Oh, I sincerely doubt that assertion.
No you're not. Your posts thus far convey a position that it's easier to argue from a passive aggressive posture. Ask innocently enough, while asserting an argumentative position that is fallacy. You're assertions disguised as questions are a typical strategy employed by those in the post secondary realm....
Argue the salient points, without asking...
Assert that the two are exactly the same, and then articulate why....not doing so shows a lack of ability to debate or defend a position effectively.
One was a revolution against a regime that by-and large the general population was against. It sought to depose it.
The other could hardly be described as such. Despite lots of "support" it did not receive the support of Canadians, nor the public in downtown Ottawa.
The two are not even remotely the same.
When my wife was in labour I "broke the law" getting her to the hospital. The ends justified the means, right? Only if I had been stopped by LEO, I would have expected the book to be thrown at me, and the justice system would have dealt with it from there....and I would understand it, as I had violated the laws of the land.
Which is exactly where those who have been charged are at.
My guess? There will be a lot of conditional discharges being granted with conditions.