Advocates for Occupy Toronto focused on the demonstrators' constitutional rights, maintaining that those rights supersede any municipal bylaws that prevent people from camping illegally in a public park without a permit.
Brown (lawyer for "da Man") said the case is about proportional rights — those of the occupiers versus those of the other residents of the city.
He questioned why the group did not seek a permit to use the park and why a "tree house" was erected after he ordered a halt to further construction.
He also said beating a drum for five hours is "an expression" but one that does not deserve Charter protection. Some residents have complained that protesters play percussion instruments at inappropriate hours.
City lawyers cite damage to park
The city lawyer argued that citizens are being deprived a significant right to access a public park, a problem that is more than a "mere inconvenience."
"One of the things the court is looking at is, is there a reasonable balancing of the interests of the protesters versus the public," city lawyer Darrel Smith said outside the courtroom.
"The city's notice allows the protesters to be there 19 and a half hours in a day and we think that's a reasonable compromise."A tad too "reasonable," no? Time to sent the malcontents home before they completely ruin what used to be an urban oasis and which now resembles something more akin to a third world bog. (The black hole of Hogtown?)
Can we stick the moneybags unions funding the spoilage with the bill for returning it to its former glory once (if) its proxies are outta there?
Update: Today's hijinks--the kidz are holding an "evict Rob Ford" march. Sorry, kidz. He's there legally; you...not so much.
Post a Comment