Even their original plan was to blockade the capital until vaccine mandates were lifted, and again this does not work at all since the pro-mandate side can do the same thing and also we can’t have policy determined by who can rally larger groups of people.
a charitable interpretation of the trucker’s protest is “govt restricted my freedom of movement, so i’m restricting their freedom of movement (by blocking border crossings)”. IF you could convincingly frame your protest like this — as a tit-for-tat response — you avoid lending legitimacy to any escalatory action by the pro-mandate side (because it will necessarily be just that: the pro-mandate side made the first escalation two whole years ago and so long as you strictly act according to reciprocity an unfavorable response from your opponent can always be framed as being unfair/unreasonable/unjust).
i’m of the opinion that the anti-mandate side has some source of inherent legitimacy to it not accessible by the other side simply because it was their opposing side which first escalated (merely by introducing mandates where they didn’t before). i’m not making a statement comparing the overall legitimacy of these two side — just pointing out an advantage that can only ever be granted to one side. but it’s extremely difficult to tap into that advantage: especially when dealing with loosely coordinated groups, tit-for-tat becomes unstable, fast.
a charitable interpretation of the trucker’s protest is “govt restricted my freedom of movement, so i’m restricting their freedom of movement (by blocking border crossings)”. IF you could convincingly frame your protest like this — as a tit-for-tat response — you avoid lending legitimacy to any escalatory action by the pro-mandate side (because it will necessarily be just that: the pro-mandate side made the first escalation two whole years ago and so long as you strictly act according to reciprocity an unfavorable response from your opponent can always be framed as being unfair/unreasonable/unjust).
i’m of the opinion that the anti-mandate side has some source of inherent legitimacy to it not accessible by the other side simply because it was their opposing side which first escalated (merely by introducing mandates where they didn’t before). i’m not making a statement comparing the overall legitimacy of these two side — just pointing out an advantage that can only ever be granted to one side. but it’s extremely difficult to tap into that advantage: especially when dealing with loosely coordinated groups, tit-for-tat becomes unstable, fast.