Sure. But let's also acknowledge something crucial here: the government ended up resorting to illegal tactics for convoy removal because of a systemic failure by various levels of government to coordinate and apply regular laws (cf. Rouleau commission report). A less sympathetic/more cynical reading of the situation is one that can very well argue that the complete set of failures was because the police and the province were in fact politically sympathetic to the maple MAGAs who were imagining a Jan 6 type far right insurrection. The maple MAGAs of the convoy were very much skirting the edges of the Paradox of Tolerance, and thus acting decisively to end their convoy before the converged/crystallized to an insurrection was appropriate, from the point of view of the Paradox of Tolerance.

The fact that this kind of precedent is used as a hammer to also hit legitimate nonviolent and disobedient movements (e.g., indigenous blockades, university encampments), is hardly surprising, but also not causally attributable to it. These movements have always faced asymmetric policing! In other words: even without the illegal precedent, the trampling of student movements would still be happening, because the police and governments are hostile politically to the students in ways they were not to the maple MAGAs. To flip the argument around: the Rouleau commission found that the existing legal frameworks were adequate, i.e., they still are...