Whether I agree with what is being protested or not, the right to protest is essential to any democracy, and sometimes it is the best vehicle for instituting change in a non-democracy as well.
You say it is hard to find anyone that is coherent on these matters in that group of protestors, but what is that based on? Have you talked to them personally? Don't be surprised by how the media contributes to this inarticulate impression. And as for the police, they have been for the most part spoken for by Savard, a person not interested in getting to the bottom of the problem but in defensive postures only. And what about when the police infiltrators have been cornered, they are often as contradictory and inarticulate as anyone else.
Vandalism is sometimes an unintended side effect of any protest, but sometimes it is not. "The Boston Tea Party" that Americans point to as one of the justifiable acts of the American Revolution, was out-and-out vandalism. The peaceful extension of this, was the refusal to drink taxed tea - which supposedly led to the American switch to coffee in the years that followed (I know, this is a half-truth, but reflects a perception about the relative value of the Tea Party). Am I personally advocating vandalism? Of course my answer is an emphatic no! But the reality is that vandalism can be expected in some scenarios, regardless of how hard the protest organizers try to avoid it. And when it happens, it is not always petulant, nor always negative in its consequence. In the grand scheme of things, reality can often be more complex and confounding than anyone could suspect or would want.
As others before us have recognized - democracy can be rather messy when we view it in action, but it is still the best thing man has devised to-date. If left to the machinations of these police operatives, we'd have one of democracy's greatest outlets to express discontent go underground and fester, and that would invite a much greater threat in the longer view.
