This is a good point and if this law were enforced fairly and equally across all political causes, I would support it. Infrastructure is not, in my view, appropriate for political persuasion. It feels coercive in the same way ironically, that vaccine mandates are. However, I worry that often times these laws are enforced by whoever is in power in a one-sided manner. This was definitely the case in Seattle - we had a socialist city council member who helped BLM protesters break into city hall (a sort of manufactured protest event) but any hint of moderate or conservative protest and you can expect to be held to the letter of the law.
No, you don't seem to get it. This is happening in Canada. The laws here are different from Seattle. The question of how this law is enforced has zero application to the BLM protests stateside. GoFundMe has made the choice to operate in Canada, and they're going to make inconsistent-looking decisions because the laws simply aren't the same on both sides of the border.
No. Arson, attacking police and forcefully occupying a public space are all illegal in Seattle too. Pretty sure arson is a felony. Someone was murdered in CHAZ.
Hmm - I might be missing something, but I think we are in agreement? I was just making a point that laws need equal enforcement to be just, regardless of jurisdiction. The Seattle mention was just to provide an example of a law being unequally enforced. I also agree that GFM may make different decisions for different locations to comply with the local laws, and also agree that protests should not displace the use of infrastructure like roads.
