Occupy Toronto Protestors

charter.rights · November 18, 2011

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.

grogy · November 18, 2011

Nonsense.

lol, yea, that IS the best you can do. In that case they should have set up camp on Bay st since according to you they can live anywhere they wish..you can't be that ridiculous.

Shwa · November 18, 2011

lol, yea, that IS the best you can do. In that case they should have set up camp on Bay st since according to you they can live anywhere they wish..you can't be that ridiculous.

Really? Another strawman? If anything, rather prolific with the strawman argument. :rolleyes:

Where - in any MLW thread - have a stated that "they can live anywhere they wish?" Go ahead, find the post and provide a link. I'll wait. And I will remind you too, just in case you think you can weasle your way out of it.

Go ahead grogy, provide the cite.

GostHacked · November 18, 2011

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

S'cuse me good sir or madame. Can you point me to the Free Speech Zone?

Shwa · November 18, 2011

S'cuse me good sir or madame. Can you point me to the Free Speech Zone?

In Toronto that would be Queens Park Designated Protest Area. Oh wait, different protest.

Mr.Canada · November 19, 2011

Yes, the protesters should be removed. With force if necessary, but we all know that won't happen with our hippy, peace loving government.

The park is for everyone it's not a campground.

Shwa · November 19, 2011

Occupy Toronto: They can’t evict a conversation

A good sensible piece by Catherine Porter that likely reflects the majority view IMO. It would be nice if, the Occupiers won the decision on Monday and then volunteered to remove themselves as a show of good will.

Last time I checked in with the occupiers of St. James Park, word was they were going to fight for their ground.
If Superior Court Judge David Brown rules to evict them on Monday, they plan to reoccupy, they told me.

That would be a mistake.

The movement, from what I have seen, is not about the park. It’s about a deep conversation.

You can’t evict a conversation – even a brief one.

The mayor says “they’ve made their point,” by which he means “there is no point” to Occupy Toronto or anywhere else. “Where are the actionable deliverables?” is the repeated objection right-wingers have used to dismiss the movement outright.

But, in just a month, big things have come out of the conversation unfurling in St. James Park...

Mr.Canada · November 19, 2011

The only people who care about OCCUPY are the ones doing the occupying the rest of us are at work. How do these people support themselves and not work for weeks at a time?

Are they on the welfare? Handed out by the man! OMG, say it aint so mon ami.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Mr.Canada

Shwa · November 19, 2011

The only people who care about OCCUPY are the ones doing the occupying the rest of us are at work. How do these people support themselves and not work for weeks at a time?

You are wrong about your first point and the second point is covered in the article.

Mr.Canada · November 19, 2011

You are wrong about your first point and the second point is covered in the article.

So they personally went out and asked each individual and marked them down? I don't think so. I find it hard to believe we have so many independently wealthy people who are so soft minded. This is about not wanting to listen to daddy or daddy took away my cell phone, car, what have you. Spoiled brats from the "me too" generation, nothing more.

Shwa · November 19, 2011

So they personally went out and asked each individual and marked them down? I don't think so. I find it hard to believe we have so many independently wealthy people who are so soft minded. This is about not wanting to listen to daddy or daddy took away my cell phone, car, what have you. Spoiled brats from the "me too" generation, nothing more.

Like I said, you are wrong on your first point and both points are covered in the article. Unless you have some evidence contrary to the information given in the article or change your mind, you will have to remain wrong. Sorry. That is how it works.

charter.rights · November 19, 2011

The only people who care about OCCUPY are the ones doing the occupying the rest of us are at work. How do these people support themselves and not work for weeks at a time?

Are they on the welfare? Handed out by the man! OMG, say it aint so mon ami.

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.

grogy · November 19, 2011

Occupy Toronto: They can’t evict a conversation

likely reflects the majority view IMO.

You forgot to add maybe possibly could be.

cybercoma · November 19, 2011

How about you cite a court ruling that says breaking the law is OK as long as it's in the form of a protests.

The Charter is what determines which laws are legal and which ones are not. You cannot make a law that infringes on people's right to protest, unless the limits are "reasonable in a free and just society." Edited November 19, 2011 by cybercoma

Shwa · November 20, 2011

You forgot to add maybe possibly could be.

And you forgot to add the link to the post where I said, "they can live anywhere they wish." I am still waiting for you to show me where I said this, you haven't forgotten have you grogy? You aren't trying weasel out of it are you grogy?

Reminder

Go ahead grogy, provide the cite.

charter.rights · November 20, 2011

The Charter is what determines which laws are legal and which ones are not. You cannot make a law that infringes on people's right to protest, unless the limits are "reasonable in a free and just society."

In this case if goes further.

The reasonable limits must be a "minimal intrusion" in the Charter rights.

Mr.Canada · November 20, 2011

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.

To be in the park yes. To move in and make it a permanent residence? No. Just like Tent City 10 years ago this will be torn down. What's next they'll start building shanty's?

So these people are so self absorbed and care only for themselves that they'll take over a park that is for public use leaving no room for anyone else to use the park. What about neighborhood children who are forced to travel great distances over dangerous terrain to find the next place to play because some people want to whine about something.

If not then whats to stop me from building a house in a public park? Nothing. I could live their lease and tax free I guess is the message to be taken from these people.

I want to the police come in with water cannons and riot gear to drive these undesirables out of parks. Give the parks back to the families and children who use them everyday.

charter.rights · November 20, 2011

To be in the park yes. To move in and make it a permanent residence? No. Just like Tent City 10 years ago this will be torn down. What's next they'll start building shanty's?

So these people are so self absorbed and care only for themselves that they'll take over a park that is for public use leaving no room for anyone else to use the park. What about neighborhood children who are forced to travel great distances over dangerous terrain to find the next place to play because some people want to whine about something.

If not then whats to stop me from building a house in a public park? Nothing. I could live their lease and tax free I guess is the message to be taken from these people.

I want to the police come in with water cannons and riot gear to drive these undesirables out of parks. Give the parks back to the families and children who use them everyday.

Another of your silly fallacy arguments. You should learn something about what is ACTUALLY happening, rather than making it up to suit your own prejudices and fears.

There are only 26 tents in the park, with plenty of room for others to come into the park and walk around.

Their use of the park is protected under the Charter. The Supreme Court has said before that the right to protest (free expression and right to assembly) must be protected even if it causes discomfort or major inconvenience to others.

The ONLY question before the courts is whether camping is part of the "Occupy" Movement's expression / message and if it is, whether the by-law can be seen as a minimal intrusion on that right. However, their absolute and overwhelming use of the park is not in question.

And NO. If the Court rules in favor of the protesters it doesn't mean that you can built a house and squat there. That is just more of your silliness. This is and "OCCUPY" movement and the question has to do entirely with the message.

Edited November 20, 2011 by charter.rights

November 20, 2011

A top US lobbying firm tied to the financial industry pitched a $850,000 plan to smear the Occupy Wall Street movement and discredit sympathetic politicians.

US lobbyists aimed to smear Occupy Wall Street: report

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Rick · November 20, 2011

A top US lobbying firm tied to the financial industry pitched a $850,000 plan to smear the Occupy Wall Street movement and discredit sympathetic politicians.

US lobbyists aimed to smear Occupy Wall Street: report

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Which is what the right wing media here have been doing...

Corporate sycophants....

blueblood · November 20, 2011

To be in the park yes. To move in and make it a permanent residence? No. Just like Tent City 10 years ago this will be torn down. What's next they'll start building shanty's?

So these people are so self absorbed and care only for themselves that they'll take over a park that is for public use leaving no room for anyone else to use the park. What about neighborhood children who are forced to travel great distances over dangerous terrain to find the next place to play because some people want to whine about something.

If not then whats to stop me from building a house in a public park? Nothing. I could live their lease and tax free I guess is the message to be taken from these people.

I want to the police come in with water cannons and riot gear to drive these undesirables out of parks. Give the parks back to the families and children who use them everyday.

No you don't use water cannons and riot gear on people camping out. The police were there essentially to keep things civil. The water cannons would embolden the protesters and inspire more to come out. It's like wilfrid Laurier and his Aesop fable about the sun and tube wind having a contest to take a man's coat off. They woud be better off letting them camp out and using people like Peter schiff to make them look like the fools they are. A crash course in economics would be far better than water cannons.

I don't want to go to 1968.

Shwa · November 21, 2011

No you don't use water cannons and riot gear on people camping out. The police were there essentially to keep things civil. The water cannons would embolden the protesters and inspire more to come out. It's like wilfrid Laurier and his Aesop fable about the sun and tube wind having a contest to take a man's coat off. They woud be better off letting them camp out and using people like Peter schiff to make them look like the fools they are. A crash course in economics would be far better than water cannons.

I don't want to go to 1968.

Peter Schiff is a rock star! All the way to the bank. And I think you are on to something Blueblood: all of the world's problems could be solved by a "crash course in economics." You should patent that. Make sure you give discounts for clients in Africa.