5 ms·

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any public signs that explicitly state “Protesting Permitted”…with that in mind, I guess any protest can be called an occupation. S

I don’t think I’ve ever seen any public signs that explicitly state “Protesting Permitted”…with that in mind, I guess any protest can be called an occupation. Some very sad times we’re living through!

option 5y ago
In democracies, what is not forbidden IS permitted. Also, many democratic counties explicitly state the right to a “peaceful assembly”
- OJFord 5y ago
  That is generally true, but I think nothing to do with democracy per se? It's just more practical to black-list behaviours than white-list them isn't it?
- landemva 5y ago
  What you describe, right to act if not explicitly prohibited, is usually associated with a constitution. The constitution crystallizes the structure. A democracy is the larger group voting to take whatever they want from the smaller group. Some democracies are constrained in what they can take by a constitution, and others not so much.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    In the case of Canada, the right to freedom of assembly is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the highest law of the land and supercedes all other laws and acts, even the Emergencies Act, which by law must conform to the charter. That is why despite claims by the government and the police that these protests or occupations are unlawful, no one - not a single person has been charge with protesting illegally. The most the police could do was charge the leaders with mischief. Instead of charging the protesters, the police have been rounding them up, driving around in circles, and then letting them go free. This is not because the police are being kind. It is because they don’t want to risk a court challenge of charter violations which would set a dangerous precedent that would risk the future credibility of the government and the police in similar situations.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Is there a form of declaratory judgment in the courts? To get controversy settled.
zuminator 5y ago
I have definitely seen "parade route" signs taped to lampposts in advance in my city. Pretty sure that most large protests require permits and advance notice so that extra police can be made available, traffic can be rerouted, the protest's own route and scope can be approved. Because otherwise every protest would outdo the next to take the most disruptive form possible, so as to get maximum publicity.
krastanov 5y ago
Large protests routinely coordinate with police, get permits, etc. "Peaceful assembly" rights of protestors have always been in conflict with "being able to cross the sidewalk / being able to sleep at night" rights of bystanders. In most countries there are administrative processes to get permits for large demonstrations, protests, or even just getting the police to block off streets for you to use (even if the message is against the police).
landemva 5y ago
In USA when the two big political organizations have their State(s) and then national convention, they have a protest / free speech zone. It's usually near where convention delegates can walk and is enclosed by a separation fence.

option 5y ago

In democracies, what is not forbidden IS permitted. Also, many democratic counties explicitly state the right to a “peaceful assembly”

OJFord 5y ago
That is generally true, but I think nothing to do with democracy per se? It's just more practical to black-list behaviours than white-list them isn't it?
landemva 5y ago
What you describe, right to act if not explicitly prohibited, is usually associated with a constitution. The constitution crystallizes the structure. A democracy is the larger group voting to take whatever they want from the smaller group. Some democracies are constrained in what they can take by a constitution, and others not so much.
- lowkey 5y ago
  In the case of Canada, the right to freedom of assembly is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the highest law of the land and supercedes all other laws and acts, even the Emergencies Act, which by law must conform to the charter. That is why despite claims by the government and the police that these protests or occupations are unlawful, no one - not a single person has been charge with protesting illegally. The most the police could do was charge the leaders with mischief. Instead of charging the protesters, the police have been rounding them up, driving around in circles, and then letting them go free. This is not because the police are being kind. It is because they don’t want to risk a court challenge of charter violations which would set a dangerous precedent that would risk the future credibility of the government and the police in similar situations.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Is there a form of declaratory judgment in the courts? To get controversy settled.

zuminator 5y ago

I have definitely seen "parade route" signs taped to lampposts in advance in my city. Pretty sure that most large protests require permits and advance notice so that extra police can be made available, traffic can be rerouted, the protest's own route and scope can be approved. Because otherwise every protest would outdo the next to take the most disruptive form possible, so as to get maximum publicity.

krastanov 5y ago

Large protests routinely coordinate with police, get permits, etc. "Peaceful assembly" rights of protestors have always been in conflict with "being able to cross the sidewalk / being able to sleep at night" rights of bystanders. In most countries there are administrative processes to get permits for large demonstrations, protests, or even just getting the police to block off streets for you to use (even if the message is against the police).

landemva 5y ago

In USA when the two big political organizations have their State(s) and then national convention, they have a protest / free speech zone. It's usually near where convention delegates can walk and is enclosed by a separation fence.