Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Bunk

This is sort of what I wonder was well. Is Mr. Morgan's actions really motivated by a principled stand against a distaste for not applying by-laws in public space, or is it an opportunity to try and damage someone politically they disagree with? Is it also because they disagree with the politics of the protesters? If McIver was Mayor and it was a right-leaning group of some sort of tea-party north (or Alberta seperatist movement) disobeying by-laws would he have pulled the same stunt?

I've already addressed this in previous posts.

[Slava]

I am actually surprised at some of the replies here in this thread. First, I should say that I'm a supporter of Nenshi and think he has handled this properly. I also think that the actions of bylaws are a different matter in the sense that they aren't in place to do the mayors bidding! Its really a separate issue to me.

All of that being said, I think its wrong that the bylaws were enforced on a guy with a truck and continually ignored regarding the other protestors. I really don't care about either protest a whole lot, but its seemingly obvious case of selective enforcement. I'm surprised that isn't more well acknowledged on this board, whether you agree with the message or not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I am actually surprised at some of the replies here in this thread. First, I should say that I'm a supporter of Nenshi and think he has handled this properly. I also think that the actions of bylaws are a different matter in the sense that they aren't in place to do the mayors bidding! Its really a separate issue to me.

All of that being said, I think its wrong that the bylaws were enforced on a guy with a truck and continually ignored regarding the other protestors. I really don't care about either protest a whole lot, but its seemingly obvious case of selective enforcement. I'm surprised that isn't more well acknowledged on this board, whether you agree with the message or not.

I will state along the same side with the exception, that I voted for Nenshi, but I probably won't again depending on the next slate of candidates.

I would have liked to see him take a stronger stand in terms of saying, yes you have a right to free assembly, however with that protest we will ticket you for everything under the bylaws of the city, we will also bill you for the damages to the park. I was also unhappy that he didn't do anything to really support for example the Muslim Group that rented the park for one of their events.

If your going to enforce bylaws enforce all bylaws, don't pick and chose, so in that case I am onside with what Cory is attempting to do.

At the end of the day, I am interested in seeing how hardcore these people are when the weather drops.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Slava

I am actually surprised at some of the replies here in this thread. First, I should say that I'm a supporter of Nenshi and think he has handled this properly. I also think that the actions of bylaws are a different matter in the sense that they aren't in place to do the mayors bidding! Its really a separate issue to me.

All of that being said, I think its wrong that the bylaws were enforced on a guy with a truck and continually ignored regarding the other protestors. I really don't care about either protest a whole lot, but its seemingly obvious case of selective enforcement. I'm surprised that isn't more well acknowledged on this board, whether you agree with the message or not.

How can you not see this occupy movement is a special case for now? Most cities in North America are cutting these people some temporary slack and the ones that aren't are donning riot gear. I'm glad we aren't extending that slack to misguided self-aggrandizing hillbillies in pickup trucks.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

How can you not see this occupy movement is a special case for now? Most cities in North America are cutting these people some temporary slack and the ones that aren't are donning riot gear. I'm glad we aren't extending that slack to misguided self-aggrandizing hillbillies in pickup trucks.

How is the occupy movement a special case in Calgary? I don't care about the ones in the States. And how can you say its at all fair that your enforcing bylaws to one protest and not another?

Are you saying that pickup trucks protests are less relevant then the irrelevant Occupy Calgary protest?

I don't care one way or the other, I feel like a point of debate, and I've always wanted to steal Devil Advocates user name.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm assuming that right way or wrong way that Cory's goal was to get this to court and challenge the summons and towing based on selective enforcement of bylaws and ask the question about why he is getting singled out and the protestors aren't.

Win or loss in court, he's looking for a soap box and to me that's respectable, he's going to challenge through the system and the courts.

If that is/was indeed the longer-term strategy to this stunt, then I think there's something to that. Fighting it through avenues such as this is certainly a proper and effective way of getting the desired result.


But....

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The problem being is by the time he gets in front of any courts, its likely that the occupyers will have packed up and gone home due to extreme cold.

There's the rub, and moreover, the point that people have been bringing up here for awhile now.

Any method of solving this issue (other than just waiting for the inevitable cold to solve most of the issue) has the one or a combination of the following problems:

1. Runs the risk of aggravating the situation into a physically violent confrontation, which it isn't right now.

2. Would take much longer than the onset of cold (fighting it through legal avenues such as you outline above)

3. It gives the occupiers exactly what they want, which is to have their gripes about "the man" the "elites," and whatever other amorphous group of people that is keeping them down manifest themselves in an open and adversarial confrontation with them. In their mind, and perhaps more importantly, in the minds of those who are sympathetic to their "cause," it would validate and vindicate them.

My guess is that a moderately cold period (say a couple days of -10 or so) will send some packing and a few will grit their teeth and try to stick it out, at which point they won't be as eager or likely to have a physical confrontation and will move out mostly peaceably with a little push.

It's the least risky strategy, and also one that will be timely enough when compared to other solutions.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Bunk

This is sort of what I wonder was well. Is Mr. Morgan's actions really motivated by a principled stand against a distaste for not applying by-laws in public space, or is it an opportunity to try and damage someone politically they disagree with? Is it also because they disagree with the politics of the protesters? If McIver was Mayor and it was a right-leaning group of some sort of tea-party north (or Alberta seperatist movement) disobeying by-laws would he have pulled the same stunt?

My guess is it is actually the secret third option - he'd be directly involved in the planning and execution of any such event.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

If that is/was indeed the longer-term strategy to this stunt, then I think there's something to that. Fighting it through avenues such as this is certainly a proper and effective way of getting the desired result.


But....

There's the rub, and moreover, the point that people have been bringing up here for awhile now.

Any method of solving this issue (other than just waiting for the inevitable cold to solve most of the issue) has the one or a combination of the following problems:

1. Runs the risk of aggravating the situation into a physically violent confrontation, which it isn't right now.

2. Would take much longer than the onset of cold (fighting it through legal avenues such as you outline above)

3. It gives the occupiers exactly what they want, which is to have their gripes about "the man" the "elites," and whatever other amorphous group of people that is keeping them down manifest themselves in an open and adversarial confrontation with them. In their mind, it would validate and vindicate them.

My guess is that a moderately cold period (say a couple days of -10 or so) will send some packing and a few will grit their teeth and try to stick it out, at which point they won't be as eager or likely to have a physical confrontation and will move out mostly peaceably with a little push.

It's the least risky strategy, and also one that will be timely enough when compared to other solutions.

Sure I agree with what your saying, but then Nenshi needs to do his job and toughen up the bylaw enforcement options between now and spring so that its more difficult for these campers (thats what they are) to show up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

My guess is it is actually the secret third option - he'd be directly involved in the planning and execution of any such event.

I doubt that, McIver would probably send in the national guard no matter who was protesting there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And how can you say its at all fair that your enforcing bylaws to one protest and not another?

Thats the bottomline to me. I have already argued that you have to allow these protests based on the charter protection. The problem comes when you've done so and another group exploits that same protection to be even more of a pain in a$$. I don't love the point of Morgans #occupytruck crusade today (and I hope that the cold weather takes care of the occupy protestors). You just can't have random enforcement though; thats where I have the issue.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How is the occupy movement a special case in Calgary? I don't care about the ones in the States. And how can you say its at all fair that your enforcing bylaws to one protest and not another?

Are you saying that pickup trucks protests are less relevant then the irrelevant Occupy Calgary protest?

I don't care one way or the other, I feel like a point of debate, and I've always wanted to steal Devil Advocates user name.

The City picks and chooses which bylaws to enforce all day long. Call them right now and tell them you spotted a cat on your property and see if they come. Or tell them your neighbour's dog won't stop barking and let us know if they send one officer or two.

Part of effectively enforcing bylaws is to pick and choose which ones are important to enforce. Barking dogs piss me off to no end but I can appreciate why they wouldn't send an officer if I called. I can also see it would unnecessarily open a can of worms to forcibly remove the occupy people that really aren't in anybody's way and will be gone soon enough. Then you have police, legal fees, maybe a riot, injuries, etc. What a risky, potentially expensive move that would be.

If the First Ladies and Corys of the world would just ignore this, it would go away. But of course they're not interested in making it go away...

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by First Lady

They are handing out tickets for

smoking
urinating
alcohol consumption
vehicles being used as a method of expression

They are not handing out tickets for

being in park after 11 PM
camping in the park
placing signs in a park
erecting a tent being used as a method of expression


ALL these laws are covered in the (one) document I linked to earlier.
Why are some being applied and not others?

Fair enough I suppose, and there is something (in a technicality sense) to this way of looking at it. Although I still think the truck stunt was misguided for the reason I highlighted (also an argument about technicalities, a little more pedantic than I'd like to be usually).

I think this is where we philosophically diverge. The solution to the overall problem of the occupiers has to be more nuanced than simply enforcing the letter of the law every time, with the tradeoff being that doing so would probably cause more problems than are presently being caused: which could include violent confrontation with police with citizens, riots of varying scale, and national or international intrigue. Not to say that bylaws shouldn't be respected and upheld, just that it may not be that simple or practical on the ground in every situation.

This is all rather beside the point of my main problem with today's stunt and the lead-up to it though, which is the motivation. I may as well spell it out.

In my view, the criticism of how the Occupy Calgary issue has been handled has been motivated by wanting to score political points for the people involved and their partisan leanings. This includes Ric McIver, you and your husband.

How this has played out on Calgarypuck is indicative of this trend as well (not the best practice to use this place as an exact cross section, to be fair). Almost all the people that have been most vocally critical of Naheed Nenshi, well prior to the Occupy movement ever came about, are critical of his handling of this as well. Pylon, CaptainCruch, RedMileDJ, yourself, Stay Golden would be included here. Not to trivialize all of the arguments brought forth by these people, because some certainly have validity. However, the trend is telling. I think most have been looking to pounce for awhile and have done so, more moderate and practical approaches be damned. It's also somehow forgotten that this thing is bigger than the office of the mayor of Calgary and involves police, city administration, by-law enforcment, and all of council including aldermen.

I think we all agree that the occupiers have outstayed their welcome, if they even had one to begin with. Let's put the partisanship aside and find a way to get them to leave without having us make international headlines or giving the occupiers' "message" more acknowledgement than it deserves.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Fair enough I suppose, and there is something (in a technicality sense) to this way of looking at it. Although I still think the truck stunt was misguided for the reason I highlighted (also an argument about technicalities, a little more pedantic than I'd like to be usually).

I think this is where we philosophically diverge. The solution to the overall problem of the occupiers has to be more nuanced than simply enforcing the letter of the law every time, with the tradeoff being that doing so would probably cause more problems than are presently being caused: which could include violent confrontation with police with citizens, riots of varying scale, and national or international intrigue. Not to say that bylaws shouldn't be respected and upheld, just that it may not be that simple or practical on the ground in every situation.

This is all rather beside the point of my main problem with today's stunt and the lead-up to it though, which is the motivation. I may as well spell it out.

In my view, the criticism of how the Occupy Calgary issue has been handled has been motivated by wanting to score political points for the people involved and their partisan leanings. This includes Ric McIver, you and your husband.

How this has played out on Calgarypuck is indicative of this trend as well (not the best practice to use this place as an exact cross section, to be fair). Almost all the people that have been most vocally critical of Naheed Nenshi, well prior to the Occupy movement ever came about, are critical of his handling of this as well. Pylon, CaptainCruch, RedMileDJ, yourself, Stay Golden would be included here. Not to trivialize all of the arguments brought forth by these people, because some certainly have validity. However, the trend is telling. I think most have been looking to pounce for awhile and have done so, more moderate and practical approaches be damned. It's also somehow forgotten that this thing is bigger than the office of the mayor of Calgary and involves police, city administration, by-law enforcment, and all of council including aldermen.

I think we all agree that the occupiers have outstayed their welcome, if they even had one to begin with. Let's put the partisanship aside and find a way to do that without having us make international headlines or giving the occupiers' "message" more acknowledgement than it deserves.

Yeah, I noticed that trend in this thread, as well. As I saw Nenshi crtisism posts pop up, I was looking at the usernames beside them and going "yep, makes sense".

[First Lady]

Guys, I'm tired and heading to bed, but will leave you with a couple of thoughts.

1) I don't see this a left/right political issue. There are many from all over the spectrum who see the unequal application of bylaws.

2) Cory proved today these things can be resolved through discussion and without violence. He may have even shown that those who break bylaws should be dealt with quickly rather than letting things fester over time.

Either way great discussion as always on CP.

Good nite.

[frinkprof]

Hey, everything else aside, thanks for the discussion and the inside look at today's events First Lady.

The engagement on this forum by certain political figures, especially yourself, is appreciated and undoubtedly makes this place better.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by First Lady

2) Cory proved today these things can be resolved through discussion and without violence. He may have even shown that those who break bylaws should be dealt with quickly rather than letting things fester over time.

How did he prove that these things could be resolved through discussion and without violence? What got resolved?

Also to the second sentence. There's a HUGE difference between your husband being dealt with quickly and a huge group of people who WANT to be victimized and would love nothing more than to be forced out of that park, being "dealt with quickly".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yeah, I noticed that trend in this thread, as well. As I saw Nenshi crtisism posts pop up, I was looking at the usernames beside them and going "yep, makes sense".

So clearly its just not cool to criticize our mayor. Just because he's mixed messaged the whole thing.

So conversely I look at the people that have been totally supportive of big purple and nodded my head and said "Yup, I totally expected that"

I've said it before, there's no point in doing much as long as you make sure that you set it up so these people can't return in the spring.

Even though I still like the idea of truly ignoring them by starting the fall maintenance at 5:00 in the morning. Pull out the lawn movers and leaf blowers, blow the access water out of the sprinkler system, start spraying pesticides and weed killer,

[macker]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm in agreement with you here. The most I have done with regard to the Occupy movement is make fun of it on the internet. As far as actually going out and engaging it one way or another, that's a complete waste of time, and as far as I'm concerned it gives them some validation that their protest is a legitimate one which is the last thing I want to do.

If Occupy Calgary ever happens again, I suggest they don't even mention it in the newspaper. Ignore them.

Totally agree. Really what impact does it have on anyone if no one bothers to acknowledge it. They will play themselves out. What is the longest camping trip you have ever been on......after a week or two these tents become like a private prison. Add some extreme cold and Christmas holidays and they will go back to real life. Many people continue to give them just that extra motivation to stick it out a few more nights by acknowleding them being there and letting them know that it does bother them. Keep them contained in their private prisions as it is a cheaper solution than arresting them all and costing the system. Explaining this situation to a child makes it even more laughable Stop reporting on this....

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So clearly its just not cool to criticize our mayor. Just because he's mixed messaged the whole thing.

Actually I'll retract my inclusion of you in that list, not sure what I was thinking there. I think you've been fairly balanced on this one and as I recall, before and after last year's election too.

That said, I wasn't making a comment on the "coolness" of criticizing anyone.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I think we all agree that the occupiers have outstayed their welcome, if they even had one to begin with. Let's put the partisanship aside and find a way to get them to leave without having us make international headlines or giving the occupiers' "message" more acknowledgement than it deserves.

That's the thing - almost anyone who cares or is paying attention wants the protesters gone. This absolutely includes the Mayor, Council, and The City. The Sun and several political opponents have tried to paint the Mayor as somehow being aligned with the protesters ignoring that the Mayor has been extremely critical not only of the protesters tactics, but messages as well. He's stated repeatedly he wants them gone.

There's a reason why no city has successfully evicted them from public lands. Calgary is far from alone. A situation where the protest tactic itself is occupying public space is a tricky legal situation, which municipalities have difficulties coming to grips with vis-a-vis charter rights and their own by-laws. All while trying not to incite violence and confrontation (see Oakland) and not handing what some protesters want, which is to be dragged kicking and screaming by police in front of all the cameras to see.

If it was as simple as some are making it seem, don't you think they would be gone in every city (or at least most) by now??