Occupy Toronto Protestors

[charter.rights]

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.

[blueblood]

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.

Except it's not a peaceful protest, and according to you police officers don't have rights themselves.

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.

Keep digging that hole.

[charter.rights]

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.

Edited November 15, 2011 by charter.rights

[blueblood]

Straw man argument. completely fabricated out of thin air.

The protests are completely peaceful. London police instigate disorder.

More fallacy arguments. Hyperbole, straw man, red herrings. Boy you are full of it.

I'm no the one trying to invent an argument.

Snap!!!

[charter.rights]

Snap!!!

Avoidance. Another of the many fallacy arguments you commonly employ when you get backed into a corner.

[blueblood]

Avoidance. Another of the many fallacy arguments you commonly employ when you get backed into a corner.

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!!!

[charter.rights]

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.

Edited November 15, 2011 by charter.rights

[blueblood]

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 again!!!

[charter.rights]

Snap again!!!

You're dodging again!!!!!

[Boges]

Interesting development while I was sleeping. Occupy Wall Street was given the boot. Apparently they were squatting on private property owned by a Canadian company. So now the Occupy Toronto people are going to head offices of that company to protest.

BTW in all evictions so far the police didn't stop the people from assembling in the park. They just said they couldn't pitch a tent and live there, which they are laws on the books regarding those issues.

If this is a charter issue like people here are saying, they would have to convince a judge that camping out in these parks is protected by their charter rights. I'm not going to convince people here that believe it is, that it's not. But that's the issue at hand.

Now a question. If protesters decide to camp at the head office of this private company. Would that be protected by their charter rights?

Edited November 15, 2011 by Boges

[Boges]

Interesting Article on this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/occupy-wall-street-site-no-longer-open-for-tents-bloomberg/article2236466/

The National Lawyers Guild says it has obtained a court order that allows Occupy Wall St. protesters to return with tents to a New York City park.

The guild says the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the city knew about the court order but has not seen it. He says the city plans to go court immediately.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the move to evict the protesters and tear down their tent city.

“Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others. There have been reports of businesses being threatened and complaints about noise and unsanitary conditions that have seriously impacted the quality of life for residents and businesses in this now-thriving neighborhood,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement.

“Protesters have had two months to occupy the park with tents and sleeping bags. Now they will have to occupy the space with the power of their arguments,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

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.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Boges

[charter.rights]

Interesting Article on this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/occupy-wall-street-site-no-longer-open-for-tents-bloomberg/article2236466/

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.

[cybercoma]

The USA might not have that right, but the protestors don't have the right to cause trouble while protesting. I don't think sex assaults, violence and assaults on police officers are peaceful protests now are they?

Those crimes are not part of the protests. The perpetrators should be arrested. What's your point?

And just to let you know, the job of protests is to cause "trouble", when the definition of causing trouble is upsetting the status quo. The black civil rights movement was about civil disobedience or "causing trouble".

[cybercoma]

Interesting development while I was sleeping. Occupy Wall Street was given the boot. Apparently they were squatting on private property owned by a Canadian company. So now the Occupy Toronto people are going to head offices of that company to protest.

BTW in all evictions so far the police didn't stop the people from assembling in the park. They just said they couldn't pitch a tent and live there, which they are laws on the books regarding those issues.

If this is a charter issue like people here are saying, they would have to convince a judge that camping out in these parks is protected by their charter rights. I'm not going to convince people here that believe it is, that it's not. But that's the issue at hand.

Now a question. If protesters decide to camp at the head office of this private company. Would that be protected by their charter rights?

The eviction was also illegal according to a previous court injunction:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266582-order-re-liberty-park/

A few hours after the eviction, Bloomberg was ordered to allow the protestors to return with their tents.

http://www.globalnews.ca/court+order+will+allow+occupy+wall+street+protesters+to+return+to+zuccotti+park+after+police+sweep/6442522031/story.html

the National Lawyers Guild obtained a court order allowing the protesters to return with their tents to the park, where they have camped for two months

Read it on Global News: Global News | Court order will allow Occupy protesters to return to Zuccotti Park

No one, not even Occupy protesters, are denying that the police have the right, the responsibility in fact, to enforce the law against people that are committing criminal offenses. THe Occupiers actually want the police to bring those people to justice.

The point that I think you're missing is that these are indeed peaceful protests and the police have every right to issue dispersal orders and break up crowd, only when they are rioting or when there is an imminent threat of a riot. Neither is the case here.

[grogy]

I think they made their point, and considering that the rest of the public had ample opportunity to throw off the chains of capitalist oppression and follow the movement, and did not (in any great number), now is as good a time as any to end it.

Edited November 15, 2011 by grogy

[Boges]

Well they've been evicted. Apparently they have a back-up plan that includes using a local church (those nasty Christians)

Of course it really isn't a protest if you're on private property that you're welcome on.

From the Star

Toronto police have confirmed that the Occupy Toronto protesters have been served with eviction notices by the city.

Const. Victor Kwong said that Toronto police presence was there in St. James Park in order to protect the bylaw officers who are serving demonstrators with trespassing notices.

He said that bylaw enforcement officers had entered the park but the demonstrators were not being forcefully evicted, at least not yet.

Occupy organizers said this morning via their Twitter account that they are not aware of the timeline for evacuation.

The eviction notices were handed out minutes after demonstrators returned from a march to Brookfield Place and back. There were reports of a minor confrontation with police that resulted in two arrests.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Boges

[GostHacked]

‘Anonymous’ threat doesn’t faze Mayor Ford

They do, but sometimes they don't. However, I wonder if Mayor Ford is thinking about the ramifications of having all his email exposed on the Internet? No doubt the IT folks at the City have hardened their systems. But if Anon has already done the hack and are just waiting for the opportunity.

The hacks can happen really easy. More security means it takes a couple more seconds to break through.

[GostHacked]

I think they made their point, and considering that the rest of the public had ample opportunity to throw off the chains of capitalist oppression and follow the movement, and did not (in any great number), now is as good a time as any to end it.

Actually this is a good time to ramp it all up.

[Boges]

Just heard on the radio they plan to have a party before they are evicted.

They basically want the police to forcibly remove them. They likely will.

Will their be a court order like in New York? Will there be public outcry? Will the Occupiers riot?

I'll probably stay up to watch this on CityPanic24. It'll be very interesting and entertaining.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Boges

[Shwa]

BTW in all evictions so far the police didn't stop the people from assembling in the park. They just said they couldn't pitch a tent and live there, which they are laws on the books regarding those issues.

The Charter does not specify limitations to freedom of peaceful assembly except, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified." So now the 'reasonable limits" will get the test and it will be a very important test which could affect how and why people communicate their issues.

If this is a charter issue like people here are saying, they would have to convince a judge that camping out in these parks is protected by their charter rights. I'm not going to convince people here that believe it is, that it's not. But that's the issue at hand.

Nope, that is backwards. The City has to convince a judge that the eviction notice is a "reasonable limit as prescribed by law." There has to be a balance struck but the bias must always be towards the rights as prescribed in the Charter.

Now a question. If protesters decide to camp at the head office of this private company. Would that be protected by their charter rights?

Yep, because the Charter does not prescibe limits to the freedom to peaceful assembly, etc. So there are protests (strikes are a good example) at private companies all the time. However, preventing people from going about their work, business, etc., could be construed as a reasonable limit. One right can't interfere with another.

I heard Stephen LeDrew say that people in the neighbourhood of St. James had "the right to enjoy their park." Well, no they don't, there are no such rights. He also said that "businesses had the right to do business." Neither of which were prevented by the Occupy movement. So if there is a reasonable limit it will be something along the lines of health and/or safety and the City will have to demonstrate cause.

[Boges]

Nope, that is backwards. The City has to convince a judge that the eviction notice is a "reasonable limit as prescribed by law." There has to be a balance struck but the bias must always be towards the rights as prescribed in the Charter.

Then I expect a court order preventing their impending eviction at midnight tonight.

Why hasn't the London, Ontario eviction been struck down as unconstitutional?

[Shwa]

Then I expect a court order preventing their impending eviction at midnight tonight.

Why hasn't the London, Ontario eviction been struck down as unconstitutional?

Might be cheaper to run it all as one test case?

[Boges]

Might be cheaper to run it all as one test case?

Well if that was the case then Vancouver would be the test case.

Apparently a request for an injunction has been made in this instance and many of the left-wing councillors have drafted a letter requesting debate on the issue.

Ironically the councillor who's Ward St James Park is in didn't sign the letter.

[Shwa]

Well if that was the case then Vancouver would be the test case.

Apparently a request for an injunction has been made in this instance and many of the left-wing councillors have drafted a letter requesting debate on the issue.

Ironically the councillor who's Ward St James Park is in didn't sign the letter.

I'm not sure, I suppose each location would have to be evaluated as to the probability of success measured against reasonable limits.

[dre]

Those crimes are not part of the protests. The perpetrators should be arrested. What's your point?

There is no point. These overdoses, etc open the door him to make the discussion about the character of the protesters, and avoid real discussion about the structural problems in the system.

Its sort of the same thing the left in the US tried to do with the teapartiers. By focusing on the odd nut chanting racist slogans you shift the discussion towards the character of the protesters and away from the real issues.

Its a solid move, because if people actually start looking at our quasi public/private financial system, then they will realize the emperor has no clothes.

Edited November 15, 2011 by dre