Happy to see healthy debate in the comments section here, but a reminder to a) keep things civil and b) that we have an open rebuttal policy should you feel passionately about this issue. JG
With respect, this isn't about police overreaction or underreaction.
Section 1 of the Charter makes clear that rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits. The Supreme Court's Oakes test (1986) says that the limit must be “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified.” The goal must be pressing and substantial and the objective and means to achieve it must be proportional and be a minimal impairment to the right. The guiding principles in applying Section 1 include "the inherent dignity of the human person" and "respect for cultural and group identity".
This situation more than meets this test. The location of the protest, next to the largest Jewish community in Toronto and miles away from the Israeli consulate, is clearly intended to intimidate Jews, denying respect for the area's cultural and group identity and denying Jews in the area their inherent dignity. It is a deliberate affront to the equal right of Jews to live their lives free of targeted harassment.
The ongoing nature of this antisemitic provocation made the police position "demonstrably justified", with a goal both "pressing" and "substantial." Further, it's impact is "minimal" given that protesters have not been denied the ability to protest on any other overpass. Any impact only exists insofar as the real purpose of the location was to intimidate and harass Canadian Jews, in which case the "Final Balancing" clearly rests with the police action: Jews in the area are able to live in peace, and protesters are able to carry out their protest by moving it to another location.
Respect and support for the Charter will disappear if its reasonable limits on rights and freedoms are ignored. Anyone who cares about the Charter should applaud this police action.
Why is being angry about a wholesale staughter of innocent civilians "Antisemetic". If this was being conducted by say Iran or China the whole world would be up in arms. Humans capacity for hypocrisy is limitless.
Being angry about civilian deaths isn't antisemitic; conflating Canadian Jews with the Israeli government and targeting them for harassment is. Iran, China, Syria and others *are* behind mass civilian deaths and no one is saying boo. You're right that the human capacity for hypocrisy is limitless.
I agree, targeting and intimidating Canadian Jews is wrong. Some Canadian Jews demonstrate in support of Isreal, supporting foreign governments wars comes with risk and consequences.
The Canadian Jews who rally in support of Israel do so in appropriate places, such as Parliament Hill. They do not rally in front of Muslim schools, in Muslim neighbourhoods, or in front of Palestinian businesses. To do so would clearly be an anti-Islamic move, notably distinct from being anti-Hamas.
I think the author got to the heart of it at the end: there's no right to block roads or throughfares, and that's established in Canadian law and precedent. The current challenge is that protesters have bought into a myth that they're allowed to do these things with impunity because of their right to protest, and the dereliction of duty by police and politicians has allowed the myth to take root. It's going to take consistent application of the law for some time to re-set expectations.
I have addressed these issues before and the fundamental problem remains the same: the now ingrained notion that police officers have an unreviewable and largely unaccountable DISCRETION to enforce the law, or not, in accordance with their own judgment about the importance of (1) “keeping the peace” on the one hand, and (2) the (ostensibly) legally protected property and civil rights of ordinary citizens, on the other.
For example: railway companies who want to run their businesses without getting tied up in quarrels about the status of unelected hereditary chiefs 3000 miles away, (the rail blockades), OR women who seek access to abortion services, OR citizens who want to enjoy access to their homes and communities (Caledonia), OR Ottawa residents whose sleep is disturbed by the honking of horns, OR businesses and their employees, who rely upon the Ambassador Bridge, OR ordinary folks driving to work on the Gardiner expressway and chafe when it is blocked (remember the Tamil protesters’ blockade?).
This is about balancing the legally protected property and civil rights of citizens, on the one hand, and the LIMITED right of protesters to convey their message – to speak and to seek to persuade - and no more than that.
And it is also about having effective remedies, to deter unlawful interference with the rights of others, and to compensate those effected, when there is an encroachment by zealots of all stripes. Including, perhaps, when police don’t do their jobs, as in Caledonia.
That is the job of Legislatures and Judges – typically via the issuance of injunctions, by Judges, which the police now believe they can disregards.
In other words, this is a rule of law problem and a law ENFORCEMENT problem; and that is not a sphere in which the police have, or should have, an unreviewable discretion.
Nor should citizens have to resort to self help (counter protests) or private security…which is a recipe for trouble.
And yes, that may mean SOMEONE saying to protesters: you can’t protest here. Like on University Avenue in Toronto, which would block hospitals. As the Ford Government did.
As a life-long car-free citizen I walk where I need to go, bike, or use transit. Why is it unacceptable to block a road but just dandy to obstruct the sidewalk ? Living in ottawa I am used to seeing public demonstrations. Everyone from striking civil servants to the most obscure aggrieved grievance monger feels entitled to block the public. If the police attend the demo they tend to park their vehicles on the sidewalks to keep the traffic lanes open. The car is beyond sacred. Police make no effort to let pedestrians by unintimidated. Charter rights??
You raise an excellent point. I was focused on vehicle traffic and didn’t see how assembling on the overpass and waving flags is unreasonable, intimidating or illegal, providing they don’t block traffic. The situation dramatically changes, however, if pedestrians are forced to navigate through a crowd to go about their daily business. Police need to take appropriate steps in that situation and the word appropriate is critical as it will vary from situation to situation. In this particular situation a reasonable accommodation is likely available for all concerned short of declaring a public space as off limits to certain people.
Eric, I refer you to work place picket lines where traffic in and out (deliveries, people driving in to the parking lot, etc.) is disrupted by slowing down for a minute or so of picket lines that then clear up. These sorts of things are absolutely annoying but the judges require that the disruption be for only a short bit of time. So, to answer your question, the idea that a road/overpass can be shut down is unacceptable. In the same way, shutting down a sidewalk is unacceptable. However, however, if one simply has to walk slowly through the demo to get to the other side, you are not prevented from completing your journey; slowed (likely legally) but not prevented.
As for police parking on sidewalks, yup. On the other hand, protest to your council / police department and, at the same time, offer up a) alternatives (if any); and b) demonstrate through pictures, etc. the absolute impossibility (note: impossibility, not inconvenience) of access.
Josh, good essay. I am a believer in free speech and abhor intimidation and blockades. The unequal application of the Rule of Law is what drives Canadians (who care) wild. I recall prior to Covid, the bare shelves in my rural IGA, due to the illegal Idle No More railway blockades. Again, there was no enforcement of the Rule of Law , which only emboldened the rest of those who wish to inconvenience and annoy the rest of us, trying to make a living or live in peace.
I think the police are doing an impossible job. They're like the Children's Aid Society. You only hear about them when they get it wrong. They don't do enough, or they do too much depending on your opinion, doing a job where every encounter...or almost every encounter involves some form of confrontation with what has devolved to a highly unpredictable and angry public.
I still think anyone outside of Israel protesting this is wasting their time and energy. Those protesting came to Canada to get away from that shit. They should have left the protest mentality behind as well. If you have a Canada centred issue to protest about, knock yourself out....without blocking roads. If your issue is 5000 miles away, go there or shut the hell up.
The location for these pro-Hamas (Hamas being an anti-Jewish terrorist organization) demonstrations was deliberately selected so as to intimidate and inconvenience the nearby largely Jewish neighborhoods. The sidewalks are narrow and are not separated from the roadway. Any flag waving demonstrators are likely to force pedestrians dangerously close to the edge of the sidewalks and thus can be seen as blocking a roadway. Surely, any other demonstration target would have resulted in quick removal by the authorities. Pro-Hamas demonstrators do not warrant special treatment.
Really did NOT like reading this article and was surprised to see it from the Line....we have to get past an action numbing technical discussion of rights and the law. The pickets we have seen lately across campuses and cities are simple and categorically NOT right....protestors can't block private property and or public thoroughfares.....It's simple....And, did it ever occur to Josh that maybe the reason why police under react is because of inane articles like this one.
It is all about basic human rights and the law, as it should be, so that "authorities" cannot act arbitrarily based on their biases or the whims of some influential group.
Just because you do not agree with the stand that protestors are taking should have nothing to do with whether they can or cannot protest.
As an exercise in logical reasoning, you can't fault the argument here. As a practical matter, though, keeping protesters off an overpass to begin with would seem a much safer and surer route to preventing blockage than trying to keep them confined to the sidewalk once they're up there. How can any crowded sidewalk be monitored to ensure that no one steps from it onto the road, even momentarily? How can a motorist proceed alongside thronged overpass sidewalks, except with utmost caution and at a snail's pace? Retard the rate of traffic flow sufficiently and you have a blockage, in effect.
Surely, simple considerations of public safety warrant the conclusion that protesters and traffic shouldn't be mixed in this kind of circumstance. If a jostled protester stumbled, fell in front of a motorist and got killed, it doesn't take much imagination to predict the barrage of criticism the 'delinquent' police would then face. While constitutional rights are important, they aren't of even secondary concern to the dead. People have a right to behave foolishly, but those with a sense of proportion are generally wise enough to know when not to press the point.
In general an excellent article. I agree with other comments that our problem results from a creeping pattern of poor enforcement. I doubt that error rests solely with the police but is almost certainly due to the meddling of politicians. The politician’s job is to make the laws demanded by the public. The police and judiciary together must enforce those laws. Where the law is wrong or unenforceable the task returns to the politicians to fix that problem and by politicians I don’t mean some sole actor poking their nose in police business.
Well put Josh but I think you missed a couple of points.
It appears to me, as a non-protester who respects anyones right to protest so long as it doesn't interfeere with travel, commerce, acess to facilities or causes property damage, that there are two types of protest in Canada. There is the 'approved' protest - burning churches, disrupting pipeline construction, destroying construction equipment, blockading highways and railways, supporting Hamas, and unarguable anti-Jewish protest and the 'unapproved' protest - honking horns in Ottawa (it was noisy and some may have felt threatened but there was no actual vandalism or destruction and they bought food and coffee from businesses).
It seems to me that if the left wing supports your protest (burning churches was 'understnadable' apparently) then no action will be taken and if it is then it will be mild and the police will even hand you coffee and snacks!. If, on the other hand, you drive a semi and park it in Ottawa - where the police direct you to park - then you are going to have your bank accounts frozen and the Emergency Measures legislation will be invoked and you will find yourself in court.
My biggest fear is that the selective application of the law by police (I suspect that if I threaten to put someone 'six feet under' in a mall in front of police that I would be arrested) then where will the respect for the rule of law and respect for police end up? Likewise governments - municipal, provincial and federal - who refuse to take a stand on these illegal protests are sending a message that it is OK provided we agree (even passively) withyour point of view so knock yourself out which undermines confidence in our leadership. We seem to be living in a time when certain illegal activities like these protests are allowed (can we say drug consumption in public here?) and seemingly encouraged so why should we be surprised when the public has dwindling respect for our leadership and deminished respect for the police and rule of law and THAT is where the danger lies.
The law abiding silent majority is going to get fed up with this stuff eventually and it may be starting. I just hope we protest by turfing out governments that allow this crap to go on and not see a rise in vigilantism.
Good article and I agree. Hard to say really what the Police are good for these days. Charter rights aside
The OPP and Windsor police didn't seem to effective at clearing the Ambassador bridge or the Ottawa police and RCMP clearing downtown Ottawa. Must be some sort of non confrontational policing, not a good sign for the future.
I'm unclear by what Dehaas means by intimidation. I would have thought repeated demonstrations on this particular overpass can be seen as intimidation of the Jewish community living in the area, and therefore a basis for the police to end protest at this location. I wish this were clearer, or am I missing something?
In a diverse social society, it is of positive utility ( requirement even) to have a little spine, to be able to “get on”. Driving under a banner that makes a statement you disagree with can hardly be called intimidation. It doesn’t in any way prevent you rom going about your business, it just makes you feel bad.
I’m well aware of a certain mindset that is trying to criminalize other people, based on how they make you feel. An approach that is both hopeless and dangerous.
I get that but think people experience more than bad feelings when constantly having hostile views thrust in their face where they live. It's true that a phrase like "From the River to the Sea", for example, can be taken in different ways, but one of those ways is a direct threat to Jewish lives. To my mind, that's intimidation, especially when repeatedly done.
Yes, but the problem is not what the law IS, (because it includes protecting people, not just protesters), but rather whether it will be enforced, and if not, whether those damaged by the illegality will have redress against those who caused it. Especially if the police let it go on, longer than it should have done.
Happy to see healthy debate in the comments section here, but a reminder to a) keep things civil and b) that we have an open rebuttal policy should you feel passionately about this issue. JG
With respect, this isn't about police overreaction or underreaction.
Section 1 of the Charter makes clear that rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits. The Supreme Court's Oakes test (1986) says that the limit must be “reasonable” and “demonstrably justified.” The goal must be pressing and substantial and the objective and means to achieve it must be proportional and be a minimal impairment to the right. The guiding principles in applying Section 1 include "the inherent dignity of the human person" and "respect for cultural and group identity".
This situation more than meets this test. The location of the protest, next to the largest Jewish community in Toronto and miles away from the Israeli consulate, is clearly intended to intimidate Jews, denying respect for the area's cultural and group identity and denying Jews in the area their inherent dignity. It is a deliberate affront to the equal right of Jews to live their lives free of targeted harassment.
The ongoing nature of this antisemitic provocation made the police position "demonstrably justified", with a goal both "pressing" and "substantial." Further, it's impact is "minimal" given that protesters have not been denied the ability to protest on any other overpass. Any impact only exists insofar as the real purpose of the location was to intimidate and harass Canadian Jews, in which case the "Final Balancing" clearly rests with the police action: Jews in the area are able to live in peace, and protesters are able to carry out their protest by moving it to another location.
Respect and support for the Charter will disappear if its reasonable limits on rights and freedoms are ignored. Anyone who cares about the Charter should applaud this police action.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html
Why is being angry about a wholesale staughter of innocent civilians "Antisemetic". If this was being conducted by say Iran or China the whole world would be up in arms. Humans capacity for hypocrisy is limitless.
Being angry about civilian deaths isn't antisemitic; conflating Canadian Jews with the Israeli government and targeting them for harassment is. Iran, China, Syria and others *are* behind mass civilian deaths and no one is saying boo. You're right that the human capacity for hypocrisy is limitless.
I agree, targeting and intimidating Canadian Jews is wrong. Some Canadian Jews demonstrate in support of Isreal, supporting foreign governments wars comes with risk and consequences.
The Canadian Jews who rally in support of Israel do so in appropriate places, such as Parliament Hill. They do not rally in front of Muslim schools, in Muslim neighbourhoods, or in front of Palestinian businesses. To do so would clearly be an anti-Islamic move, notably distinct from being anti-Hamas.
If they want to protest the actions of a government, protest at the consulate. You wouldn't picket Pacific Mall if you had a problem with the CCP.
Precisely. Well put.
I think the author got to the heart of it at the end: there's no right to block roads or throughfares, and that's established in Canadian law and precedent. The current challenge is that protesters have bought into a myth that they're allowed to do these things with impunity because of their right to protest, and the dereliction of duty by police and politicians has allowed the myth to take root. It's going to take consistent application of the law for some time to re-set expectations.
Agree the key word is “consistent “.
Preferably consistent and swift.
I have addressed these issues before and the fundamental problem remains the same: the now ingrained notion that police officers have an unreviewable and largely unaccountable DISCRETION to enforce the law, or not, in accordance with their own judgment about the importance of (1) “keeping the peace” on the one hand, and (2) the (ostensibly) legally protected property and civil rights of ordinary citizens, on the other.
For example: railway companies who want to run their businesses without getting tied up in quarrels about the status of unelected hereditary chiefs 3000 miles away, (the rail blockades), OR women who seek access to abortion services, OR citizens who want to enjoy access to their homes and communities (Caledonia), OR Ottawa residents whose sleep is disturbed by the honking of horns, OR businesses and their employees, who rely upon the Ambassador Bridge, OR ordinary folks driving to work on the Gardiner expressway and chafe when it is blocked (remember the Tamil protesters’ blockade?).
This is about balancing the legally protected property and civil rights of citizens, on the one hand, and the LIMITED right of protesters to convey their message – to speak and to seek to persuade - and no more than that.
And it is also about having effective remedies, to deter unlawful interference with the rights of others, and to compensate those effected, when there is an encroachment by zealots of all stripes. Including, perhaps, when police don’t do their jobs, as in Caledonia.
That is the job of Legislatures and Judges – typically via the issuance of injunctions, by Judges, which the police now believe they can disregards.
In other words, this is a rule of law problem and a law ENFORCEMENT problem; and that is not a sphere in which the police have, or should have, an unreviewable discretion.
Nor should citizens have to resort to self help (counter protests) or private security…which is a recipe for trouble.
And yes, that may mean SOMEONE saying to protesters: you can’t protest here. Like on University Avenue in Toronto, which would block hospitals. As the Ford Government did.
As a life-long car-free citizen I walk where I need to go, bike, or use transit. Why is it unacceptable to block a road but just dandy to obstruct the sidewalk ? Living in ottawa I am used to seeing public demonstrations. Everyone from striking civil servants to the most obscure aggrieved grievance monger feels entitled to block the public. If the police attend the demo they tend to park their vehicles on the sidewalks to keep the traffic lanes open. The car is beyond sacred. Police make no effort to let pedestrians by unintimidated. Charter rights??
You raise an excellent point. I was focused on vehicle traffic and didn’t see how assembling on the overpass and waving flags is unreasonable, intimidating or illegal, providing they don’t block traffic. The situation dramatically changes, however, if pedestrians are forced to navigate through a crowd to go about their daily business. Police need to take appropriate steps in that situation and the word appropriate is critical as it will vary from situation to situation. In this particular situation a reasonable accommodation is likely available for all concerned short of declaring a public space as off limits to certain people.
Eric, I refer you to work place picket lines where traffic in and out (deliveries, people driving in to the parking lot, etc.) is disrupted by slowing down for a minute or so of picket lines that then clear up. These sorts of things are absolutely annoying but the judges require that the disruption be for only a short bit of time. So, to answer your question, the idea that a road/overpass can be shut down is unacceptable. In the same way, shutting down a sidewalk is unacceptable. However, however, if one simply has to walk slowly through the demo to get to the other side, you are not prevented from completing your journey; slowed (likely legally) but not prevented.
As for police parking on sidewalks, yup. On the other hand, protest to your council / police department and, at the same time, offer up a) alternatives (if any); and b) demonstrate through pictures, etc. the absolute impossibility (note: impossibility, not inconvenience) of access.
But, other than that, yes, I agree with you.
Josh, good essay. I am a believer in free speech and abhor intimidation and blockades. The unequal application of the Rule of Law is what drives Canadians (who care) wild. I recall prior to Covid, the bare shelves in my rural IGA, due to the illegal Idle No More railway blockades. Again, there was no enforcement of the Rule of Law , which only emboldened the rest of those who wish to inconvenience and annoy the rest of us, trying to make a living or live in peace.
I think the police are doing an impossible job. They're like the Children's Aid Society. You only hear about them when they get it wrong. They don't do enough, or they do too much depending on your opinion, doing a job where every encounter...or almost every encounter involves some form of confrontation with what has devolved to a highly unpredictable and angry public.
I still think anyone outside of Israel protesting this is wasting their time and energy. Those protesting came to Canada to get away from that shit. They should have left the protest mentality behind as well. If you have a Canada centred issue to protest about, knock yourself out....without blocking roads. If your issue is 5000 miles away, go there or shut the hell up.
I could get "behind that" ... y'all nailed it.
The location for these pro-Hamas (Hamas being an anti-Jewish terrorist organization) demonstrations was deliberately selected so as to intimidate and inconvenience the nearby largely Jewish neighborhoods. The sidewalks are narrow and are not separated from the roadway. Any flag waving demonstrators are likely to force pedestrians dangerously close to the edge of the sidewalks and thus can be seen as blocking a roadway. Surely, any other demonstration target would have resulted in quick removal by the authorities. Pro-Hamas demonstrators do not warrant special treatment.
Really did NOT like reading this article and was surprised to see it from the Line....we have to get past an action numbing technical discussion of rights and the law. The pickets we have seen lately across campuses and cities are simple and categorically NOT right....protestors can't block private property and or public thoroughfares.....It's simple....And, did it ever occur to Josh that maybe the reason why police under react is because of inane articles like this one.
“...categorically NOT right” but not illegal if - as Josh puts it - the roadway is not blocked.
It is all about basic human rights and the law, as it should be, so that "authorities" cannot act arbitrarily based on their biases or the whims of some influential group.
Just because you do not agree with the stand that protestors are taking should have nothing to do with whether they can or cannot protest.
G
I am appreciating this conversation / discussion very much. Not only are the arguments on each side cogent, but also respectful. Thank you all
Nobody cares what you think.
As an exercise in logical reasoning, you can't fault the argument here. As a practical matter, though, keeping protesters off an overpass to begin with would seem a much safer and surer route to preventing blockage than trying to keep them confined to the sidewalk once they're up there. How can any crowded sidewalk be monitored to ensure that no one steps from it onto the road, even momentarily? How can a motorist proceed alongside thronged overpass sidewalks, except with utmost caution and at a snail's pace? Retard the rate of traffic flow sufficiently and you have a blockage, in effect.
Surely, simple considerations of public safety warrant the conclusion that protesters and traffic shouldn't be mixed in this kind of circumstance. If a jostled protester stumbled, fell in front of a motorist and got killed, it doesn't take much imagination to predict the barrage of criticism the 'delinquent' police would then face. While constitutional rights are important, they aren't of even secondary concern to the dead. People have a right to behave foolishly, but those with a sense of proportion are generally wise enough to know when not to press the point.
In general an excellent article. I agree with other comments that our problem results from a creeping pattern of poor enforcement. I doubt that error rests solely with the police but is almost certainly due to the meddling of politicians. The politician’s job is to make the laws demanded by the public. The police and judiciary together must enforce those laws. Where the law is wrong or unenforceable the task returns to the politicians to fix that problem and by politicians I don’t mean some sole actor poking their nose in police business.
Well put Josh but I think you missed a couple of points.
It appears to me, as a non-protester who respects anyones right to protest so long as it doesn't interfeere with travel, commerce, acess to facilities or causes property damage, that there are two types of protest in Canada. There is the 'approved' protest - burning churches, disrupting pipeline construction, destroying construction equipment, blockading highways and railways, supporting Hamas, and unarguable anti-Jewish protest and the 'unapproved' protest - honking horns in Ottawa (it was noisy and some may have felt threatened but there was no actual vandalism or destruction and they bought food and coffee from businesses).
It seems to me that if the left wing supports your protest (burning churches was 'understnadable' apparently) then no action will be taken and if it is then it will be mild and the police will even hand you coffee and snacks!. If, on the other hand, you drive a semi and park it in Ottawa - where the police direct you to park - then you are going to have your bank accounts frozen and the Emergency Measures legislation will be invoked and you will find yourself in court.
My biggest fear is that the selective application of the law by police (I suspect that if I threaten to put someone 'six feet under' in a mall in front of police that I would be arrested) then where will the respect for the rule of law and respect for police end up? Likewise governments - municipal, provincial and federal - who refuse to take a stand on these illegal protests are sending a message that it is OK provided we agree (even passively) withyour point of view so knock yourself out which undermines confidence in our leadership. We seem to be living in a time when certain illegal activities like these protests are allowed (can we say drug consumption in public here?) and seemingly encouraged so why should we be surprised when the public has dwindling respect for our leadership and deminished respect for the police and rule of law and THAT is where the danger lies.
The law abiding silent majority is going to get fed up with this stuff eventually and it may be starting. I just hope we protest by turfing out governments that allow this crap to go on and not see a rise in vigilantism.
Your comments on approved protests is spot on.
Good article and I agree. Hard to say really what the Police are good for these days. Charter rights aside
The OPP and Windsor police didn't seem to effective at clearing the Ambassador bridge or the Ottawa police and RCMP clearing downtown Ottawa. Must be some sort of non confrontational policing, not a good sign for the future.
I'm unclear by what Dehaas means by intimidation. I would have thought repeated demonstrations on this particular overpass can be seen as intimidation of the Jewish community living in the area, and therefore a basis for the police to end protest at this location. I wish this were clearer, or am I missing something?
In a diverse social society, it is of positive utility ( requirement even) to have a little spine, to be able to “get on”. Driving under a banner that makes a statement you disagree with can hardly be called intimidation. It doesn’t in any way prevent you rom going about your business, it just makes you feel bad.
I’m well aware of a certain mindset that is trying to criminalize other people, based on how they make you feel. An approach that is both hopeless and dangerous.
I get that but think people experience more than bad feelings when constantly having hostile views thrust in their face where they live. It's true that a phrase like "From the River to the Sea", for example, can be taken in different ways, but one of those ways is a direct threat to Jewish lives. To my mind, that's intimidation, especially when repeatedly done.
Yes, but the problem is not what the law IS, (because it includes protecting people, not just protesters), but rather whether it will be enforced, and if not, whether those damaged by the illegality will have redress against those who caused it. Especially if the police let it go on, longer than it should have done.
Those in positions if authority apparently need a better grip of their fields, otherwise we are doomed to chaos and randomness in law and government.