Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Jacob]

If police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause.  It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.

Yeah for sure. If the police had pushed them out immediately, I'd probably have been fairly sympathetic even if I thought the whole thing was a little off. But now? After heroin overdoses, thoroughly mixed messages and the impact on the local businesses I have very little sympathy for them at all; they got to make their case in the public sphere and this is where it got them.

[Strix]

I am very supportive of these people!

Every morning when I drive by the Occupy Rochester park I beep my horn, loud and long, for support as their sign asks. Granted, it's 5 AM and most them probably aren't awake (or there, I see tons of tents but maybe the five same people) enough to appreciate it but every little bit counts!

[Josephus]

I'm sort of torn over the whole thing.
The problem with it is that it had no real end game. Were they going to overthrow the system? No.
I also felt it had a kind of exclusive attitude to it. I went downtown Toronto on Saturday afternoon (before going to a Leaf game to which I had a $450 ticket) and sat in for half an hour. I couldn't follow their strange hand signals.
Their vagueness also led to a lot of misunderstanding. I've heard people say that they're protesting cause they can't find work....or tehy're protesting because daycare is too expensive....or because they can't afford tuition.
Every protest needs leadership and a clear agenda. This had neither.
These guys weren't going to change the world.

Which is unfortunate because I do believe it needs changing and I don't think voting for Party A over Party B is going to change it.

Now, although as I said, I don't think these protesters are doing anything useful--I'm also not necessarily sure of their need to camp out. But that's the method they chose and  I  am against their dispersal. People should be allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest. I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.

[Barrister]

Now, although as I said, I don't think these protesters are doing anything useful--I'm also not necessarily sure of their need to camp out. But that's the method they chose and  I  am against their dispersal. People should be allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest. I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.

Justice Brown wrote a very nice decision in going over what restrictions can (and can not) be imposed on the right of free expression when he kicked them out.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc6862/2011onsc6862.html

[Admiral Yi]

I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.

There's also plenty of other places protesters can spend the night.

The snow storm comment is just bizarre.

[Josephus]

What I mean is if you have a business, sometimes shit happens and you lose business. You can take out risk insurance.

[Admiral Yi]

What I mean is if you have a business, sometimes shit happens and you lose business. You can take out risk insurance.

Even assuming there's such as thing as loss of business due to political protest insurance, why is it fair to impose the cost of the premium on those guys?

[Josephus]

Now, although as I said, I don't think these protesters are doing anything useful--I'm also not necessarily sure of their need to camp out. But that's the method they chose and  I  am against their dispersal. People should be allowed to peacefully demonstrate and protest. I don't buy into the whole "people want to walk in parks" nonsense. There's plenty of other parks. So it disrupts a few businesses. So does a road closure or a snow storm. Or the G8 summits.

Justice Brown wrote a very nice decision in going over what restrictions can (and can not) be imposed on the right of free expression when he kicked them out.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc6862/2011onsc6862.html

thanks for posting that. And it's a fine, well articulated and fair ruling. Doesn't mean I have to agree.

[Admiral Yi]

Disappearment!

[crazy canuck]

If police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause.  It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.

In my view it is not the role of the police to balance such political concerns.  The role of the police is to enforce the law.  It may be that the Major could make such a political judgment and then instruct the police in how they should respond but that is not what happened here.  In numerous interviews during the "occupation" the Mayor said he was not instructing the police or any officials but that they were using their own judgment.

In my view the correct approach is for the police to enforce the law and then if anyone arrested wishes to challenge the validity of that arrest by making a Charter challenge then they may do so.  I believe that is what occured in Toronto.

I dont think politicians should to the courts to tell them what to do for a number of reasons.  One of them was easily seen yesterday.  The City obtained an injunction removing the protestors from the Art Gallery.  So they just moved across the street to the Courthouse grounds.  Another injunction removed them from there so they moved on to another location where residents had to take things into their own hands.

The police should not have to be told by the Courts to enforce the law.

[crazy canuck]

Didn't you say that in Vancouver the protesters were all well off university students?

Yep, that is exactly how it started out.  It is pretty well recognized that the "occupiers" changed character considerably as the kids out for the street theatre went home.  What is your point?

[Barrister]

If police had moved in immediately on the first night I suspect that the protestors would have garned substantial public support for their cause.  It was by waiting, letting this all play out, and seeing what their little camps turned into, which solidly (in my opinion) turned public opinion against the protestors.

In my view it is not the role of the police to balance such political concerns.  The role of the police is to enforce the law.  It may be that the Major could make such a political judgment and then instruct the police in how they should respond but that is not what happened here.  In numerous interviews during the "occupation" the Mayor said he was not instructing the police or any officials but that they were using their own judgment.

In my view the correct approach is for the police to enforce the law and then if anyone arrested wishes to challenge the validity of that arrest by making a Charter challenge then they may do so.  I believe that is what occured in Toronto.

I dont think politicians should to the courts to tell them what to do for a number of reasons.  One of them was easily seen yesterday.  The City obtained an injunction removing the protestors from the Art Gallery.  So they just moved across the street to the Courthouse grounds.  Another injunction removed them from there so they moved on to another location where residents had to take things into their own hands.

The police should not have to be told by the Courts to enforce the law.

There has always been substantial discretion in how police "enforce the law".  I know of no police agency that automatically, robotically lays every charge, arrests every lawbreaker, etc.

[Capetan Mihali]

But then on the other hand, you have Mihali.

 

I'm cast as the conservative reactionary in my real-life discussions of Occupy (Wall Street, Boston, Seattle, Harvard, Davis) because I think the camping-out premise has definitely run its course by now, if it was ever a great way to stage a protest.

I think strategically it is too divisive, since only a small core of people will commit to sleeping rough in the name of a vague cause (especially in the face of police violence), and it deters fellow-travelers from participating.  And it's only by virtue of a mild Fall in the Northeast that things have lasted as long as they have.

I agree with what some labor guy said, that the leading people in the groups need to leverage the notoriety from the physical Occupying into a more general campaign of rallies, candidates, etc.

[crazy canuck]

There has always been substantial discretion in how police "enforce the law".  I know of no police agency that automatically, robotically lays every charge, arrests every lawbreaker, etc.

I am not talking about discretion in enforcing the law.  This was a case where the police said the law was being breached.  What I am disagreeing with is that the police said they could do nothing without an injunction. That is simply wrong headed.

edit: I read through the decision in Toronto.  That is the correct approach in my view.  The Police enforce the law and then, if someone believes their rights have been violated, a Court is asked to sort it out.

In the context of the reasons dealing with the alleged duty to consult the Court was quite right to note that otherwise a Municipality could become paralyzed if it was unable to enforce its own laws.  Just as it could become parazlyzed if the police refuse to enforce the law without court order.

[Malthus]

I don't know why that translation has stuck.  Grapeshot is a naval round.  Boner fired canister.

I dunno what Bony fired, but Grapeshot, while used more in naval applications, was also used on land. It fired larger projectiles than canister. There is nothing improbable about a land battle using grapeshot.