The conflict is complicated. The LTTE are terrorists, and many should be executed. However, don't forget it was the Sinhalese who started this whole conflict in the first place with their racism and bigotry. Do you think there would be peace between the English and French in Canada if the English had done what the Sinhalese did - essentially banning the use of French in Quebec?
I did not say that what the Sinhalese did was correct. However, since the start of the conflict a lot of developments have happened. And many of these protesters seem completely oblivious to the changes. Indeed, many of the university students handing out flyers in Ottawa didn't even know the LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi after India sent peacekeepers to Sri Lanka. Yet, the LTTE and Tamilnet now routinely bemoan the lack of Indian involvement.
Let's be clear on this point. These protesters are protesting the demise of the LTTE. They are not out there defending the genuine rights of Tamils. If they were concerned about their kin, they would show concern about the LTTE's tactics. For example...for all the focus on Sri Lanka's government, the protesters have not challenged LTTE's refusal to let in UN and ICRC monitors. Although the governments refusal to let in monitors is disturbing, the government has let in foreign diplomatic staff and defence attaches to observe refugee camps, military operations, screening, etc. I know because I have seen the reports. And while this transparency isn't 100% it's a hell of a lot better than the LTTE. That goes a long way towards explaining why the international community is not pressuring the Sri Lankans.
Additionally, the international community has also come to see the LTTE as an obstacle of peace. The government had proposed a model of governance based on Canadian federalism (in particular looking at how Quebec was modeled) during negotiations after the last ceasefire. What did the LTTE do? They shot it down, demanded independence, returned to combat.
As for the protests themselves, note that nobody on here has disputed their right to protest. However, most of us draw the line at criminal behaviour. Personally, I can recognize and accept that most protests will involve some illegal action that might inconvenience the public to draw attention. However, I cannot accept threatening another person's safety just to get your message across. I consider it wrong to endanger motorists, damage their cars and to attack police officers.
I want everyone to imagine for a second that you are the first wave of motorists proceeding down the Gardiner at 100 kph when the protesters start rushing on to the freeway. Would this seem like a legitimate protest to you when your life is endangered as you swerve to miss people jumping in front of your vehicle? What would your opinion be if one of those motorists was killed trying to avoid a protester?