The right to publicly express one’s views is a tenet of democracy. In recent times in Bermuda, we have seen demonstrations on issues including same-sex marriage, public-sector furloughs and immigration policy. For people to openly express their opinions without harassment from the authorities is a healthy sign for any society. It is something we can happily take for granted in Bermuda.

However, with such rights come responsibilities. Bermuda has a legal framework that sets the parameters for marches and demonstrations to ensure that they don’t impinge on other people’s rights to go about their business without hindrance. This week, we saw those parameters ignored by a group that will probably have done more harm than good for its cause.

The people protesting against the Bermuda Government’s proposed immigration reforms were apparently ignoring the law. The Public Order Act states very clearly that it is unlawful for any “public procession” to take place without the granting of a permit. No permit was given, the police stated.

Even some people who sympathised with the protesters’ point of view were most probably irked to have their morning commute to work or school prolonged by the obstruction of East Broadway from early on Tuesday. Anthony Correia, a retiree from Smith’s, hit the nail on the head, when asked by a reporter from The Royal Gazette for his views on the demonstration. “The protesters are saying it’s their right to take to the streets, but I don’t think it’s their right to block traffic because then they’re infringing on other people’s rights,” Mr Correia said.

Why the police did not immediately clear the demonstrators from the road is unclear. Once it was established that the group had no permit for its demonstration, it was clear that it had no legal justification to be blocking the road. A statement from the Commissioner of Police explained that the police asked the protest organisers to move the group on to the sidewalk, but they did not co-operate. The officers managed to clear one lane and direct traffic around the protesters to keep the road open. One can only imagine that the police had to weigh up the benefits of clearing the road against potentially igniting a proverbial powder keg.

From the officers’ point of view, they were confronted with a group of emotionally charged people standing on Bermuda’s only dual carriageway — a dangerous place to be standing at the quietest of times — with traffic flow at its peak. Naturally, everyone’s safety would be their priority and they acted as they thought best in a delicate situation, while maintaining a restricted traffic flow.

Had they attempted to use force to fully clear the road and been met with resistance, the results could have been much uglier than people arriving late at work and school.

The commissioner stated that “some of the behaviours demonstrated may constitute the offences of unlawful assembly or obstruction” and that the police would be sending a file on the event to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If protesters decide to repeat their rush-hour stunt, they should not expect such a patient approach from the police for a second time.

The irony, of course, is that while claiming to be speaking out for the rights of Bermudians, the protesters set themselves up to deny Bermudians the right to travel freely down one of the main arteries into the capital at one of the busiest times of day. By exhibiting this unreasonable behaviour, they will do nothing to persuade reasonable people of the merits of their case.

So what is their case? That they are against the Pathways to Status proposal to give long-term residents more rights is clear. But what are they for? That is not so obviously apparent. It is one thing to argue for a bipartisan approach to reform the immigration regime, but what kind of reform do they envisage?

As this newspaper has argued, along with the likes of Sir John Swan, the former Premier, and John Wight, president of the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce, Bermuda’s future prosperity is heavily dependent on bringing in more people of working age to replace retiring baby boomers. We have seen in recent years how the shrinking population has led directly to a fall in demand in our economy for all manner of goods and services, which in turn inevitably contributed to a deep recession and thousands of job losses.

As Mr Wight warned in his interview with The Bottom Line, published this week: “Without population growth, there is simply no way the country can maintain the standard of living I believe the country expects to see.”

Last week, Sir John said Bermuda should assess its own human resources and work out what the island needs from immigration, in terms of how many people and with what skill sets, to meet the country’s requirements. In other words, to come up with a reasoned immigration plan. “If we say we can’t do anything because it might offend some Bermudians, then our children will not have the type of employment opportunities they need,” he said.

It would be nice to hear what immigration solutions the protesters and the Opposition would like to put forward in the bipartisan talks they want to see.

“No, no, no” just will not cut it.