Occupy Toronto (Eviction)

Today Justice Brown ruled that Occupy Toronto would not get a permanent injunction blocking the city's enforcement of bylaws relating to the use of the park.

I read the actual judgment. Here is a link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73349925/Batty-v-City-Toronto-Application-Final-Nov-21-11

The reporters who cover this will necessarily be more succinct than Justice Brown's 54 page ruling, however they have oversimplified to the point where they miss some very important points.

Justice Brown ruled that Occupy Toronto was in fact engaging in protected expression. He also spoke well of the issues they raised. Environmentalism, aboriginal rights and inequality are valid and important issues regardless of disagreement over particular views on policy fixes.

He also found that there were others who had Charter rights that should be protected. His ruling was an attempt to balance the competing rights.

This was a case about charter rights. The written laws are quite clear and OccupyTo was in violation of City bylaws. Their only hope lay in convincing a judge that their Charter rights supersede the local bylaws.

In my opinion, the people at St James park made some tactical errors that were fatal to their chances in court.

First they did not "practice what they preach." Justice Brown noted that for all of their talk about decision by consensus and horizontal democracy, they did not seek the consensus or input of local residents. Rather than practice inclusion, they excluded the concerns of area residents. He further said that they were simply not "good neighbours."

Second, their application asked for an "indefinite" injunction against enforcement of city bylaws. His Charter analysis made repeated use of words like "reasonable". Charter rights are clearly not absolute and restrictions must be proportionate and reasonable. By asking for a ruling that would allow them to stay in St James 'forever', they asked that their Charter rights be given a status that is absolute in a way that few things are.

Third, the affidavits filed by area residents allege that there have been several cases of intimidation, harassment and even assault committed against residents. The intimidation is something I've heard about from some friends who live in the area, but it has not been well reported in the media. No cross examinations were conducted as this was just a motion. If the allegations are true, then the Charter rights of others were being directly, and negatively, affected by Occupy's presence in St James Park.

Justice Brown's most scathing comments were not his own but a quote from an area resident's email which read (in part):

"I also believe the use of the park is as much their right, as it is mine. However, it is notappropriate for them to use the park in a manner that prevents me from using the park comfortably. Especially now where it appears to be more about testing how long theycan stay, rather than having a specific purpose. One of the issues they were protestingwas their perception of corporate greed; that corporations only care about their success,and have no concern for the well-being or lives of others. It seems Occupy Toronto hastaken this mentality. They appear to believe their residence is most important, and therights of everyone else to use the park do not matter"

This is the crux of the problem preventing Occupy's message from taking hold and spreading amongst more than a few die hards. I've seen many comments online from people who support Occupy but make the point that they would have greater support amongst their fellow citizens if they did a few things differently. Adopting some of the same tactics and mindset of the stereotypical 1% is clearly not helpful as they look hypocritical.

The issues raised by Occupy are real and valid. They require serious consideration. It is my hope that such a serious discussion will happen once the focus is no longer about Occupy's presence in St James Park. The people of the OccupyTo movement should move on and focus their message. They should then find another way to spread their message once they have moved on.

Support the Troops?

Another Remembrance day has come and gone. A few more veterans have passed on and, unfortunately, more young soldiers now carry the tag of "veteran."

It is well known that Remembrance day is not a celebration of war but a day to pay tribute to those who fell in war. It is a day to honor their sacrifice and be thankful for what we have. Of course such sentiments should not be limited to one day out of the whole year and it is a sad fact that society has often fallen short of that, not so lofty, standard.

The Vietnam war coincided with the "make love not war" generation and as such there were some natural conflicts. It was a shameful episode in American history when returning veterans were greeted with jeers and called baby killers. Many young men who served their country honorably did not get the parade that they deserved because society was so very divided on their mission...which they did not choose.

With the passage of time, perceptions changed. John McCain and John Kerry each ran for President and each was given respect for their service. Their tales of service were tales of honor and heroism not shame. Hollywood got into the act. I remember at the end of Rambo, Sly Stallone's character was asked by Colonel Trautman what he wanted. John Rambo declared "I want what they (rescued MIA's) want. I want to be loved by my country as much I love it."

With this cultural shift it has become fashionable to say that one supports the troops. However this innocuous sounding phrase has been twisted at times.

I recently posted a message on the "Occupy Toronto" site reminding them that Remembrance Day was coming up and that it would be appropriate to mark the event. Several people responded positively.....others did not.

Others stated that while they "support the troops", the real support lies in opposing all wars.(many of the comments were far less benign and generous)

This made me wonder what "support the troops" really meant. Does it mean to blindly support and agree with any military deployment? Of course not. Amongst family and friends I've made the point that the most supportive thing anyone can do is to be honest. ie. tell me when you think i'm wrong.

So what is the intention behind supporting the troops and why do they need support?

Well to answer the second question first, soldiers need support because they need to believe in a higher cause. They need to believe it because no rational person would choose to put their life on the line otherwise. They need that support because they live in fear. Part of the training soldiers undergo involves what to do if one is captured. They must face death, severe injury and even the possiblity of being tortured in enemy hands. Soldiers should know that they are on a mission from orders given by the government of the people and that they are behind them and their mission 100%. In other words, they need to know that society "has their back."

The intention behind supporting the troops should be to reassure them and to make them feel good about their mission (which they did not choose). Too often, it appears that "I support the troops" is used to pat oneself on the back before expressing a view that is anything other than supportive. In such cases, one speaks the words but actually, the intention is to support one's own viewpoint. This is twisted.

So here is my suggestion: If you support the troops and want to say "I got your back" then say so. If you really dislike the military and any foreign intervention, then say what you mean without saying that you support the troops.

Supporting the troops should be about them....not you!

Markets vs People

One of the dividing lines between Conservative thoughts and Liberal thoughts can be seen in their attitudes towards markets and people.

I've heard it described as Conservatives think that markets are good and people are bad. Liberals think that people are good and markets are bad.

This rather succinct description is disturbingly accurate. If you were to put that caption underneath a broadcast of a politician's speech it would be so obvious.

The so-called "cultural conservatives" are a good example of the former. They will espouse a philosophy that calls for deregulation or the more evocative "cutting the red tape." At the same time they will pound away at moral decay and family breakdown. They will lecture ordinary people that they are not living their lives right. They believe that free markets are inherently good and any restrictions on the operations of a free market are inherently bad. On the other hand, people are inherently bad and must be admonished. These "conservatives" favour small government in fiscal matters but big government (with lots of laws and prohibitions) in personal matters.

The liberals will talk about "putting people first" and will strenuously oppose any attempt to legislate moral values. They want the government out of the bedrooms of the nation as they typically believe in unfettered personal freedom. At the same time they will lecture the corporations and markets for behaving badly. They favour small, limited government in personal matters but an expansive government that taxes, regulates and enforces good behaviour on the part of markets.

They are both wrong. They are wrong because they forget one important fact: The markets are an extension of human behaviour. Markets often behave irrationally because it is the reaction of people behind the market. When "markets" panic, it is in fact "people" who are panicking. The only expression of panic or optimism that markets have is the investment or withdrawal of money. This money belongs to people....in many cases, ordinary, middle income people who collectively pool their money into mutual funds or pension funds.

As a trader who deals with markets, I have had many occasions to discuss markets with others. The term "market" has become so abstract that people often think of it as some mystical force that doesn't follow norms of behaviour.

A market is simply a place where like minded people can meet to buy/sell something. It can fruits, textiles or financial instruments. In all cases, a market is a place where someone tries to sell something a higher price while someone else tries to buy it at a lower price.

Recently the Greek sovereign debt crisis has spawned numerous headlines that declare that "market" does/doesn't like a proposal and reacts negatively. In truth, it is really people who are reacting and not some abstract living entity called the market.

Both conservatives and liberals are ultimately wrong about "markets vs people.' Both human behaviour and market behaviour should be subject to some regulation and neither should be seen as inherently good or bad. It can never be either since it is composed of many people. People are inherently good but there are some definite bad apples. The same could be aid about markets

Greek Tragedy....again

The overnight news is that Greece will put the EU rescue package to a referendum.

Up until this latest rescue package, all prior efforts can best be described as:

"Hey Greece is in trouble, they have borrowed too much and they are having trouble borrowing more. Let's ride to the rescue by co-signing some loans for them."

Imagine the surprised looks on central bankers faces when they realized that more debt did not help a country with too much debt.

The latest rescue package seemed to finally grasp the point that if too much debt is the problem, then more debt is not a solution. It imposed a 50% 'voluntary' haircut on some investors of bonds. The haircut would have reduced Greece's debt but it was bizarre and selective in it's application. Some holders of Greek debt would be kept whole while others would take the "voluntary" haircut which would not be considered a default event for some inexplicable reason.

I think that the referendum will see the rescue package voted down. Right now the markets are falling due to the increased uncertainty. When the Greeks reject this plan, a formal default will be triggered and holders of Greek bonds will take much bigger haircuts.

Greece will hit rock bottom and have great difficulty borrowing money in the bond market, however this is a necessary step to beginning a recovery.

Stay tuned folks...this drama is far from over.