The law has to be blind to different ideas being expressed; they are all valid, with reasonable limitations. And so it was: despite being overwhelmingly unpopular, antilockdown protests were generally carried out unimpeded.
The popular perception isn't bound to be equitable in this way, nor should it be, nor is it obliged to be uniform.
It is totally valid to carry the opinion that protesting lock downs is less legitimate than protesting police violence. There is no contradiction or injustice here.
Somebody that holds this opinion might argue that while both sets of protestors are willingly putting themselves at risk, one was campaigning for an action that would put others who didn't consent at greater risk and the other is campaigning for action that would protect people. That seems very consistent to me.
The law has to be blind to different ideas being expressed; they are all valid, with reasonable limitations. And so it was: despite being overwhelmingly unpopular, antilockdown protests were generally carried out unimpeded.
The popular perception isn't bound to be equitable in this way, nor should it be, nor is it obliged to be uniform.
It is totally valid to carry the opinion that protesting lock downs is less legitimate than protesting police violence. There is no contradiction or injustice here.
Somebody that holds this opinion might argue that while both sets of protestors are willingly putting themselves at risk, one was campaigning for an action that would put others who didn't consent at greater risk and the other is campaigning for action that would protect people. That seems very consistent to me.