Occupy Toronto Protestors

[Michael Hardner]

I thought this protest was only about people that wanted to stick it to the 1%?

Do you think the homeless don't care about the 1% ?

[CPCFTW]

Fish meet barrel:

Is that how you see things? In sweet little false dichotomies that your mind can digest so you still feel that you have something to add?

see:

Stop the childish banter and personal attacks. It only brings down the quality of the forums.

So should the wealthy - or their corporations - have the power to usurp individual freedoms as given to us through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Nope. And they don't.

Or should the wealthy, through the offices of their corporations, have greater access to justice?

Yes, justice costs money. Everyone shouldn't be entitled to a team of high priced lawyers to concoct the optimal defense just because OJ Simpson can afford it.

Yet you whine and complain and obfuscate with invective all because a small group of people have taken it upon themselves to exercise a Constitutional right. The amount of power they have over you, just by getting you to pay attention to their many causes, is simply outstanding. Obviously, you lack the wealth to be powerful enough to ignore their actions.

I do? I don't recall doing much whining... mostly arguing, laughing, and using emoticons.

Are you talking about the vast amount of wealth acquired through inheritance?

Sure why not? We'd be a lot better off if more people focused more on leaving wealth to their children than leaving more trees and debt.

Some people choose to quit their jobs and set up tents in a park to chant meaningless memes and copulate with stoners, others choose to work two jobs at a time, and live a moderate or thrifty lifestyle while saving and investing.

All wealth was earned at some point.

Be careful what you wish for, because chances are you would be on the losing side should there ever come a conflict between the wealthy and the mob. Or do you ignore history books too?

What exactly did I wish for? I said "I'll choose wealth over power", which happens to be the current status quo that everyone save for a few hundred hippies per city of millions is participating in. The "movement" has a long way to go before I fear any sort of conflict. For now I fear the movements I leave in my toilet more than this "movement".

Edited November 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

"Justice costs money"

This is so ethically and fundamentally wrong that it's not even worth trying to have a discussion with someone that actually believes this.

[Michael Hardner]

"Justice costs money"

This is so ethically and fundamentally wrong that it's not even worth trying to have a discussion with someone that actually believes this.

The question is whether justice should cost money, or... how much justice should everyone be given ? In practicality, we know that justice DOES cost money - as can be attested to by the miserable death row types who have been poorly represented by public defenders.

[CPCFTW]

"Justice costs money"

This is so ethically and fundamentally wrong that it's not even worth trying to have a discussion with someone that actually believes this.

Welcome to the real world. Hats cost money too!

[charter.rights]

Well the Occupy Toronto will get boring for the next few days. Does the judge really need 4 days to decide this issue?

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

[Boges]

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

OK so then why does he need 3 days before he can hear them. More important things at hand. Had they been evicted before the injunction I wonder how quickly the judge would have made a ruling. A la OWS.

[Shwa]

see:

C.A.'s comment appears to be directed at you gramps. I asked a legitimate question of your ability to discern between reality and what you've already made up in your head.

Nope. And they don't.

Oh, but they do and often. What do you think human rights codes are all about?

Yes, justice costs money. Everyone shouldn't be entitled to a team of high priced lawyers to concoct the optimal defense just because OJ Simpson can afford it.

Right. So justice isn't really blind, she has one eye open to spot the coin just in case.

I do? I don't recall doing much whining... mostly arguing, laughing, and using emoticons.

No, it's whining of the worse sort.

Sure why not? We'd be a lot better off if more people focused more on leaving wealth to their children than leaving more trees and debt.

Then you are OK with monarchy and nobility in Canada. Because, afterall, wealth = power, then inheritance of wealth also means inheritance of power. I see you as a supporter of the plutocracy even though you are likely no plutocrat.

Some people choose to quit their jobs and set up tents in a park to chant meaningless memes and copulate with stoners, others choose to work two jobs at a time, and live a moderate or thrifty lifestyle while saving and investing.

More whining. Boo hoo.

All wealth was earned at some point.

Except inherited wealth.

What exactly did I wish for? I said "I'll choose wealth over power", which happens to be the current status quo that everyone save for a few hundred hippies per city of millions is participating in. The "movement" has a long way to go before I fear any sort of conflict. For now I fear the movements I leave in my toilet more than this "movement".

You misquoted yourself, which isn't surprising. However, what you have done is purported to speak for everyone "save for a few hundred hippies" while the few hundred hippies have a national stage and all you have is a post on a thread on MLW.

According to your standards, you must be on welfare.

[Shwa]

OK so then why does he need 3 days before he can hear them. More important things at hand. Had they been evicted before the injunction I wonder how quickly the judge would have made a ruling. A la OWS.

The judge could not have issued an injunction at all, so you may want to look at why it was issued in the first place. Usually on account of something seen than could be probable cause right?

So giving a time period could be used in an effort for the two sides to re-think their position in order to resolve it or to ensure that there is enough time for both parties to prepare their arguments. Especially if it is a serious matter, like a citation of the Charter, which the Occupiers have done.

[CPCFTW]

C.A.'s comment appears to be directed at you gramps. I asked a legitimate question of your ability to discern between reality and what you've already made up in your head.

Yes his comment, prefaced with "guys", was only directed at me. All others are free to continue with the childish banter and personal attacks.

Oh, but they do and often. What do you think human rights codes are all about?

Hmmm I think they're mostly about corrupt governments who violate human rights.

Right. So justice isn't really blind, she has one eye open to spot the coin just in case.

Now you're getting it. And Santa Claus isn't real either!

No, it's whining of the worse sort.

I consider camping and shitting in public streets to be slightly worse.

Then you are OK with monarchy and nobility in Canada. Because, afterall, wealth = power, then inheritance of wealth also means inheritance of power. I see you as a supporter of the plutocracy even though you are likely no plutocrat.

I don't mind equating power with wealth as long as people have equal opportunity to acquire wealth. My problem would be with a monarch or other head of state (for example a Socialist government) impeding the acquisition of wealth through excessive taxation/regulation.

More whining. Boo hoo.

More observation actually. I'm not sure you really understand the term "whining". Why not head down to Zucotti Park? There's no shortage of whining there.

Except inherited wealth.

Earned by those from whom it was inherited... as in "at some point".

You misquoted yourself, which isn't surprising. However, what you have done is purported to speak for everyone "save for a few hundred hippies" while the few hundred hippies have a national stage and all you have is a post on a thread on MLW.

According to your standards, you must be on welfare.

A personal attack? Not surprising. Saying that people are "participating in" the status quo does not mean I am speaking for them. Just like me saying you are participating in this thread does not mean I am speaking for you.

[Shwa]

Yes his comment, prefaced with "guys", was only directed at me. All others are free to continue with the childish banter and personal attacks.

Standard C.A. method dontchya know. At any rate, seeing the quality of your postings, I presumed the comment was directed at you.

Hmmm I think they're mostly about corrupt governments who violate human rights.

The Canadian Human Rights Act and all the provincials acts too?

Now you're getting it. And Santa Claus isn't real either!

But the Occupy Toronto protesters are and, whether you like it or not, when they make challenges based on violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they represent your interests as well.

I consider camping and shitting in public streets to be slightly worse.

And of course, they don't do this, as everyone knows. See what I mean about creating false dichotomies in an effort to contribute? Do you check under your bed at night too?

I don't mind equating power with wealth as long as people have equal opportunity to acquire wealth. My problem would be with a monarch or other head of state (for example a Socialist government) impeding the acquisition of wealth through excessive taxation/regulation.

OK, so since you "don't mind" equating power with wealth, then you must currently believe that there IS an equal opportunity to acquire wealth and you will have some sort of citation or reference to prove your belief. Please cite.

More observation actually. I'm not sure you really understand the term "whining". Why not head down to Zucotti Park? There's no shortage of whining there.

No, I understand the term perfectly well and all I am getting from you is whining.

Earned by those from whom it was inherited... as in "at some point".

Except inheritance of wealth, which hasn't been earned at all hence the use of the word 'inherited.' You make it sound like the person who inherits furniture somehow particiapte in the act of creating it too.

A personal attack? Not surprising. Saying that people are "participating in" the status quo does not mean I am speaking for them. Just like me saying you are participating in this thread does not mean I am speaking for you.

There is no personal attack, I am just weighing your evidence to come to a conclusion. Are you saying you aren't on welfare? Because if all you have is a post on a thread on MLW, well, that isn't very powerful in the wealth = power world you live in. So I am just guessing.

[Boges]

Multi-Quote Slapfight.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

We should be free to use public space for protests. Whether for a few hours, or days.

Why do conservative minded individuals hate freedom?

[grogy]

We should be free to use public space for protests. Whether for a few hours, or days.

Why do conservative minded individuals hate freedom?

So what part of the world do you live in? It might be nice to experience a place where freedom has no limits. Maybe I could own a shotgun without having to have my wife's approval, or have it registered (for now), or have to provide a firearms license to buy ammunition! Or even be free to defend myself with it if needed! What a utopia that would be..but let me guess, you're ok with limiting the freedoms I want, but the ones you expect are sacred.

[Boges]

We should be free to use public space for protests. Whether for a few hours, or days.

Or eternity?

The crux here is the idea of protest. I can't camp in a local park without a permit . . . unless I'm protesting something?

Does it matter what I'm protesting? I could be protesting the Leafs performance as of late.

If the judge comes down on the side of the protesters a precedent would be set that bylaws are essentially unenforceable.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Boges

[DogOnPorch]

There is no personal attack, I am just weighing your evidence to come to a conclusion. Are you saying you aren't on welfare? Because if all you have is a post on a thread on MLW, well, that isn't very powerful in the wealth = power world you live in. So I am just guessing.

The Slaw. Isn't he wonderful folks? Keep ordering those drinks as he'll be back at midnight for his blue show here at the Maple Leaf Tropicana.

[Boges]

Classy people.

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10315191

A woman who owns a business near St.James Park says many owners in the area are getting threatened on a regular basis.

Rachel Young, owner of Comraderie Co-Working says the business owners in the area on a regular basis, and many of them are receiving threats.

"One of them was told to 'mind their own business' or we'll make life a living hell for you...another said if I 'didn't get out of his effing park he'd knocking my effing head off'"

Young says one woman business owner told her she was afraid to walk by herself in the area of the park, for fear she may be targetted next.

Young also said when she took the issue to the area councillor, Pam McConnell, it was largely ignored, and says McConnell hasn't done anything to assist the businesses in the area.

[cybercoma]

The question is whether justice should cost money, or... how much justice should everyone be given ? In practicality, we know that justice DOES cost money - as can be attested to by the miserable death row types who have been poorly represented by public defenders.

His conclusion from that premise is, therefore those that afford it should have a better opportunity at justice than those who can't.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

So what part of the world do you live in? It might be nice to experience a place where freedom has no limits. Maybe I could own a shotgun without having to have my wife's approval, or have it registered (for now), or have to provide a firearms license to buy ammunition! Or even be free to defend myself with it if needed! What a utopia that would be..but let me guess, you're ok with limiting the freedoms I want, but the ones you expect are sacred.

I think I understand.

- Freedom to own weapons designed for the purpose of killing. OK.

- Peaceful protests. NOT OK.

So let's equip them with guns and make their freedoms valid!

Finally a solution!

[Boges]

Peaceful protests. NOT OK.

Assuming camping in a park without a permit is an effective protest of anything.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Or eternity?

The crux here is the idea of protest. I can't camp in a local park without a permit . . . unless I'm protesting something?

Does it matter what I'm protesting? I could be protesting the Leafs performance as of late.

If the judge comes down on the side of the protesters a precedent would be set that bylaws are essentially unenforceable.

I would commend you if you camped out to protest the leafs performance. You'd be out in the cold a looooong time

People need to show spirit about whatever it is more often.

[charter.rights]

Assuming camping in a park without a permit is an effective protest of anything.

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

[Shwa]

So what part of the world do you live in? It might be nice to experience a place where freedom has no limits. Maybe I could own a shotgun without having to have my wife's approval, or have it registered (for now), or have to provide a firearms license to buy ammunition! Or even be free to defend myself with it if needed! What a utopia that would be..but let me guess, you're ok with limiting the freedoms I want, but the ones you expect are sacred.

We are talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here. If you want to go on about the right to bear arms, move south until you come to a border.

[Shwa]

If the judge comes down on the side of the protesters a precedent would be set that bylaws are essentially unenforceable.

Come on now, sheesh.

[dre]

Come on now, sheesh.

The problem with this argument is that any time you have a large crowd of people doing ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, there are dozens of little bylaws being broken. People jaywalking, sometimes blocking streets and public areas etc. So if a city bylaw can trump your constitutional right to protest, then cities could deprive you of that right just by making the right bylaws.

So logically its a very poor argument.

We have been seeing these sort of limits on protest more and more lately. We create "designated protest" zones, we round up and arrest large crowds of innocent people (lots of them not even protesters), knowing full well it violates their rights, and then we just drop the charges later.

I think that as governts continue to be more and more corporate controlled eventually we will see this kind of activity stopped completely, or marginalized to the point where its meaningless.