charter.rights

Judge grants stay of eviction to 'Occupy' protesters Looks like Occupy Toronto is in St James until at least the weekend. Court hearing on Friday....

Judge grants stay of eviction to 'Occupy' protesters Looks like Occupy Toronto is in St James until at least the weekend. Court hearing on Friday....

Nope it isn't. The protesters just moved to Central Park and set up camp.

It isn't a public park. It is privately owned by Brookfield Properties. And the protest is actually taking place on the street as the protesters line the sidewalks and chant against the suits walking down the street.

The mayor is in contempt! He might be dealt with by the judge when he gets in front of her.

Well Shady is wrong again. Imagine that. Camping is permitted on private property and they city can't make a by-law or rule after the property owner allows camping, and expect it to succeed. By-laws can not generally apply in the past, since the only enforcement is through a eyewitness account....(at least under Canadian law).

It isn't a negotiation. It is a protest. It highlights the essence of a true democracy and has raised the concern that the 1% are usurping democracy. So there are no demands to be made. Discussion is its goal and it continues to succeed.

Supreme Court of the State of New York "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that until this matter is heard on the date set forth above, respondents / defendants are prohibited from: (a.) Evicting protesters from Zuccoti Park aka Liberty Park exclusive of lawful arrests for criminal offenses; and / or, (b.) Enforcing “rules” published after the occupation began or otherwise preventing protesters from entering the park with tents and other property previously utilized." That makes Shady's opinion wrong. But will he admit it?

The Court order says a by-law restricting camping does not over-rule their right to peaceful assembly. That would make your opinion...wrong.... as usual.

I suspect the key argument will be that the owner (Brookfield Properties) let the protesters stay in the park in the first place and their later request and the subsequent raid at the direction of the City of New York to remove them was unconsitutional. The key is that nothing changed from the beginning to the raid and the arguments of fire safety (which protesters were complying with Fire Marshall orders), and security (which was also addressed by the protesters themselves) took away any reason for eviction. Rather, the owner would be required to obtain an injunction first proving to the Court they had a lawful reason for the request for eviction.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters now have a New York Supreme Court Order permitting them back into Zuccotti Park complete with tents and other things need to maintain their on-going protests. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/court-order-city-t-occupy-wall-street-protesters-stuff-zuccotti-park-article-1.977674 The Order: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/court-papers-group-files-restraining-order-city-occupy-wall-street-protestors-return-zucotti-park-article-1.977675 Seems the courts don't work for the 1% like they originally thought.

You're dodging again!!!!!

Pointing out your failed arguments is not hurling insults sweetie. It is pointing out your inadequacy to make a reasonable argument. Maybe do a simple Google search on London and Toronto and see if you can come up with any article on mob violence - the kind of thing where using police intervention might be reasonably justified under the law. However, trying to translate individual occurrences into general mob rule is a pretty impotent direction to take. Your avoidance, change the subject and red herring fallacies just don;t meet the minimum grade.

Avoidance. Another of the many fallacy arguments you commonly employ when you get backed into a corner.

McGuinty will take a page out of Harper's book and simply ignore the implementation of the law and then declare it redundant. So the opposition motion is simply political grandstanding.

Straw man argument. completely fabricated out of thin air. The protests are completely peaceful. London police instigate disorder. More fallacy arguments. Hyperbole, straw man, red herrings. Boy you are full of it. I'm not the one trying to invent an argument.

Going in to force a removal on a by-law does not justify the ignoring of rights. Even in lawful arrest the police must consider the offenders Charter rights and failing to do so will result in the courts simply dismissing the charges. The Toronto Occupy and the London Occupy were not violent UNTIL the police attempted the use of force to remove them. In London there was no injunction granted by the court and they will find themselves ina a legal pickle to the tune of $hundreds of millions.

Neither comes first. A balance must always be struck. And since there is no security issue at the occupy sites, then the right to free speech and lawful assembly will prevail. However, the police do not have the legal right to clear the site on the say so of a by-law and the use of force in doing so is clearly a violation of the protesters' Charter rights.

Police and politicians rarely depend on the Charter to defend oppositions' rights. Rather bully tactics are used to get the opposition to withdraw and only when they are hauled up in court because they violated someone's rights do they bring the law out as a defense. What is ironic because it is the belief of the vast majority of Canadians, is that the Charter is something that gets looks at after the nuisances and obstacles are forcefully move out of their way. In reality, civil law, by-laws and summary laws are the lowest order of all the laws in Canada and conversely, Charter law must be applied before all others.

RECAP: So according to Boges, the occupiers can stay in the park....

That would be obtusely wrong. The occupy movement is about true democracy and reals at the aristocracy that has taken over.

Yes. In fact our system depends on the creation of debt to make more money. After all currency is debt based.

Don't tell me YOU don't recognize a straw man?

You obviously know so little about humanity that you must use a straw man fallacy argument to illustrate your point. Chronic abuses and mental illnesses are not episodal occurrences like in your straw man scenario. They are the rsult of years of dysfunctional relationships that the patient accepts as normal and acceptable. We could use you as an example. Your years spent listening to mom and pop slag other cultures, expressing their prejudices (and ignorance) has led you to believe that putting others down is normal and acceptable. Too bad you don;t even have a handle on your own reality.....

Those smokes seized in Alberta are not illegal. They were manufactured in a federally licensed, and federally inspected factory in Kahnawake Quebec, and all excise taxes have been paid. The case presently before the courts is whether or not the province has a right to add extra tax to Native brands (packaged and in cartons). In the US the Federal Court has already decided that states don't have that right to tax Native smokes and the case is off to the Supreme Court if they want to hear it... I suspect the answer will be the same in Alberta and in pending cases in Saskatchewan as well. Natives are not required to pay provincial sales taxes anywhere in Canada, and the provincial tobacco tax is a provincial excise-type tax.