The presence of the vehicles themselves is an act of intimidation. This could be a reason why Ottawa police have been so timid. Not hard at all to drive forward and injure and kill someone. There's video footage from the Vancouver protest that shows a truck attempting this, and the counter protestor attempting to block the truck had to step aside.
This novel use of trucks for protest has been enormously effective and I expect we'll see this replicated all over from now on.
Whereas in the past it took a mass movement of thousand upon thousands to block a bridge, now a few dozen people in trucks can do the same thing.
Trucks enable a protest to be incredibly paralyzing with a fraction of the amount of protestors.
well back when government buildings were being burned down and people were getting shot - it was commonly and correctly referred to as "mostly peaceful protesting"
Unproductive though it may be, consider the (extreme) hypothetical of a government arresting someone and forcing a needle into their arm, administering a biological agent against the recipient's will. I believe that would satisfy a literal (if unconventional) definition of "political violence".
So, what's left to litigate is whether the threat/coercion of "you will lose your job unless you let us do this to you" makes the definition no longer apply.
I would say that (hypothetical) refugees fleeing a government-orchestrated pogrom are still victims of "political violence" even though they had the "choice" of leaving the country (and their job); but perhaps some would argue they are merely choosing to avoid a mandate passed by their democratic government.
I agree with you on both of those statements. Unfortunately that doesn't resolve the thorny issue of whether forced or coerced vaccination can count as political violence, but perhaps this thread will not uncover a unanimously accepted answer to that contentious question.
"smash through" is not consistent with "avoid the collision". I don't see any evidence of your claim of smashing through. Did you embellish the story in your head and only realized you'd been fooling yourself when somebody asked for evidence? Isn't that a red flag that you may have been misled in many other aspects of this topic?
Now you're claiming it was "forcible"? What does that mean? With the application of force? It's not forcible if there's no contact. You really did make a misleading claim about smashing through barricades which shows you are either trying to mislead people with false information or have been misled yourself.
