• Is the camp a form of political protest protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Yes. Brown wrote “the structures erected by the applicants and other protesters in the park form part of manner of expressing their political message,” and are protected by the Charter section covering freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.
• So the camp can stay? Not necessarily. The Charter also recognizes the competing rights of different park users and “does not remove the need to apply common sense” to how all are accommodated.
• Have the protesters lived up to their message of participatory democracy? No. “They did not ask those who live and work around the park or those who use the park — or their civic representatives — what they would think if the park was turned into a tent city.”
• Have the protesters been good neighbours? No. “The evidence filed before me from the (neighbouring) residents indicates . . . the tents and other shelters hog the park land and non-protesters who seek to use the park face a chilly and somewhat intimidating reception.”
• Do protesters’ rights trump those of the other users? No. “The Charter offers no justification for the protesters’ act of appropriating to their own use — without asking their fellow citizens — a large portion of common public space for an indefinite period of time.”
• Are city rules forbidding the erection of tents and other structures in city parks, and forbidding protests between 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., constitutional? Yes. The rules are “reasonable, tailored, minimal impairments on the expressive and associational rights of the protesters, and a reasonable balancing act of the rights of all who wish to use the park.”
• Are protesters who ignore the trespass notices and refuse to take down tents breaking the law? Yes.
• Does that entitle the city to take down the tents and police to arrest those who interfere with those efforts? Yes. “I conclude that the trespass notice is constitutionally valid. The city may enforce it. I dismiss the (Occupy) application.”
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
• So the camp can stay? Not necessarily. The Charter also recognizes the competing rights of different park users and “does not remove the need to apply common sense” to how all are accommodated.
• Have the protesters lived up to their message of participatory democracy? No. “They did not ask those who live and work around the park or those who use the park — or their civic representatives — what they would think if the park was turned into a tent city.”
• Have the protesters been good neighbours? No. “The evidence filed before me from the (neighbouring) residents indicates . . . the tents and other shelters hog the park land and non-protesters who seek to use the park face a chilly and somewhat intimidating reception.”
• Do protesters’ rights trump those of the other users? No. “The Charter offers no justification for the protesters’ act of appropriating to their own use — without asking their fellow citizens — a large portion of common public space for an indefinite period of time.”
• Are city rules forbidding the erection of tents and other structures in city parks, and forbidding protests between 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., constitutional? Yes. The rules are “reasonable, tailored, minimal impairments on the expressive and associational rights of the protesters, and a reasonable balancing act of the rights of all who wish to use the park.”
• Are protesters who ignore the trespass notices and refuse to take down tents breaking the law? Yes.
• Does that entitle the city to take down the tents and police to arrest those who interfere with those efforts? Yes. “I conclude that the trespass notice is constitutionally valid. The city may enforce it. I dismiss the (Occupy) application.”
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
No comments:
Post a Comment