Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Monday, November 21, 2011

What the judge said in rejecting Occupy’s bid

  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 

No comments:

Post a Comment