charter.rights

The powers are getting anxious.... Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street Seems the Occupy Wall Street has hit them in their Achilles heel....

Mr. Canada prefers to make up the facts to satisfy his prejudices and bigotry.

It is a non-issue. The Liberals don't support it and since it can't come up for final reading without their support it will die in oblivion....just like Hudak will.....

The 3rd day after the started their protest in Toronto someone had set up a trust account with $350,000 in it for their use (much ore than any anti-native protests ever received in support). Plus there are many volunteers working behind the scenes bringing water, food and blankets to the park every day. Many of them are 1%ers who believe in the cause. Others are 99%ers struggling to make it on their own. I can't get there to help them out, but I am a full supporter. And there are many more here n this forum who support their actions as well. They are legally entitled to be in the park. The only questions before the court are whether or not camping constitutes a freedom of expression of the "Occupy" Movement, and whether a city by-law can legally intrude on their established Charter rights. Your suggestion on the use of force is very telling. It is the first thing that Conservatives reach for when they can't legally force their options in society.

He doesn't. His experience only goes as far as trying to desecrate a flag by using it as a political tool.

I doubt that. You arguments are so sophomoric that they are easily spotted. Plus it shows a real lack of intelligence when it takes you two paragraphs to construct a straw man fallacy argument. Most intelligent people can create a quasi-plausible one in a sentence.

That took him two paragraphs to build. Maybe if he went outside he could build you a snow man argument as well.

You invite it. That seems to be the only level of discussion you are capable of lately.

According to the factum, parks by their nature are places where considerable discussion and communication is designed to take place. So occupying a park is an integral part of the means and the message.

Actually, having read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association Amicus Curiae Factum the suggestion was that as a compromise the city could assign parts of a number of parks in the downtown core that the protesters could occupy.

In all parks...which... are set aside for those kinds of activities....

Factum of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as Amicus Curiae in the Occupy Injunction case, "28. The City's burden under s. 1 of the Charter requires a showing that on the facts of this particular case, it considered measures other than eviction of the protesters which would be less restrictive of constitutionally protected expression and peaceful assembly. 29. As the guardian of public space the municipality has a duty to both protestors and others in the community. Municipalities must often consult with multiple stakeholders as part of the process of governing and, in good faith, diligently attempt to accommodate the needs of all concerned. The municipal processes of consultation, negotiation and dialogue used in other contexts should similarly be employed where expressive activity is at issue..." http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Factum-of-the-Intervener-CCLA-00374531.pdf

So you don't have principles.....Otherwise you would be ACTIVELY protesting your forced subscription to health care and other state funded social safety nets. But without principles you merely whine and complain about what YOU see as injustices and do nothing about it. At least the Occupy protesters have principles.

You could opt for private health care if you had any principles.

Frontenac Ventures v. Ardoch Algonquin et al. Ontario Court of Appeal "48] Where a requested injunction is intended to create “a protest-free zone” for contentious private activity that affects asserted aboriginal or treaty rights, the court must be very careful to ensure that, in the context of the dispute before it, the Crown has fully and faithfully discharged its duty to consult with the affected First Nations: see Julia E. Lawn, “The John Doe Injunction in Mass Protest Cases” (1998) 56 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 101. The court must further be satisfied that every effort has been exhausted to obtain a negotiated or legislated solution to the dispute before it. Good faith on both sides is required in this process: Haida Nation, p. 532. "

Quite simply there is no legal or Charter right for people to enjoy "their" park. However, there is a legal / Charter right to use the park as a base for protest.

He doesn;t need to. All he has to do is ignore it and never let it get to final reading.

I've heard a number of legal opinions on the matter already. The key is that the by-law would have to had encoded an exception to meet Charter rights accommodation and since neither of these two by-laws have that inclusion they are both unconstitutional.

The two by-laws aren't reasonable limits.

You can't cherry pick the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The potential for interference does not give one the right to ignore a groups' right to protest. The courts have held that "reasonable accommodation" must be the goal with a blance being struck between the competing rights. However, there are no other freedoms being interfered with in the Occupy Protests that have not been already dealt with under the law. So your question is a red herring.

The crux of the protest is "occupy". Hence camping is a vital part of the free expression of a political principle.

The injunction won't be heard until Friday with a decision pending Saturday by 6:00PM.

It is a big park. And I'm sure once they get evicted from Central Park they can look to another. However, I have a good suspicion that some rich dude who supports the occupy movement will have an empty apartment building for they to move in. The key is that the protest is not moving and will continue to be a voice in the face of big money.

Actually Shady is wrong, again. There are some city parks that DO allow camping. I know a few. Right now camping is allowed in St James Park by order of the Court, which over rules any by-law.