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.