Rick Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Cherry picking now are you Boges? A well known lawyer, Clayton Ruby was interviewed last night and he'd disagree with your amateur views on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Read #7. Glad to see you take the time to make yourself aware. And this is relevant to the discussion... how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 The two by-laws aren't reasonable limits. Says which judge, in what ruling, when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Says which judge, in what ruling, when? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) 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. Legal Opinions from who? It's a legal opinion and no one is stopping them from protesting. They just don't want them to camp out. Isn't it imperative to prove camping is an effective tool to protest? And isn't it reasonable to think that daily protests can be equally effective since a majority of the people they are protesting aren't anywhere near the park after midnight. Edited November 17, 2011 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Legal Opinions from who? It's a legal opinion and no one is stopping them from protesting. They just don't want them to camp out. Isn't it imperative to prove camping is an effective tool to protest? And isn't it reasonable to think that daily protests can be equally effective since a majority of the people they are protesting aren't anywhere near the park after midnight. So, in other words, it is reasonable to restrict the freedom of assembly to certain hours of the day? This is called a curfew. But there doesn't seem to be any grounds for a curfew and it hasn't, to my knowledge, been cited as a rationale for the eviction notices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grogy Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So, in other words, it is reasonable to restrict the freedom of assembly to certain hours of the day? This is called a curfew. But there doesn't seem to be any grounds for a curfew and it hasn't, to my knowledge, been cited as a rationale for the eviction notices. Freedom of assembly does not have to equal the freedom to live where you wish to assemble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So, in other words, it is reasonable to restrict the freedom of assembly to certain hours of the day? This is called a curfew. But there doesn't seem to be any grounds for a curfew and it hasn't, to my knowledge, been cited as a rationale for the eviction notices. I'm sure no one would stop them from assembling there overnight. But to bring Yurts in takes it a bit to far. For most reasonable people anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Heard today that the church is backing down from the invitation to stay. Guess they don't want to deal with the homeless addicts who've been drawn to the community. I still think Dalton's front lawn is the place for the protesters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I still think Dalton's front lawn is the place for the protesters. We're in agreement on that. There aren't many 1%ers in the area they're camped. If they want to "make the comfortable uncomfortable" they should camp out on the lawn of Queen's park or do what the OWSers did today and try to shut down Bay Street each day. Edited November 17, 2011 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Freedom of assembly does not have to equal the freedom to live where you wish to assemble. People are only allowed to live in certain places? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 People are only allowed to live in certain places? What about the right of the local citizens to enjoy and use their park? Seems like nobody gives a damn about them, even though it was their taxes that paid for it! How many of the OCCUPY protesters local taxpayers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 What about the right of the local citizens to enjoy and use their park? Nobody is stopping anyone from using "their" park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Freedom of assembly does not have to equal the freedom to live where you wish to assemble. Nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I'm sure no one would stop them from assembling there overnight. But to bring Yurts in takes it a bit to far. How so? Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prescribe what forms of freedom of assembly are legitimate? Or does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms take "it a bit to far?" For most reasonable people anyway. Then a reasonable person, such as yourself, would be willing to cite your source on this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 What about the right of the local citizens to enjoy and use their park? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted November 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 How so? Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prescribe what forms of freedom of assembly are legitimate? Or does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms take "it a bit to far?" Then a reasonable person, such as yourself, would be willing to cite your source on this fact. 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. Doesn't really matter all that much at this point. This judge is going to rule on this Saturday and all will be settled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 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. Doesn't really matter all that much at this point. This judge is going to rule on this Saturday and all will be settled. 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. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 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. Doesn't really matter all that much at this point. This judge is going to rule on this Saturday and all will be settled. Sorry its not that simple. Protesters most certain CAN break civil bylaws if those bylaws prevent the excersize of constitutional rights. Otherwise cities could ban protesting COMPLETELY just by assembling the right set of municiple bylaws. It could write noise bylaws that outlaw chanting or singing, it could write bylaws that outlaw carrying signs, or bylaws that keep protesters out of public spaces. Most of these laws would not be worth the paper they were printed on, and the protesters can simply ignore them. These laws THEMSELVES would be violations of the law. A city cannot write laws that prevent the excersize of constitutional rights. So the courts look at what is "reasonable". They will prevent the city from breaking up peacefull protests in most cases even if the protesters are violating city ordinances. But again the standard is whats reasonable. If the protesters for example were blocking access to a hospital for example, the courts would allow the city to remove them. The reality is that large protests pretty much ALWAYS violate bylaws. They block roads, prevent access to certain areas, jaywalk, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 A day in the life of a Wall Street Occupier: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 I don't see why it's so hard to believe there are limits to peaceful assembly and dissent. I couldn't round up 100 like-minded individuals and set up camp on the 401 in uptown Toronto for months demanding that we dismantle public health care. Right to protest on public property is limited by the effect that it has on other members of the public. Pretty simple stuff folks. So where does one protest then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) So where does one protest then? In all parks...which... are set aside for those kinds of activities.... Edited November 18, 2011 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 In all parks...which... are set aside for those kinds of activities.... The City is probably recommending Downsview I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 The City is probably recommending Downsview I bet. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.