Unless Judge Brown wanted to enforce his own orders, he kind of needed the police to do it. From the Stubbs interview:
"Sometimes, circumstances — and even courts — can constrain police choices. “If there's an injunction by the Supreme Court — and that's often what I was dealing with. There's a [provincial] Supreme Court judge that says t…
Unless Judge Brown wanted to enforce his own orders, he kind of needed the police to do it. From the Stubbs interview:
"Sometimes, circumstances — and even courts — can constrain police choices. “If there's an injunction by the Supreme Court — and that's often what I was dealing with. There's a [provincial] Supreme Court judge that says there's an injunction here; for argument's sake, that road, that building, that area shall be cleared, so the applicants, usually industry, can do their job. So we have that judicial demand put on us. So that does force our hand.
Only up to a point, however. “I can tell you that, in my experience, with some of this, the industry, when they get these things, you know, they get it on a Monday, they say, 'Okay, go Tuesday, open it up.' And we will take multiple, multiple steps. It could be six weeks before we do anything. And people don't realize that. They think, ‘Oh, they go in there, like, this quick.’ That's not the case. We are lobbying governments; we're working with the protesters; working with industry; trying to get an understanding of where everybody's at, before we go in.
“And again, it's hard to please everybody. It's a no-win situation for police. The protesters are upset. Industry wants it done tomorrow. Government wants this. To have all the stakeholders say, 'perfect job?' Rarely does that happen. So it's an activity, that enforcement activity, that will always come with unhappy people. Generally. “
Hey, if you can quote yourself at epic length, so can I.
"if the law is politicized in this way, and anti-social behaviour continues to expand into streets and parks and neighbourhoods, I would not be surprised if there is a political reaction too"
Hello MAGA. These are the trends that feed the swing to the right.
He missed the point that judges in Canada aren't political. They can make decisions based purely on points of law and not fear repercussions from politicians.
Yes. The law can be ignored, by those empowered to enforce it, but not without consequences.
And in the case of unlawful forms of picketing in connection with labour disputes (which is another form of protest and communication that is Charter protected), there is a sensible balance reached between the institutional interests in play, including the courts and the cops.
Similarly with respect to anti-abortionists blocking access to clinics that supply abortion information or engage in this regulated but lawful practice.
Once upon a time, those were enforced too. But today? who knows?
So, I don't prejudge where that balance is, between tolerating law breaking and restraining it in particular cases.
I merely note that, at some point, those who look to the law to protect their interests, might resort to self help, as the Ottawa communities did, blocking vehicles that were invading their neighbourhoods and causing a legal nuisance despite an injunction restraining the illegal bits.
Or businesses, churches, libraries, etc. who may now have to engage private security; or mobilize their own squad of 'protectors'.
Do we want protesters blocking access to churches and synagogues or Mosques, or Mount Sinai Hospital (!), to send their "message"? What do you think the police would likely do, if Division 52 or Division 14, was blockaded by anti-police protesters (certainly a foreseeable situation).
So I just note that we are on a slippery slope that can lead to a lot of potential grief.
I am unsure about Mr. Wells’ views about dialogue between his readers, but I will answer your question anyway.
***
Peaceful picketing in connection with a lawful labour dispute, for the purpose of communicating information about the dispute, is perfectly OK – at least if the picketing occurs at the location of the employer involved in the dispute (e.g. a factory or warehouse or retail establishment).
Picketing for this purpose – to communicate information about the labour dispute - may entail stopping vehicles or people who want to enter or leave the “struck site” in the course of pursuing their own lawful business dealings with the struck employer. That is their “rights”.
Preventing people from entering or leaving, obstruction for other than the short amount of time necessary for communication, damaging the trucks (broken windows, punctured tires, structural damage, assaulting the drive, spray paint breaking windows, etc. would all be unlawful. So would occupying the building to prevent its operation or assaulting persons who wanted to do business with the struck one, despite the picketing.
But whether the police stop any of this or lay charges is now uncertain, especially if the police are not willing to use force…so does the driver or the trucking firm or the blockaded business just accept the damage and loss? And if there is an injunction purportedly banning or regulating the protest can police ignore it? What are the remedies for citizens or businesses if the police will not stop an ongoing illegality? And so on.
***
Similarly, accosting women seeking to get access to abortion information or services, raises the same kind of question, especially when the women have no interest in being berated or bothered or blocked by anti-abortion zealots. Will police protect them? How?
***
These situations are fact-specific. But if you want to read about some real life instances, go to the google “CANLII” which will take you to a legal search engine, then choose Ontario or BC from the list, and enter “picketing labour dispute” or “picketing abortion clinic”. Or “environmental protest”.
But remember that police now say that they can ignore them, so these efforts to achieve legal protection from the Courts may be in vain.
My point is this: we have to understand that if group action grants practical immunity to engage in illegal behavior, then there is likely to be a lot more of it; because there are any number of groups with grievances about one thing or another or who seek attention for their cause.
Remember the Tamils who closed the main traffic artery into Toronto in 2009, because in their view, the federal government was not vigorous enough in involving itself in the civil war in Sri Lanka?
Maybe we'll have to go back to getting private bailiffs to enforce court orders if the police will not do their job.
Who decided that the police, apart from operational concerns, can exercise their own discretion in the enforcement of court orders and public order laws? The police themselves?
It was pronounced in a judicial enquiry after the Ipperwash occupation in which an aboriginal protester was shot and killed - which, if memory serves, resulted in criminal charges against the cop in question, but also a pronouncement by an enquiry commissioner that public safety was far more important than restraining law breaking or making miscreants pay for the damage they caused - or its corollary: providing compensation to those injured or discomfited by the unlawful interference. And it remains to be seen whether civil actions against derelict police departments will produce financial compensation or governments will cough up cash to assuage angry citizens. And to be clear: none of that is inconsistent with a robust right to engage in public protest. Just not necessarily on University Avenue, in Toronto, blocking access to public hospitals. As I said: there is always a question or balance involved.
Unless Judge Brown wanted to enforce his own orders, he kind of needed the police to do it. From the Stubbs interview:
"Sometimes, circumstances — and even courts — can constrain police choices. “If there's an injunction by the Supreme Court — and that's often what I was dealing with. There's a [provincial] Supreme Court judge that says there's an injunction here; for argument's sake, that road, that building, that area shall be cleared, so the applicants, usually industry, can do their job. So we have that judicial demand put on us. So that does force our hand.
Only up to a point, however. “I can tell you that, in my experience, with some of this, the industry, when they get these things, you know, they get it on a Monday, they say, 'Okay, go Tuesday, open it up.' And we will take multiple, multiple steps. It could be six weeks before we do anything. And people don't realize that. They think, ‘Oh, they go in there, like, this quick.’ That's not the case. We are lobbying governments; we're working with the protesters; working with industry; trying to get an understanding of where everybody's at, before we go in.
“And again, it's hard to please everybody. It's a no-win situation for police. The protesters are upset. Industry wants it done tomorrow. Government wants this. To have all the stakeholders say, 'perfect job?' Rarely does that happen. So it's an activity, that enforcement activity, that will always come with unhappy people. Generally. “
Hey, if you can quote yourself at epic length, so can I.
Key phrase from Richard:
"if the law is politicized in this way, and anti-social behaviour continues to expand into streets and parks and neighbourhoods, I would not be surprised if there is a political reaction too"
Hello MAGA. These are the trends that feed the swing to the right.
He missed the point that judges in Canada aren't political. They can make decisions based purely on points of law and not fear repercussions from politicians.
Yes. The law can be ignored, by those empowered to enforce it, but not without consequences.
And in the case of unlawful forms of picketing in connection with labour disputes (which is another form of protest and communication that is Charter protected), there is a sensible balance reached between the institutional interests in play, including the courts and the cops.
Similarly with respect to anti-abortionists blocking access to clinics that supply abortion information or engage in this regulated but lawful practice.
Once upon a time, those were enforced too. But today? who knows?
So, I don't prejudge where that balance is, between tolerating law breaking and restraining it in particular cases.
I merely note that, at some point, those who look to the law to protect their interests, might resort to self help, as the Ottawa communities did, blocking vehicles that were invading their neighbourhoods and causing a legal nuisance despite an injunction restraining the illegal bits.
Or businesses, churches, libraries, etc. who may now have to engage private security; or mobilize their own squad of 'protectors'.
Do we want protesters blocking access to churches and synagogues or Mosques, or Mount Sinai Hospital (!), to send their "message"? What do you think the police would likely do, if Division 52 or Division 14, was blockaded by anti-police protesters (certainly a foreseeable situation).
So I just note that we are on a slippery slope that can lead to a lot of potential grief.
"unlawful forms of picketing in connection with labour disputes"
Like what?
I am unsure about Mr. Wells’ views about dialogue between his readers, but I will answer your question anyway.
***
Peaceful picketing in connection with a lawful labour dispute, for the purpose of communicating information about the dispute, is perfectly OK – at least if the picketing occurs at the location of the employer involved in the dispute (e.g. a factory or warehouse or retail establishment).
Picketing for this purpose – to communicate information about the labour dispute - may entail stopping vehicles or people who want to enter or leave the “struck site” in the course of pursuing their own lawful business dealings with the struck employer. That is their “rights”.
Preventing people from entering or leaving, obstruction for other than the short amount of time necessary for communication, damaging the trucks (broken windows, punctured tires, structural damage, assaulting the drive, spray paint breaking windows, etc. would all be unlawful. So would occupying the building to prevent its operation or assaulting persons who wanted to do business with the struck one, despite the picketing.
But whether the police stop any of this or lay charges is now uncertain, especially if the police are not willing to use force…so does the driver or the trucking firm or the blockaded business just accept the damage and loss? And if there is an injunction purportedly banning or regulating the protest can police ignore it? What are the remedies for citizens or businesses if the police will not stop an ongoing illegality? And so on.
***
Similarly, accosting women seeking to get access to abortion information or services, raises the same kind of question, especially when the women have no interest in being berated or bothered or blocked by anti-abortion zealots. Will police protect them? How?
***
These situations are fact-specific. But if you want to read about some real life instances, go to the google “CANLII” which will take you to a legal search engine, then choose Ontario or BC from the list, and enter “picketing labour dispute” or “picketing abortion clinic”. Or “environmental protest”.
But remember that police now say that they can ignore them, so these efforts to achieve legal protection from the Courts may be in vain.
My point is this: we have to understand that if group action grants practical immunity to engage in illegal behavior, then there is likely to be a lot more of it; because there are any number of groups with grievances about one thing or another or who seek attention for their cause.
Remember the Tamils who closed the main traffic artery into Toronto in 2009, because in their view, the federal government was not vigorous enough in involving itself in the civil war in Sri Lanka?
Maybe we'll have to go back to getting private bailiffs to enforce court orders if the police will not do their job.
Who decided that the police, apart from operational concerns, can exercise their own discretion in the enforcement of court orders and public order laws? The police themselves?
It was pronounced in a judicial enquiry after the Ipperwash occupation in which an aboriginal protester was shot and killed - which, if memory serves, resulted in criminal charges against the cop in question, but also a pronouncement by an enquiry commissioner that public safety was far more important than restraining law breaking or making miscreants pay for the damage they caused - or its corollary: providing compensation to those injured or discomfited by the unlawful interference. And it remains to be seen whether civil actions against derelict police departments will produce financial compensation or governments will cough up cash to assuage angry citizens. And to be clear: none of that is inconsistent with a robust right to engage in public protest. Just not necessarily on University Avenue, in Toronto, blocking access to public hospitals. As I said: there is always a question or balance involved.