the truckers were harmless and a curiosity. He lives 4 blocks from parliament hill where the protester's trucks gathered and he was not bothered by the horns. 129.222.140.178 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I too have a neighbour that went and described it as a big street party. Unfortunately legacy media has been bribed by the incumbent government and will always describe the events from that slant, so it's hard to make use of any anecdotes since the media will always tie the apartment fire and dancing on the war memorial by an uninvolved person as part of the "so called freedom convoy", and we are bound to that. The EMA commission should hopefully provide us with some details that allow us to say it was a peaceful protest that the government rathered fight with force than negotiation. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Trudeau's statement was made after and in reference to an incident where convoy protesters descended on a soup kitchen and demanded to be fed . We can't editorialize nor publish eyewitness accounts, but we could provide some more context. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 Nov 2022
Please change

"Bergen had implored him to support the protestors, saying that "there were good people on both sides", an echo of the phrase made by Donald Trump in regards to the Unite the Right rally in 2017"

to

"Bergen had implored him to support the protestors, saying that "there were good people on both sides", which CTV News' Glen McGregor likened to the phrase made by Donald Trump in regards to the Unite the Right rally in 2017"

or

"Bergen had implored him to support the protestors, saying that "there were good people on both sides", which has been described by writers as an echo of the phrase made by Donald Trump in regards to the Unite the Right rally in 2017"

This way the interpretation is be attributed to the writer, or an attribution such as the word "describe" can be used as required.

WP:NPOV states the following policy: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

The interpretation of "an echo" should not be framed as an objective fact in Wikipedia's voice, rather be attributed per this policy. Thank you. LemonberryPie (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. We should not be using Wikipedia's voice to claim that anything is "an echo", per WP:NPOV/WP:OR - Floydian τ ¢ 17:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2022
Remove "(mainly the unvaccinated)" under heading "Vaccine mandates and passports", second line first paragraph. No source provided. The other two sources provided [92] and [93] are irrelevant with respect to "(mainly the unvaccinated)" and are inaccurate with respect to the particular section. 117.20.116.136 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ 3mi1y (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove main image that contains the green sign painted with “liberty”
People on the right side of the political spectrum cannot protests justified mandates and claim that they are fighting for freedom. Extremely biased of Wikipedia to do. Remove the main image if it wants to be seen as neutral. The man in the pickle suit (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It would be biased of Wikipedia to intentionally misrepresent the protestors, as you suggest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Far right groups typically appropriate symbols of democracy and other positive symbols, so it is fair to show them doing so. Note how many Canadian flags there are. Apparently the organizers told them to leave their confederate flags at home. TFD (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's in line with the language they used and is an objective representation. Maeeeee (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggested URL re: public inquiry
Here is a source of information directly from the inquiry commission, unfiltered by any media, which may be of interest: https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/ 24.142.46.176 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added that to the external links CT55555 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin Dichter
Benjamin Ditcher was a notable organiser of the protest, especially with regards to handling the cryptocurrency elements of the fundraising.

There was an old article about him at BJ Dichter. That article was merged to this one, after this discussion, which concluded that he did not at that time meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia.

Since that decision, there have been a number of news articles about him, which demonstrate to me that he is now notable. Examples include:


 * 1) https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1929974/commission-rouleau-cedu-enquete-publique-etat-urgence-audiences-jour-16-convoi-camionneurs
 * 2) https://ottawa.citynews.ca/national-news/freedom-politics-control-and-money-the-many-motivations-of-the-freedom-convoy-6048169
 * 3) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-benjamin-dichter-helped-promote-a-cryptocurrency-fundraiser-for-convoy/
 * 4) Also from June https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-freedom-convoy-renegade-jew-benjamin-dichter

I therefore wish to create an article about him. I tried to get that consensus here but the advice there was to have the discussion here instead.

Therefore, I'm hereby seeking consensus to recreate the article, now that his notability is more clearly established. I'll give it a bit of time to let people comment. CT55555 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have recreated it. See Benjamin Dichter CT55555 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 26 Nov 2022
I am requesting permission to edit this page to correct typos. I would not use this power to make anything besides minor edits. (Please let me know if anything about my request is a faux-pas, etc.; I am new to the world of editing "protected" pages.)

Here is one of the sentences with a typo that I would like to correct: 'Canadian scholar Peter McLaren criticized the convoy protesters' "concept of freedom" as "sorely lacking in dialectical analysis.", arguing that "They often..."'

Notice the improper punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platosghostlybeard (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A
— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Redux, cancelled: where for a brief reference?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/freedom-convoy-2-0-organizer-cancelled-1.6701707 https://apnews.com/article/politics-ottawa-canada-government-winnipeg-091a806c33508ca4cd779457d08f8157 https://edmontonjournal.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/convoy-organizer-says-plans-to-stage-a-2023-protest-in-winnipeg-are-off/wcm/a976ea5b-bc3f-4aa0-8b7c-00ebac26ed24

Where might the cancelled reboot in Winnipeg be mentioned? -- Zanimum (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2023
Please change:

“whose government had removed the "power of mandatory vaccination from the province's Public Health Act, to ensure there could not be a vaccine mandate.”

to:

“whose government had removed the power of mandatory vaccination from the province's Public Health Act, to ensure there could not be a vaccine mandate.”

The single quote seems to be an error, and the passage is not close enough to the original citation text to warrant being in quotes for its current form. (Also, please do not include the outermost quotes in the edit. They are merely to distinguish my statements from the proposed edits.) Duckduckgoop (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have fixed CT55555 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2023 (2)
Please change “or have a negative COVID-19 tests.” to “or have a negative COVID-19 test.” Duckduckgoop (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, have fixed CT55555 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding additional information to groups section
I was a little surprised mentions of Christopher James Pritchard's Parliament Hill speech and Sovereign Citizens weren't mentioned in this article as among the supporting groups.

Both are known to have participated.

Sources:

While the link now is offline: https://twitter.com/nolifeneet/status/1488008441088122880

The wayback machine contains the text (of the tweet), but unfortunately not the video of the speech: https://web.archive.org/web/20220131043728/https://twitter.com/nolifeneet/status/1488008441088122880

The article also omits anything about anti-semetism, even though nazi flags and pritchard were both there. Seems important. Not sure why it's not included, unless as a deliberate white-wash.

---

The article is locked, so i cannot add this, but i think it's a glaring omission (if one that isn't often talked about). 67.70.150.188 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ben Dichter- truckers.
the reference you post states that Ben and Tamara are not long haul truckers. In fact Benjamin Dichter is a cross border owner operator. He current drives cross border mostly on the east coast. 45.2.215.222 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Liberal Party Affiliates Gatekeeping of Public Information
I tried to edit this before to keep it objective, fact central and steer clear of partisanship. The article has since been locked to editors who have created a bias, censored description and analysis of the events. Now that a federal court has ruled that Trudeau exercised an "unjustifiable" use of the Emergencies Act, are Wikipedia going to include this incredibly pertinent information in the summary or not? You know it's crucial information and has major implications but. 2604:3D09:37F:DB10:7D8D:1F1C:1345:9823 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, it should be in the article. Masterhatch (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You might find you get better reception from other editors if you didn't fill your comment with accusations, conspiracism and obvious political bias. Maybe the reason the decision isn't in the article is that it only came down today. It's here: . TFD (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You only fuel hostility when you resort to locking an article and gatekeeping people from removing bias or adding politically neutral content - nothing controversial whatsoever. Still, nothing has been added to the summary. And no it's not a conspiracy that . 2604:3D09:37F:DB10:BD25:557E:880C:A4AD (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No one pays me. And I can edit any article I want. Try creating an account and see where things take you. Masterhatch (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, then go ahead and put the federal judge ruling in the summary then? It's incredibly relevant information. . 2604:3D09:37F:DB10:C5ED:3A16:1036:445E (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, the "lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." I think it does that well enough. Take note, only once in the lead does it mention the Emergencies Act ("On February 14, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time since its passing in 1988) and also take note that it doesn't mention the Rouleau inquiry. If we were to add the federal court ruling to the lead, we'd have add the Rouleau inquiry too. I don't think that's needed for the lead — it's all in the body. Leads shouldn't be bloated and adding those would bloat it. You said: "few selected editors who can add material to this locked article." There are thousands upon thousands of editors who can edit this page. And if you create an account and make the required number of good edits, you can join the ranks of those thousands. And you attacking my political stance isn't a good start. Look at my user page, Justin Trudeau isn't exactly the kind of guy I'd want to go for a beer with. Our political views on just about everything are very different. I am not a "gate keeper" of this article or any other. Masterhatch (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rouleau inquiry is not legally binding and has little significance especially given the fact they clearly did not follow the definition of the where mark menichino admitted section two was not met and they knew it yet.
 * The fact the emergencies act is mentioned to clear it means it needs to se shown that it was not justified or it would leave a impression stating otherwise to someone looking for information they don’t already know 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B815:1122:1F55:F69E (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling it a far right hate group. All . I didn’t know . I guess we can 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B815:1122:1F55:F69E (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's in the article now. However, the actual significance of the decision cannot be determined since it is not final. That is, we have to wait until all appeals have run out.
 * There is no case law for the use of the act and very little for use of similar legislation in common law jurisdictions. Therefore, it's hard to anticipate how it will ultimately be decided. TFD (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussion about improvements to the associated Wikipedia article, not for general discussion about the topic, and it is especially not a forum for personal attacks against perceived political opponents. Everyone is welcome to respectfully discuss the article's content and ways that our coverage of this controversial topic can be improved, regardless of your political affiliation. But if anyone brings more accusations about supposed liberal/communist conspiracies or casts any other aspersions about other editors or their political motivations, or is clearly just here to air opinions about politicians, you will be blocked from editing and your comments will be removed. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Characterizations in this entry do not reflect a neutral viewpoint
Characterizations and claims about the protestors are not backed by evidence and rely on hearsay that was misreported in the news during the protests. Examples - protestors waving conferderate flags. Where are the images to support this? There are hours and hours of footoge from live streams and news braodcasts showing protestors carrying Canadian flags,but none documenting the alleged Confederate flags.

The article should be cleaned up to reflect the reality of the protests vs. regurgititating media spin. 72.88.142.106 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * From the AP story: "Protestors compared vaccine mandates to fascism, one truck carried a Confederate flag and many carried expletive-laden signs targeting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau." The article also describes the appearance of swastikas. AP is a reliable source, and Wikipedia relies on that kind of source, whether you think it should or not.. Is there something going on in a forum elsewhere that is drawing editors to this article? It's seen a lot of disruptive soapboxing recently. However, I think that the flag statement could be modified to strictly reflect the source's statement of a confederate flag.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will re-attribute the reference directly to AP when I get a moment, since the reference to the Washington Post, which carried the AP report, seems to be behaving badly.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's a forum bringing people here but I read this from Rebel news saying that Public is claiming the media helped the Liberals. Maybe that's where it's coming from? IMHO, other than the CBC, I think most media did their best to report what was really happening (CBC was caught making crap up more than once). Masterhatch (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find the issue to be this the way language and symbolism like this reflects on the other 10,000 protesters that did not agree with this message. When you look through wiki’s of all other protests like the gorge Floyd protests they are framed in a good light without the over quoting of negative media attention as you can find it on almost any large protest.
 * a second thing I would like to point out is the way the blockades are described. The Ottawa police chief is quoted as saying that they where the remarkably peaceful and lawful of any demonstrators of its size in the world. It was the largest protest in Canadian history which is it not given credit for. Instead the logging blockade in Vancouver was given that title and those blockades are described as “peaceful civil disobedience” a title the convoy is deserving of Clayoquot protests 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B155:EDAA:28BA:E38D (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Unverified news reports
There is lots of slanderous unverified reports that police have flat out denied or have since been discredited that are being aloud to be portrayed as facts 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:B455:838C:79D4:B12D (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Source (read wp:rs). Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Just curious what other wiki protest has every negative article ever produced quoted?
Looking through other examples of major protests on wiki such as the gorge Floyd protests that was literally the most destructive protest in North America history I don’t see 1/4 of the negative news articles quotes compared to the freedom convoy. To won’t even call it by it’s name in the title. It appears the information being given is designed to leave a negative impression rather than neutral facts. There is video evidence of the Ottawa Police chief calling the freedom convoy “extremely peaceful and lawful” while denouncing most of the claims made against them https://x.com/derekkaior/status/1750405107068350834?s=46 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:4946:3FDF:A2C5:F90F (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by the weight RS give to a topic. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But video doesn’t lie… 2605:8D80:664:58B3:4DD1:8C4A:8944:B63E (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Videos lie in many ways -- and those ways are rapidly increasing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per policy, the perception of the protest in the article should reflect that in reliable sources. If memory serves, media were far more negative toward this protest than the George Floyd protests. I would point out that the Nuremburg Rally was "extremely peaceful and lawful," but is still perceived in a negative light.
 * I do not see the relevance of the Emergencies Act decision. The fact that a judge found the invocation of the act was illegal does not mean the protest was lawful. It's just that it did not pose the level of threat required to use the act. A riot for example is unlawful but does not justify invocation of the act. TFD (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think anyone disputes that it wasn’t lawful only that it was peaceful civil disobedience as in the Fairy Creek protest. I agree with the assertion of the negative media coverage, I only ask that the over quotes of negative articles be adjusted to compensate for this or removed entirely. There where obviously acts where single individuals misbehaved, but at the time the terry fox statue was dressed up, monuments all over Canada where being torn down and viewed in a neutral or even positive light.https://montreal.citynews.ca/2022/11/21/montreal-john-a-macdonald-statue-committee/amp/ within minutes of the story being released and it being viewed as offensive protestors removed the images and polished the staue.
 * I don’t know any other protest or events where things like noise or exhaust fumes are viewed as a assault. it clearly states in the description any people who intentionally did any illegal or offensive acts where removed. And I fell with the length of this article that is not reflected towards the end.
 * this was obviously a heavily politicized protest and people feel strongly both ways. I’m guilty of it too but I do my best to have it remain in a neutral light. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:807D:79D:E05:36BF (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked 2020 was not 2022. But I agree we should not link to every protest (such as the miner's strike or the anti-Vietnam war demos. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy section is Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance." The fact that people feel strongly both ways does not mean both sides have equal validity. The protesters were misinformed about vaccinations and their civil rights regarding vaccines and spread this misinformation to the detriment of the public. At least in the case of George Floyd, there was an actual innocent victim.
 * The incompetence of the police reaction and the (apparently) illegal reaction of the government do not mitigate the actions of the protesters. (Note: personally I agree with the judge, but until all appeals have run out, we cannot present his opinion as authoritative.) TFD (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to devolve into debates but there is definitely a right to protest what they did as confirmed by the police only after the weekend and the permit to protest ran out did it become a illegal protest. If you look at the public order emergency commission section 3.2.3 Commanders intent section vi. It states
 * “Disorderly conduct and criminal behaviour will not be tolerated and will be dealt with in a manner that does not jeopardize officer safety; and
 * vii. In the event that crowd behaviour deteriorates and public safety is jeopardized the Incident Commander may put measures in place to increase the police presence and deploy specialized resources such as Public Order Units.(also referred to as Public Safety” https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/exhibits/OPP00001847.pdf?t=1668672093
 * this shows that February 13th police found crowd behaviour did not deteriorate and the public or officer safety was not jeopardized. Only after soly was fired did the narrative change, and I know the behaviour of the protesters didn’t. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:6D16:D28A:1266:BDFA (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The protests remained peaceful until the end. In Windsor police moved in on the protesters linked arms singing O Canada, the protestors in Ottawa where peaceful too https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=ObJ935wgxvox9vxI&v=X-iggpqeL7A&feature https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=O0o5dYwNRHpZKS4r&v=a3lbRWLOqZM&feature https://m.youtube.com/live/hTL8T0MaIN8?si=ZcBWyo7QMj1B-EfD https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=yzV2XwIHlaSvpnZ9&v=fdhahc_fRfw&feature https://x.com/bigwhitehick/status/1749972161664590093?s=46 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D7s8cyQGTzo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BJLokj8T82M
 * i don’t want to debate about gorge Floyd but the information you gave is disputed, it also caused 19 deaths and thousands of injuries and assault ant that’s definitely not justified 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:6D16:D28A:1266:BDFA (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a selective reading of the report. It also says at the beginning that the demonstrators posed a "serious danger and threat to the safety and security of residents," were parked in unsanctioned areas, impacted traffic flow, disturbed neighbours and were a "public safety hazard." All you can conclude from your quote is that the RCMP believed that they could handle the situation without govt. declaring an emergency. TFD (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As can be seen on page 165 of the ruling as seen in a secret document released by the queens privy council the “ PCO is of the view that the examples of evidence collected to date Solicit
 * Solicitor-Client Priv.
 * support a determination that the two
 * criteria required to declare à public order emergency pursuant to the EA
 * have been met.
 * Specifically, POC is of the view that while municipal and provincial
 * authorities have taken decisive action in key affected areas, such as law
 * enforcement activity at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, considerable
 * effort was necessary to restore access to the site and will be required to
 * maintain access. The situation across the country remains concerning,
 * volatile and unpredictable. While there is no current evidence of
 * significant implications by extremist groups or international sponsors,
 * PCO notes that the disturbance and public unrest is being felt across the
 * country and beyond the Canadian borders, which may provide further
 * momentum to the movement and lead to irremediable harms - including
 * to social cohesion, national unity, and Canada's international reputation.
 * In PO's view, this fits within the statutory parameters defining threats to
 * the security of Canada, though this conclusion may be vulnerable to
 * challenge.”
 * this means that because there was so much support behind it it became a threat to “national unity and social cohesion” which seems like a cop out for a government looking for a excuse to use measures that where eventually ruled unjustified
 * https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/2024.01.23-306-22-T-316-22-T-347-22-T-382-22.pdf 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. WP:PRIMARY
 * If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that such material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. WP:FORUM Softlem (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t call this a analysis as more a direct quote. The judge states they did not meet section 2 of the CSIS act “threats to the security of Canada means
 * (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
 * (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
 * (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
 * (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
 * but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23/section-2.html
 * the entire reason the police had such a hard time was because they didn’t do anything to have it declared a illegal protest. They even had a court order to not make noise at night. If it was illegal the court order would have said to disperse. They where only banned from obstructing highways, honking, lighting off fireworks, starting open air fires (it was -20) or idling vehicles.
 * White’s memo significantly noted, that the city cannot direct the actions of the Ottawa Police Service. The injunction, he said, simply supplements “the tools available to law enforcement authorities to address the unlawful conduct of protesters.”
 * https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/no-more-fireworks-judge-grants-city-injunction-against-convoy-protestors/wcm/a40d3666-13cc-459e-82e8-e164d1afdd7d/amp/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn’t call this a analysis as more a direct quote. Analysis of quote is analysis. You want to quote it in article?
 * Link gives me error, I dont know what link says Softlem (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So lets see the suggested text for the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because the protests did not meet the criteria for invoking the emergency act, does not mean it did not pose a serious danger to the public. Justice Mosley said the protests "reflected an unacceptable breakdown of public order." He also concluded there "was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act." Both can be true at the same time.

The question was whether public order could be restored with the limitations placed on government by its requirement to observe the rights of individuals. In Canadian history, you would have to go back to the invasions of 1775 and 1812-14 and the rebellions of 1837 and in the Northwest. The fact the Convoy protest did not meet this level of risk doesn't mean it was not a risk to public order.

TFD (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)