Occupy Toronto Protestors Win Stay

[rareboy]

Occupy Toronto protesters were granted a temporary reprieve Tuesday evening following a last-minute court injunction against the city’s plans to evict them from St. James Park.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1087272--st-james-park-protesters-allowed-to-stay?bn=1

Of course there are all kinds of levels of irony around this temporary reprieve.

The fact that lawyers are now the ones arguing for the protesters.

The idea of the Occupy protesters celebrating a court ruling as somehow legitimizing their right to occupy.

Another humiliating loss for the bully Mayor Ford, who couldn't do what his other mayor friends could.

 

[JayHawk]

Are they Occupying in support of their imprisoned healthless neighbors to the south?

Surely in the free Healthcare, Equal rights utopia that had no issue with banking because of its natural genius people aren't complaining are they?

 

[chance1]

No one should "occupy' any area that causes grief for their fellow 99% ers

Even liberal mayors know that "occupy" is bad news for the well being of city residents and those in uber liberal Oakland and Denver have seen fit to do what took Mayor Bloomberg far too long

i repeat

why do the "occupiers" hurt the very ones they are supposed to be representing???

how is that helpful in anyway?

 

[Centexfarmer]

No one should "occupy' any area that causes grief for their fellow 99% ers

Even liberal mayors know that "occupy" is bad news for the well being of city residents and those in uber liberal Oakland and Denver have seen fit to do what took Mayor Bloomberg far too long

i repeat

why do the "occupiers" hurt the very ones they are supposed to be representing???

how is that helpful in anyway ?

They're not.

I see several things at play here.

1. I agree with NYC Mayor Bloomberg that "First Amendment Rights" don't extend to include the occupation of public spaces at the exclusion of others.
2. The OWS movement is also having to come to terms with the "semi-permanence" of occupying a space with the reality that the space that many are occupying is going to attract those who have nothing to do with the movement; homeless, drug dealers, panhandlers, etc..
3. There's a difference between representing, and enabling, and when those who are being "enabled" by the very presence of a large group begin to detract from the overall message, other remedies must be sought.

So it's kind of a win/lose, lose/win between those who want to "occupy" and the municipal governments who want to respect that while also trying to look out for the common good.


Neither of them can have things one way or the other.


Either way anyone wants to look at this, it serves nothing more than to distract from the message itself.


So let's not try to lose sight of WHY the OWS movement started in the first place.

 

[Kulindahr]

I like the reference to McLuhan; it's what I was grasping for, in the New York case, that the occupation is the message, and thus the tents and everything else are protected.

Hopefully your judges up there will come down on the side of liberty, and shame the US courts into doing the same.

 

[chance1]

They're not.

I see several things at play here.

1. I agree with NYC Mayor Bloomberg that "First Amendment Rights" don't extend to include the occupation of public spaces at the exclusion of others.
2. The OWS movement is also having to come to terms with the "semi-permanence" of occupying a space with the reality that the space that many are occupying is going to attract those who have nothing to do with the movement; homeless, drug dealers, panhandlers, etc..
3. There's a difference between representing, and enabling, and when those who are being "enabled" by the very presence of a large group begin to detract from the overall message, other remedies must be sought.

So it's kind of a win/lose, lose/win between those who want to "occupy" and the municipal governments who want to respect that while also trying to look out for the common good.


Neither of them can have things one way or the other.


Either way anyone wants to look at this, it serves nothing more than to distract from the message itself.


So let's not try to lose sight of WHY the OWS movement started in the first place.

lets not lose sight?

THEY'VE LOST SIGHT

they're hurting their own

a cause must have:

ideation - what is it about?
passion - are u committed?
execution - making it happen

what is this about?
big bad banks?
ok - got it

is there passion?
it appears so

execution
shit show
muddled messaging
violence
creating havoc for their own people
incidents on tape of very bad behavior

the bad "execution" trumps the rest

just saying

and i think it sucks eggs that some folks here don't recognize or care to recognize the negatives of "occupation"

heads in the sand

 

[rareboy]

It doesn't hurt that the occupants have the blessing of the biggest stakeholder...St. James Cathedral.

And since the thread is about the Toronto occupation....we would just point out that there have been no incidents of bad behaviour or abuse of the rights of others in the neighbourhood.

 

[JayHawk]

But why are Torontonians occupying? I thought everything was free gravy and biscuits up there in canuckistan. So what are they wanting?

 

[Centexfarmer]

and i think it sucks eggs that some folks here don't recognize or care to recognize the negatives of "occupation"

heads in the sand

Sad that you want to focus on the negatives instead of the positives.

Sad that you don't recognize that it is the "negatives" that some within the "occupation" are faced with, and the needs and desires that the municipalities are facing, while being confronted with a desire to accommodate "free speech."

You are either seeing things in black and white, or refusing to acknowledge the "grey" that both sides seem to be expressing.

I'm prepared to give both of them that, as opposed to the "occupiers" decrying a "police state" and the local governments dismissing them as anarchists.

Sorry, despite the spin and wherever it might come from, there's much more "grey" than black and white, and to me that's a true representation of Democracy as opposed to a "police state," and an acknowledgement of the "occupiers" that they're not advocating for anarchy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sad that you want to focus on the negatives instead of the positives.

Sad that you don't recognize that it is the "negatives" that some within the "occupation" are faced with, and the needs and desires that the municipalities are facing, while being confronted with a desire to accommodate "free speech."

You are either seeing things in black and white, or refusing to acknowledge the "grey" that both sides seem to be expressing.

I'm prepared to give both of them that, as opposed to the "occupiers" decrying a "police state" and the local governments dismissing them as anarchists.

Sorry, despite the spin and wherever it might come from, there's much more "grey" than black and white, and to me that's a true representation of Democracy as opposed to a "police state," and an acknowledgement of the "occupiers" that they're not advocating for anarchy.

Some people will oppose liberty no matter where it is found.

Some people would have been arguing for Washington to abandon Valley Forge, because of the "negatives". Some would have opposed the Declaration of Independence because of the "negatives". I swear, some would have argued against the Creation, because of the "negatives".

Some people are just negative.

 

[Dolmance]

But why are Torontonians occupying? I thought everything was free gravy and biscuits up there in canuckistan. So what are they wanting?

For those intent on reducing the situation down to the same cartoon colours by which they traditionally comport themselves and regard the rest of the world, the "occupy" movement is a world-wide demonstration of disatisfaction with corporate and political corruption; it is a timely warning to those who presume authority that they maintain it at the behest and satisfaction of those they purport to represent. It is also an expression of solidarity that, not to wax too poetic, crosses cultural and international borders; regardless of the fact that Canada generally seems to be in a better position economically and socially than the U.S. at present, that doesn't mean there are not issues which are the direct result of political corruption, corporate self interest etc.

The fact that this has to be deconstructed and spelled out piece by piece is absurd.

 

[rareboy]

But why are Torontonians occupying? I thought everything was free gravy and biscuits up there in canuckistan. So what are they wanting?

I did appreciate the gentle jabs about living in Shangri-la up here....time for you start getting serious about finding yourself a nice Canadian

or

and hie your ass up to the great white north.

But seriously....even though we are not shy about taxing the rich, or universal health care....I think that showing solidarity with the others protesting the greed of the multi-national tax avoiding corporations that are exploiting the environment and the 3rd world has been a big motivator for the protesters.

And beyond this? I don't know. But I have to say that I find it reassuring in amny ways that there are young and old people so impassioned about their cause that they are proving that not everyone lives in a coma.

Many of these activists will be the politicians and leaders of tomorrow...and I'm glad that finally some of the over-indulged young are demonstrating again.

 

[JayHawk]

For those intent on reducing the situation down to the same cartoon colours by which they traditionally comport themselves and regard the rest of the world, the "occupy" movement is a world-wide demonstration of disatisfaction with corporate and political corruption; it is a timely warning to those who presume authority that they maintain it at the behest and satisfaction of those they purport to represent. It is also an expression of solidarity that, not to wax too poetic, crosses cultural and international borders; regardless of the fact that Canada generally seems to be in a better position economically and socially than the U.S. at present, that doesn't mean there are not issues which are the direct result of political corruption, corporate self interest etc.

The fact that this has to be deconstructed and spelled out piece by piece is absurd.

The fact that you get so upset at my jabs is what amuses me the most i do believe. SO Canadians want us to reform our campaign finance? That benefits them how?

Seriously what change do these socialist countries desire? I mean feel free to protest how we do things because we lift and squash the world economy but since we are a nation and economy on the decline shouldn't ya'll be protesting the new economic overlords in China?

 

[JayHawk]

I did appreciate the gentle jabs about living in Shangri-la up here....time for you start getting serious about finding yourself a nice Canadian

or

and hie your ass up to the great white north.

But seriously....even though we are not shy about taxing the rich, or universal health care....I think that showing solidarity with the others protesting the greed of the multi-national tax avoiding corporations that are exploiting the environment and the 3rd world has been a big motivator for the protesters.

And beyond this? I don't know. But I have to say that I find it reassuring in amny ways that there are young and old people so impassioned about their cause that they are proving that not everyone lives in a coma.

Many of these activists will be the politicians and leaders of tomorrow...and I'm glad that finally some of the over-indulged young are demonstrating again.

HO LEE FUCK

That brings the term splinter to a all new level. <shiver>

I agree it is wonderful to see the youth engaged in the desire to change. Now if we can get them to learn the how change occurs we will get somewhere.

I was curious about it and turned to the ever faithful google. OWS has a great turnout everywhere. Yet the turnout in Europe is in the tens of thousands which is amazing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Occupy_movement_protest_locations

So what is the stated goal for each of their governments? I googled news soruces and dont get much return on Occupy outside the US.

 

[JayHawk]

SO if it is the end of capitalism and the intent is to overthrow these corrupt governments the first world wide then what is next? (Oh yes we have a thread of that with no options offered -- check)

Oh Well:

 

[Kulindahr]

For those intent on reducing the situation down to the same cartoon colours by which they traditionally comport themselves and regard the rest of the world, the "occupy" movement is a world-wide demonstration of disatisfaction with corporate and political corruption; it is a timely warning to those who presume authority that they maintain it at the behest and satisfaction of those they purport to represent. It is also an expression of solidarity that, not to wax too poetic, crosses cultural and international borders; regardless of the fact that Canada generally seems to be in a better position economically and socially than the U.S. at present, that doesn't mean there are not issues which are the direct result of political corruption, corporate self interest etc.

The fact that this has to be deconstructed and spelled out piece by piece is absurd.

When you get people who read explanations and corrections and information about the movement and never manage to move beyond a simplistic understanding unrelated to the reality is also absurd.

 

[chance1]

Sad that you want to focus on the negatives instead of the positives.

Sad that you don't recognize that it is the "negatives" that some within the "occupation" are faced with, and the needs and desires that the municipalities are facing, while being confronted with a desire to accommodate "free speech."

You are either seeing things in black and white, or refusing to acknowledge the "grey" that both sides seem to be expressing.

I'm prepared to give both of them that, as opposed to the "occupiers" decrying a "police state" and the local governments dismissing them as anarchists.

Sorry, despite the spin and wherever it might come from, there's much more "grey" than black and white, and to me that's a true representation of Democracy as opposed to a "police state," and an acknowledgement of the "occupiers" that they're not advocating for anarchy.

actually ...........

what's sad is ur blindness to what up

and ur allegiance to "the cause"

as if

hardly a TRUE representation of democracy

rather an exercise in lameness

as the "execution" (try to listen carefully)

sucks

keep your "sad that ......." yada yada

to urself

thanks much

 

[rareboy]

This thread is not about anyone's personal opinions on the Occupy movement or protests or insulting anyone who happens to support the idea of OWS and the right of protesters to protest.

It is about using the lawcourts to determine the right of the Toronto protestors to occupy this park.

I suspect that the outcome will be that protestors may not 'live' in the park, since this would have profound implications for the right to inhabit public lands with temporary shelter and inadequate sanitation.

I'd appreciate it if we could avoid having yet another thread turned into a trainwreck.

 

[chance1]

This thread is not about anyone's personal opinions on the Occupy movement or protests or insulting anyone who happens to support the idea of OWS and the right of protesters to protest.

It is about using the lawcourts to determine the right of the Toronto protestors to occupy this park.

I suspect that the outcome will be that protestors may not 'live' in the park, since this would have profound implications for the right to inhabit public lands with temporary shelter and inadequate sanitation.

I'd appreciate it if we could avoid having yet another thread turned into a trainwreck.

thanks professor

for a guy who jumps on jack springers threads with off topic ad hominens on a regular basis

pretty nervy to play the card ur playing

i'd say toronto = ny on this one

u can protest but not "set up shop"

which is how it oughta be

 

[rareboy]

For anyone labouring under the mistaken impression that Toronto=New York in this matter...it does not.

Our constitutional rights may be significantly different and approached quite differently by the courts.

We'll have to wait and see on Saturday, won't we?

But in the meantime...this thread is really about the Occupy Toronto protestors and not the OWS.

Okay?