Are you just blaming any and all crime that happened during the protest on the protestors and thus inferring the entire movement is violent?
I mean the only thing connecting your first link to the protest was it happened in the same part of the city. That's it. No other evidence. If a guy beats his wife at home do you blame that on the convoy too?
> Are you just blaming any and all crime that happened during the protest on the protestors and thus inferring the entire movement is violent?
This is a pretty useless and disrespectful response for a few reasons. Firstly, it's pretty obvious from the links and the locations things happened that these were directly related to the convoy or at least convoy adjacent.
Secondly, I don't doubt that there were nonviolent people involved, I saw many of them via livestreams. I've posted elsewhere that I think if the Convoy wanted to still be protesting today their goal should have been to avoid picking a fight with residents and instead focus on the government itself. The saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch. I think it's highly applicable to what happened here.
The word on the street regarding the building arson attempt was that people in the building were blaring music and shouting stuff at the convoy protesters who were parked in the streets below their apartment building.
That was just the first such incidence during the convoy. During a separate day some people were attempting to handcuff a door shut[1] but fled the scene once they were confronted. There have been no other recorded incidents of this behaviour in Ottawa that I can find anywhere, ever. It would be a leap to assume this is just coincidental.
But let's assume it's just some anarchist being opportunistic, what about the literal mountain of other information provided?
Please quote the exact "mountain of evidence" in your link about the arson case.
All I see relevant to the convoy is the quote "when a group of men they believed to be convoy demonstrators". Ok, so they believed they were a part of the convoy. That's it?
If there is no other evidence in the arson case, then like I said it's nothing more than a smear campaign.
Then why did you say "The scariest to me personally was someone attempting to start a fire in a building nearby to the convoy while duct taping the doors shut.[1]" and link to the article as proof of violence committed by the convoy?
It was scariest to me because it was personal - I have friends who live currently adjacent to the building in question. Had they succeeded in their goal it's possible many people would have died and at that point it would have largely been irrelevant if they were members of the convoy or just opportunistic arsonists.
You'll also note I was careful in my wording ("nearby to the convoy") because that part is unclear. It's coincidental timing if it wasn't people participating convoy people. I already addressed this part though. I also provided a plethora of other examples.
I also didn't suggest that alone was "proof of violence committed by the convoy" -- Why have you avoided comment on the other links I provided?
I mean the only thing connecting your first link to the protest was it happened in the same part of the city. That's it. No other evidence. If a guy beats his wife at home do you blame that on the convoy too?
Seems like a smear campaign.