Occupy Vancouver Protesters

[Wetcoaster]

Injunction granted but not as broad as sought. OV has until 5 pm to vacate the courthouse property.

#BreakingNews: BC Supreme Court has granted injunction, forcing #OccupyVancouver to clear out of Robson Square by 5pm. by CKNW

injunction now granted #OccupyVancouver tent city at Robson Square must be dismantled by 5pm but judge denied the "blanket" injunction

by WoodfordCKNW980

[Wetcoaster]

Take it for what it's worth, but OV just confirmed it.

@Min_Reyes confirmed

http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyVancouver/status/139076754215145472

[Bertuzzi Babe]

Injunction granted but not as broad as sought. OV has until 5 pm to vacate the courthouse property.

#BreakingNews: BC Supreme Court has granted injunction, forcing #OccupyVancouver to clear out of Robson Square by 5pm. by CKNW

injunction now granted #OccupyVancouver tent city at Robson Square must be dismantled by 5pm but judge denied the "blanket" injunction

by WoodfordCKNW980

[Common sense]

Injunction granted but not as broad as sought. OV has until 5 pm to vacate the courthouse property.

#BreakingNews: BC Supreme Court has granted injunction, forcing #OccupyVancouver to clear out of Robson Square by 5pm. by CKNW

injunction now granted #OccupyVancouver tent city at Robson Square must be dismantled by 5pm but judge denied the "blanket" injunction

by WoodfordCKNW980

[Wetcoaster]

First municipal land, then provincial and next? Federal perhaps and go for the trifecta on public land?

Judge didn't grant "blanket" injunction, so expect to see Occupy camp somewhere else. Maybe federal land? #bcpoli #occupyvancouver

by keithbaldrey via twitter 1:03 PM

[Wetcoaster]

I previously posted an article about how the vast majority of the issues that drove the OWS protests in the US were simply inapplicable to Canada.

Here is an opinion piece looking in detail at the quite different Canadian banking system that insulated us against the worst of the recession and the issues being faced in the US. In particular the thrid party mortgage crisis and level of foreclosures simply did not happen here.

Shouting the slogan "Corporate greed has got to go", Occupy Vancouver protesters disrupted banking services at TD Canada Trust, RBC Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal this month. If they would stop and check the facts, though, protesters might instead want to say a big thank you to Canadian bankers for all the good they do for the rest of us.

Banks employ 267,240 Canadians; employment in the industry has increased by 11.5 per cent over the past decade. In other parts of the world where they operate, they employ another 94,000 people. They also paid out $18.2 billion in salaries and benefits to their Canadian employees last year.

Of course, these employees and their buying power employ thousands more in every sector of our economy ranging from restaurants to clothing stores. Banks also bought $14.4 billion worth of stuff in 2010 from other Canadian businesses, generating more jobs, income and government revenues in the process.

That's not enough, you say. Okay, how about the fact that almost 70 per cent of the staff at Canada's six largest banks are women and 32 per cent are in senior management positions? Still not convinced that banks are progressive employers and should be embraced by "progressive" types like you?

Then, let me lay out a few more facts. Small businesses - 1.6 million of them that Occupy Vancouver folks profess to love - receive loans from Canadian banks, which also help them with mentoring programs and management expertise so that they can succeed, make a living and employ more Canadians.

Yeah, but banks do that in order to make big profits, the argument goes. Indeed, they do. Shall we look at the numbers then? The pie (net income) of Canadian banks in 2010 was cut into the following slices: 28 per cent was reinvested in the business (training and technology among other things); 34 per cent was paid to governments in taxes; and 37 per cent went to shareholders.

So the biggest chunk of their obscene profits went to fat cats? Now, let's examine who the fat cats are. Some of the biggest shareholders of banks are: teachers, municipal workers, firefighters, police officers, and provincial and federal civil servants. They own bank shares through their public sector pension plans, Canada Pension Plan and Registered Retirement Savings Plans. In 2010, banks paid a princely sum of $10 billion in dividends to these shareholders.

So my question to Occupy Vancouver protesters is: Do you want to deprive these hard-working folks of their retirement income by making banks less profitable and potentially reducing grandpa and grandma's CPP cheques?

I assume the answer is no. In that case, the protesters should be thankful that our banks are profitable enough to pay out these generous dividends as well as paying $8.3 billion in taxes to government so that our grandparents can get their hips replaced and our mothers and fathers can get cancer treatment when needed.

Not good enough, you say. Oh, you greedy socialists and anarchists! So let me dole out more goodies to satisfy your hunger/ envy. Open up any opera, theatre or ballet program in the city and you will find banks generously donating money to help the arts. Athletes - from Olympians to minor hockey players - receive bank dollars. In fact, RBC Royal Bank alone doled out $130 million in donations and sponsorships across the country in 2010. Millions flow from banks to hospitals and universities each year.

All that is well and good, but didn't Canadian banks act as badly as American financial institutions in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis? The short answer is no. Canada's banks are capitalized to such an extent that they exceed the requirements set out by the Bank for International Settlements. What does that mean? Well, if they are faced with an increase in bad loans during an economic downturn, they can weather the storm without using taxpayer dollars. Isn't that considerate of them?

Our banks are prudent in their lending, particularly when it comes to mortgages. Unlike American banks, ours maintain a large majority of the mortgages on their own balance sheets and don't sell them off to third parties. Naturally, they have every incentive to lend to creditworthy clients. As a result, as of June, the percentage of mortgages in arrears amounted to just 0.41 per cent in Canada. In the United States, it is 10 times the Canadian rate. Overall home equity is 72 per cent of the value of homes in Canada and among those who carry mortgages, equity in their dwellings is 50 per cent on average. Ready to thank our bankers yet?

Not surprisingly, the World Economic Forum has concluded that Canada's banking system has been the soundest in the world for three years in a row.

The behaviour of our Bay Street bankers ensured that the men and women on Main Street did not suffer as much as their counterparts did in the U.S. during the financial crisis.

For being so prudent, profitable and virtuous, Occupy Vancouver protesters should first apologize to our bankers for the disruptions that they caused and then say thank you.

That's the decent thing to do.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Occupy+Vancouver+protesters+should+give+thanks+banks/5737903/story.html#ixzz1eTITmHIp

[canucks_dynasty]

Stop it Wetcoaster....you're making too much sense

[Wetcoaster]

So they're just going to set up shop somewhere else?

I start the bets at BC Place.

[Wetcoaster]

Stop it Wetcoaster....you're making too much sense

[Sharpshooter]

The Canadian Banking FallacyBy Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

As a serious financial reform debate heats up in the Senate, defenders of the new banking status quo in the United States today – more highly concentrated than before 2008, with six megabanks implicitly deemed “too big to fail” – often lead with the argument, “Canada has only five big banks and there was no crisis.” The implication is clear: We should embrace concentrated megabanks and even go further down the route; if the Canadians can do it safely, so can we.

It is true that during 2008 four of all Canada’s major banks managed to earn a profit, all five were profitable in 2009, and none required an explicit taxpayer bailout. In fact, there were no bank collapses in Canada even during the Great Depression, and in recent years there have only been two small bank failures in the entire country.

Advocates for a Canadian-type banking system argue this success is the outcome of industry structure and strong regulation. The CEOs of Canada’s five banks work literally within a few hundred meters of each other in downtown Toronto. This makes it easy to monitor banks. They also have smart-sounding requirements imposed by the government: if you take out a loan over 80% of a home’s value, then you must take out mortgage insurance. The banks were required to keep at least 7% tier one capital, and they had a leverage restriction so that total assets relative to equity (and capital) was limited.

But is it really true that such constraints necessarily make banks safer, even in Canada?

Despite supposedly tougher regulation and similar leverage limits on paper, Canadian banks were actually significantly more leveraged – and therefore more risky – than well-run American commercial banks. For example JP Morgan was 13 times leveraged at the end of 2008, and Wells Fargo was 11 times leveraged. Canada’s five largest banks averaged 19 times leveraged, with the largest bank, Royal Bank of Canada, 23 times leveraged. It is a similar story for tier one capital (with a higher number being safer): JP Morgan had 10.9% percent at end 2008 while Royal Bank of Canada had just 9% percent. JP Morgan and other US banks also typically had more tangible common equity – another measure of the buffer against losses – than did Canadian Banks.

If Canadian banks were more leveraged and less capitalized, did something else make their assets safer? The answer is yes – guarantees provided by the government of Canada. Today over half of Canadian mortgages are effectively guaranteed by the government, with banks paying a low price to insure the mortgages. Virtually all mortgages where the loan to value ratio is greater than 80% are guaranteed indirectly or directly by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (i.e., the government takes the risk of the riskiest assets – nice deal if you can get it). The system works well for banks; they originate mortgages, then pass on the risk to government agencies. The US, of course, had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but lending standards slipped and those agencies could not resist a plunge into assets more risky than prime mortgages. Let’s see how long Canada resists that temptation.

The other systemic strength of the Canadian system is camaraderie between the regulators, the Bank of Canada, and the individual banks. This oligopoly means banks can make profits in rough times – they can charge higher prices to customers and can raise funds more cheaply, in part due to the knowledge that no politician would dare bankrupt them. During the height of the crisis in February 2009, the CEO of Toronto Dominion Bank brazenly pitched investors: “Maybe not explicitly, but what are the chances that TD Bank is not going to be bailed out if it did something stupid?” In other words: don’t bother looking at how dumb or smart we are, the Canadian government is there to make sure creditors never lose a cent. With such ready access to taxpayer bailouts, Canadian banks need little capital, they naturally make large profit margins, and they can raise money even if they act badly.

Proposing a Canadian-type model to create stability in the U.S. is, to be blunt, nonsense. We would need to merge our banks into even fewer banking giants, and then re-inflate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee some of the riskiest parts of the bank’s portfolios. With our handful of new “hyper megabanks”, we’d have to count on our political system to prevent our banks from going wild; Canada may be able to do this (in our view, the jury is still out), but what are the odds this would work in Washington? This would require an enormous leap of faith in our regulatory system immediately after it managed to fail repeatedly and spectacularly over thirty years (see 13 Bankers, out next week, for the awful details). Who can be confident our powerful corporate lobbies, hired politicians, and captured regulators can become so Canadian so soon?

The stakes would be even greater with these mega banks. When such large banks collapse they can take down the finances of entire nations. We don’t need to look far to see how “Canadian-type systems” eventually fail. Britain’s largest bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, grew to control assets equal to around 1.7 times British GDP before it spectacularly fell apart and required near complete nationalization in 2008-09. In Ireland the three largest banks’ assets combined reached roughly 2.5 times GDP before they collapsed. Today all the major Canadian banks have ambitious international expansion plans – let’s see how long their historically safe system survives the new hubris of its managers.

There’s no doubt that during the coming months many people will advocate some form of a Canadian banking system in America. Our largest banks and their lobbyists on Capitol Hill will love the idea. For some desperate politicians it may become a miracle drug: a new “safer” system that will lend to homeowners and provide financing to Washington, while permitting politicians and regulators to avoid tough steps. Let’s hope this elixir doesn’t gain traction; smaller banks with a lot more capital – and able to fail when they act stupid – are what U.S. citizens and taxpayers really need.

[Wetcoaster]

In Toronto the courts have issued an injunction and ordered the Occupy Toronto protesters to dismantle their encampment and abide by the rules of not being in the park during certain hours.

Mr. Justice Brown balanced the rights of the protesters against the right of the state to exercise control and ruled the city's response a "reasonable limit" on the group's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"If the protesters possess a constitutional right to occupy the park and appropriate it to their use, then the next protest group espousing a political message would have the right to so occupy another park, say, Moss Park, and the next group the next park, and so on, and so forth," the judge wrote in his 54-page ruling. "So would result a 'tragedy of the commons,' another ironic consequence of a movement advocating greater popular empowerment."

“The Charter does not permit the protesters to take over public space without asking, exclude the rest of the public from enjoying their traditional use of that space, and then contend that they are under no obligation to leave. By taking that position and by occupying the park, the protesters are breaking the law.”

The Charter, he says, does not “remove the obligation on all of us who live in this country to share our common urban space in a fair way.”

Protesters have an absolute right to occupy, but not to occupy absolutely.

The Occupy movement (which has seen the erection of tent cities across Canada) has spurred several municipal governments to take legal action against it. On Monday, Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a lengthy decision weighing the various rights and interests in play. Ultimately, Justice Brown found that the City of Toronto was entitled to enforce its trespass bylaw and to require the occupiers to vacate St. James Park between midnight and 5 a.m., and to remove the structures they have built there.

His decision likely will figure heavily in other cities confronting this issue. On Monday, Ottawa police, the RCMP and NCC posted notices ordering protesters to decamp from Confederation Park by 11:59 p.m. or be forcibly removed. Ottawa’s case has some differences from Toronto, but most of the same principles apply.

Importantly, Justice Brown acknowledged that the protesters in Toronto’s St. James Park are engaging in activity protected by the Charter of Rights. Contrary to those who make much of the fact that the Charter nowhere mentions the right to “occupy public parks,” Justice Brown correctly noted that our civil liberties are not defined by specific activities, but the meaning that they hold. Thus, it is not the right to “occupy” that is at issue, but whether by such occupation the protesters are expressing political opinions (freedom of expression), living out sincerely held convictions (freedom of conscience) and attempting to form a common front to influence public discourse (freedom of assembly and association). The Charter guarantees everyone the ability to fashion their expressive and associational activities as they wish. If the protesters believe that their message relies on a particular physical structure (say, a “tent city”) then that structure becomes part and parcel of the Charter-protected activity. If the protesters believe that their message relies on prolonged occupation, then their desire to remain in the park indefinitely (or, at least, longer than the City might wish) is similarly protected.

But that, of course, is not the end of the story. The Charter’s rights and freedoms are protected only to the extent of such “reasonable limits” as are imposed by law. No right or freedom is absolute — that is the price of a civilized society.

In Canada we do not have much experience with prolonged protest. We are less familiar still with the kind of advocacy that characterizes the Occupy movement — advocacy that is marked not by single-issue demands (“more social housing”) but challenges the very foundation of our social and economic arrangements (“why is housing a scarce resource?”).

What we are familiar with in Canada is the idea of balancing rights with interests. To this end, Justice Brown considered a variety of evidence. He heard detailed explanations from the protesters of the purpose of the protest at St. James, their goals and some of the unanticipated results of the encampment such as the provision of support to and civic engagement with homeless persons.

He also heard from members of the public who live in the area and ordinarily use the park. These persons spoke of intimidation from some of the protesters, and of interference with the peaceable enjoyment of their homes. Finally, Justice Brown considered the arguments by the City of Toronto with regard to fire hazards created by some of the structures, long-term damage to the park, and a general concern for law and order.

Justice Brown concluded that, weighed against the negative impact on the public of full-time occupation, it is a reasonable limit to require the protesters to vacate the park during the early-morning hours and to remove their structures. He acknowledged that an important, even key, part of the message would perhaps be lost (it’s hard to talk about an “occupy” movement if there is no actual “occupation”). But, ultimately, he found the loss of that message to be an acceptable cost.

Justice Brown seemed particularly persuaded by the non-protesters who explained the impact on them of having St. James Park rendered virtually off-limits (although it should be noted that these were anecdotal reports and the protesters disputed that characterization). Strikingly, he spoke of the need to keep urban parks as “oases of tranquility” rather than “battlegrounds of competing interests.”

Justice Brown’s reasoning will be challenged from all sides. The idea that the Occupy movement can shelter its activities under the Charter may strike some as bizarre. On this point, though, the case law is clear and the decision is undoubtedly correct. More controversial is the ultimate balancing of rights and interests. There was no real danger posed by the encampment — the City itself noted that the protest had been peaceful. St. James Park is hardly the only green space in downtown Toronto and it may be that in a case involving fundamental freedoms the court was overly concerned with accommodating nuisance concerns.

At the same time, the protesters have a difficult argument in the idea that the Charter guarantees them an exclusive right to control the extent and degree of their occupation of a public space designed to be open to and used by all. The decision confirms their right to occupy, but imposes limits on it. In that sense, it is quintessentially Canadian.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/limits+occupation/5746104/story.html#ixzz1eTS6WxcT

[Wetcoaster]

The Georgia Straight is cinducting a poll about where the OV tents should re-locate:

If Occupy Vancouver is forced out of Robson Square, where should the tent city go?

• B.C. Place

• City Hall

• Olympic Village

• Vancouver Convention Centre

• None of the above

http://www.straight.com/article-545726/vancouver/province-granted-injunction-shut-down-new-occupy-vancouver-camp-says-report

[aGENT]

"If the protesters possess a constitutional right to occupy the park and appropriate it to their use, then the next protest group espousing a political message would have the right to so occupy another park, say, Moss Park, and the next group the next park, and so on, and so forth," the judge wrote in his 54-page ruling. "So would result a 'tragedy of the commons,' another ironic consequence of a movement advocating greater popular empowerment."

"The Charter does not permit the protesters to take over public space without asking, exclude the rest of the public from enjoying their traditional use of that space, and then contend that they are under no obligation to leave. By taking that position and by occupying the park, the protesters are breaking the law."

http://www.ottawacit...l#ixzz1eTS6WxcT

[Wetcoaster]

Justice McKenzie declined to order the broad form of injunction sought as suggestions that Occupy Vancouver would simply move to a third location were speculative and might not happen and it would not be appropriate to grant such “an exceptional remedy” via an ex-parte injunction, which is based only on evidence from the applicant.

However Justice McKenzie agreed that the presence of the tents amounts to “criminal contempt of court” which is a stark warningas that could lead to heavy penalties for any occupant who tries to stay beyond 5 p.m.

“The clear effect of the tents is to dominate that space, which is inconsistent with an open court system,” Justice MacKenzie declared. “It is the right of any Canadian to have unimpeded access to the courts.”

[Wetcoaster]

In theory, could they get "around the law" by spending 12 hours a day in say two parks? Or 8 hours in three?

[aGENT]

Not if they are purporting to or their actions have the of excluding other members of the public. You do not want to get into a game of chicken with the courts - you will lose every time.

[Wetcoaster]

And if they were to be inclusive and welcoming?

[Sharpshooter]

In Toronto the courts have issued an injunction and ordered the Occupy Toronto protesters to dismantle their encampment and abide by the rules of not being in the park during certain hours.

Mr. Justice Brown balanced the rights of the protesters against the right of the state to exercise control and ruled the city's response a "reasonable limit" on the group's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"If the protesters possess a constitutional right to occupy the park and appropriate it to their use, then the next protest group espousing a political message would have the right to so occupy another park, say, Moss Park, and the next group the next park, and so on, and so forth," the judge wrote in his 54-page ruling. "So would result a 'tragedy of the commons,' another ironic consequence of a movement advocating greater popular empowerment."

"The Charter does not permit the protesters to take over public space without asking, exclude the rest of the public from enjoying their traditional use of that space, and then contend that they are under no obligation to leave. By taking that position and by occupying the park, the protesters are breaking the law."

The Charter, he says, does not "remove the obligation on all of us who live in this country to share our common urban space in a fair way."

Protesters have an absolute right to occupy, but not to occupy absolutely.

The Occupy movement (which has seen the erection of tent cities across Canada) has spurred several municipal governments to take legal action against it. On Monday, Justice David Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a lengthy decision weighing the various rights and interests in play. Ultimately, Justice Brown found that the City of Toronto was entitled to enforce its trespass bylaw and to require the occupiers to vacate St. James Park between midnight and 5 a.m., and to remove the structures they have built there.

His decision likely will figure heavily in other cities confronting this issue. On Monday, Ottawa police, the RCMP and NCC posted notices ordering protesters to decamp from Confederation Park by 11:59 p.m. or be forcibly removed. Ottawa's case has some differences from Toronto, but most of the same principles apply.

Importantly, Justice Brown acknowledged that the protesters in Toronto's St. James Park are engaging in activity protected by the Charter of Rights. Contrary to those who make much of the fact that the Charter nowhere mentions the right to "occupy public parks," Justice Brown correctly noted that our civil liberties are not defined by specific activities, but the meaning that they hold. Thus, it is not the right to "occupy" that is at issue, but whether by such occupation the protesters are expressing political opinions (freedom of expression), living out sincerely held convictions (freedom of conscience) and attempting to form a common front to influence public discourse (freedom of assembly and association). The Charter guarantees everyone the ability to fashion their expressive and associational activities as they wish. If the protesters believe that their message relies on a particular physical structure (say, a "tent city") then that structure becomes part and parcel of the Charter-protected activity. If the protesters believe that their message relies on prolonged occupation, then their desire to remain in the park indefinitely (or, at least, longer than the City might wish) is similarly protected.

But that, of course, is not the end of the story. The Charter's rights and freedoms are protected only to the extent of such "reasonable limits" as are imposed by law. No right or freedom is absolute — that is the price of a civilized society.

In Canada we do not have much experience with prolonged protest. We are less familiar still with the kind of advocacy that characterizes the Occupy movement — advocacy that is marked not by single-issue demands ("more social housing") but challenges the very foundation of our social and economic arrangements ("why is housing a scarce resource?").

What we are familiar with in Canada is the idea of balancing rights with interests. To this end, Justice Brown considered a variety of evidence. He heard detailed explanations from the protesters of the purpose of the protest at St. James, their goals and some of the unanticipated results of the encampment such as the provision of support to and civic engagement with homeless persons.

He also heard from members of the public who live in the area and ordinarily use the park. These persons spoke of intimidation from some of the protesters, and of interference with the peaceable enjoyment of their homes. Finally, Justice Brown considered the arguments by the City of Toronto with regard to fire hazards created by some of the structures, long-term damage to the park, and a general concern for law and order.

Justice Brown concluded that, weighed against the negative impact on the public of full-time occupation, it is a reasonable limit to require the protesters to vacate the park during the early-morning hours and to remove their structures. He acknowledged that an important, even key, part of the message would perhaps be lost (it's hard to talk about an "occupy" movement if there is no actual "occupation"). But, ultimately, he found the loss of that message to be an acceptable cost.

Justice Brown seemed particularly persuaded by the non-protesters who explained the impact on them of having St. James Park rendered virtually off-limits (although it should be noted that these were anecdotal reports and the protesters disputed that characterization). Strikingly, he spoke of the need to keep urban parks as "oases of tranquility" rather than "battlegrounds of competing interests."

Justice Brown's reasoning will be challenged from all sides. The idea that the Occupy movement can shelter its activities under the Charter may strike some as bizarre. On this point, though, the case law is clear and the decision is undoubtedly correct. More controversial is the ultimate balancing of rights and interests. There was no real danger posed by the encampment — the City itself noted that the protest had been peaceful. St. James Park is hardly the only green space in downtown Toronto and it may be that in a case involving fundamental freedoms the court was overly concerned with accommodating nuisance concerns.

At the same time, the protesters have a difficult argument in the idea that the Charter guarantees them an exclusive right to control the extent and degree of their occupation of a public space designed to be open to and used by all. The decision confirms their right to occupy, but imposes limits on it. In that sense, it is quintessentially Canadian.

http://www.ottawacit...l#ixzz1eTS6WxcT

[aGENT]

Speculative and hypothetical and I decline to rule as with Justice Mackenzie.

[Wetcoaster]

It seems the BC NDP has taken the temperature of the real 99% of the electorate and support Premier Clark's decision to seek an immediate injunction and have the OV protesters removed from the courthouse property.

CBCSmart Stephen Smart

@adriandix says he supports the provincial injunction at #occupyvancouver. #bcpoli

36 minutes ago