charter.rights
-
Posts
3,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by charter.rights
-
-
Nope it isn't.
The protesters just moved to Central Park and set up camp.
-
How does squatting in a public park make the 1% uncomfortable?
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 disagrees ...
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning, in response to the restraining order, that the park would not be re- opened until the city had an opportunity to address the restraining order. A hearing is scheduled for later Tuesday morning with
duled for later Tuesday morning with Justice Lucy Billings of State Supreme Court.
The New York Times reports that when protesters returned to a barricaded Zuccotti Park with the judge's order, police there refused to let them enter. Police grabbed a man who jumped the barricade; he and another man taking photographs he and another man taking photographs were arrested.
And it appears that not all city councillors agree with Bloomberg:
mong those arrested today was New York City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, who City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, who had gone to Zuccotti Park when he learned of the eviction. He tweeted early this morning that he was at Central Booking, "arrested while showing support for #ows Fellow councilman Jumaane Williams, who was also at the protest site, tweeted that Rodriguez was "bleeding from the head thanks to the #NYPD."
Heard on CHCH tv ... Bob Cowan said ... You send Rob Ford into the camp wearing a tutu, that'll clear them out!
I'm not too worried about Occupy Toronto ... They have backup plans.
The mayor is in contempt! He might be dealt with by the judge when he gets in front of her.
-
Exactly, it's privately owned. Regardless, you're not allowed to use it as a camp ground. It's against the law. Protesting doesnt mean camping.
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).
-
Really?
Then why have no formal demands been made. There appears to be no end-game involved in these protests.
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.
-
Has a court ruled on your opinion of this?
If so please cite.
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?
-
Nonsense. They can protest all they want, they just can't camp overnight. It's against the law.
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.
-
Interesting Article on this.
Which is kind of the point of this exercise. No one's free speech is being hampered by saying that you can't camp in a park.
There's a court hearing that'll be heard today about this. I'm guessing by the end of today we'll have precedent on this issue. Which I welcome.
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.
The Order:
Seems the courts don't work for the 1% like they originally thought.
-
Snap again!!!
You're dodging again!!!!!
-
Oh I'm not backed into a corner. A simple google search will show news sites telling of all the shenanigans going on at occupy. I'll just let you hang yourself by hurling insults at me. Have fun!!!
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.
-
Snap!!!
Avoidance. Another of the many fallacy arguments you commonly employ when you get backed into a corner.
-
This is why it's imperative for the Minority government to be maintained.
The Liberals can't really stop this motion. It's not a confidence motion either so if the Opposition are going to gang up on the Liberals for legislation like this. I'm all for it.
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.
-
Except it's not a peaceful protest, and according to you police officers don't have rights themselves.
Straw man argument. completely fabricated out of thin air.
The protests are completely peaceful. London police instigate disorder.
So people dying, intimidation of firefighters/police, sex assaults, violence, and enabling of cirime constitutes a peaceful protest? There won't be any legal pickle out of this.More fallacy arguments. Hyperbole, straw man, red herrings. Boy you are full of it.
Keep digging that hole.I'm not the one trying to invent an argument.
-
Oh really, ask the officers who were bitten, the sex assault victims, other victims of violence, and the victims of drug overdoses. Not to mention the intimidation of officers/firefighters. Did these things happen or not? Seems like security of person issues to me...
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.
-
All right what comes first, right to security of person or right of free speech/assembly?
Rights are a two way street, why do protesters get to trample over others rights and get a free pass on it.
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.
-
A person's right to protest may only be limited if it's reasonably justified. So far the justifications have not been reasonable for a free and just society. It doesn't supersede all laws, but it does supersede petty fees for permits and nonsensical time limits
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:
Tell me something Boges, since this is an important question: should city bylaws and provinicial laws and such be able to modify your Constitutional Rights?
No.
So according to Boges, the occupiers can stay in the park....
-
There is no doubt that the middle class could be doing better and some government policies aren't helping, but at the heart of this protest is a generation of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that socialism/Marxism is the best system. I wonder how many arts degrees are in those crowds of protestors, i would rather have the opportunity to better my situation than be told by the government how I was to live. It's amazing how many people do just that.
That would be obtusely wrong.
The occupy movement is about true democracy and reals at the aristocracy that has taken over.
-
Thats just a strawman. The system that allows us to fund our governments and our programs with debt is the global financial system. The exact same system people are protesting. Its a quasi private/public system thats made up of the worlds money authorities and private commercial banks.
Up until they closed the goal window this kind of behavior was impossible because its all financed not by real investment but by monetary expansion. It allows countries to spend money they dont have by rapidly increasing the money supply, and spending that new money quickly before the inevitable inflation that monetary expansion causes.
Almost every country involved in the system has rapidly aquired debt since it was created, but all that "debt" really is is monetary expansion.
Yes.
In fact our system depends on the creation of debt to make more money. After all currency is debt based.
-
I don't think you would know this about him, so trying to psychoanalyze a poster whom you don't know detracts from your argument.
Don't tell me YOU don't recognize a straw man?
-
That's like saying if a person has an argument with their spouse, gets liquored up and drives, they get a free pass because they're going through a tough time. Give me a break. And it is precisely their fault. They could choose to do drugs and take the risk that comes with it or not. They chose poorly. Why should society have to subsidize poor choices?
That pedestal ain't going anywhere. I know enough about humanity that it is folly to try and snell the snake oil of "it's okay to be lazy and poor, somebody else will take care of us."
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.....
-
That's already happening:
The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit estimates that 20 percent of cigarettes consumed in Canada are illegal. In the Quebec over 40 percent of the cigarettes purchased are illegal and in Ontario 50 percent of the cigarettes purchased may be illegal. The seizure of 45,000 cartons containing 14 million contraband cigarettes in Alberta suggests a problem previously confined mostly to Ontario and Quebec is spreading across the country.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.
-
London, Ontario dragged them out last night! We'll see who's next.
I think what you don't understand is that the OCCUPY protesters have very low public support. It's not 1967, with a very popular cause like stopping the Viet Nam war.
For a number of reasons, almost nobody cares about the protesters! You're living in a dream, not seeing reality.
This movement desperately needs some leadership, with people who have some smarts! All they've succeeded in doing so far is hurting their cause, not helping it.
That isn't true.
In fact a recent survey found that 80% of Canadians generally supported the "Occupy" movement.
Thsi action by the City of London will have serious consequences. Watch in the next week of two for the beginning of the end for Joe Fontana.
OCCUPY
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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....