New rules for protest “structures” on Vancouver streets up for debate

Bill McCreery

From your story Frances:

“The report also proposes that the City put up several large structures of its own at various gathering points, where groups with political points can post material. Some of the suggested sites include the Vancouver Art Gallery plaza, Canada Place and the plaza outside the main branch of the public library.”

The “Art Gallery, Canada Place and the public library” are typical places in Vancouver where the people of Vancouver protest and express their opinions ion a regular basis. Can we all agree?

If we do, then by extension the evidence is overwhelming that these same ‘protests and expressions of opinions’ are done, in fact, on a daily basis in front of the PRC Consulate. Therefore, if we are a truly equitable society we must erect a ‘large structure at the PRC Consulate gathering point, where groups with political points can post material’ must we not?

Having said that, this issue is indeed complex and multi-jurisdictional. It is not, as a matter of principle, unlike a number of other similarly unresolved issues in our society such as the right of the victim vs. the rights of the convicted. But, in the specifics of the case which has sparked this initiative, the PRC vs. the Falon Gong, how can our society determine how long one can protest once we’ve given them the right do do so?

Again, an extension of that concern is the misguided notion of charging a fee for the “right” to protest. The very notion of attaching a monetary value to determine whether or not someone can ‘protest or express opinions’ in a democratic society is repugnant.

This by-law is flawed at so many levels and in so many ways that it must be withdrawn immediately. What is difficult to understand is how and why this was put forward as a piece of legislation for serious consideration.

How can Vision be so far off the mark?

Jason King

“However, the fact that some of the same people decrying this proposed limitation on free speech and peaceful assembly have also complained that I have commented too often on certain threads, and certainly come out in strong opposition to other events taking place in public space without permits, such as Critical Mass, is an amusing switcheroo.”

Yes, because a group protesting death, persecution and incarceration of their people is a perfect comparable to a group protesting access to bike infrastructure. I’m glad we now all have an analogy we can relate to.

spartikus

I have commented too often on certain threads, and certainly come out in strong opposition to other events taking place in public space without permits, such as Critical Mass, is an amusing switcheroo.

Surely you’re not suggesting some people aren’t actually concerned about the issues, but how they can exploit the issues?

Impossible!

Matthew

Mira,

In the world of the internet comments and other written forms, where emotion can be hard to convey, using excessive caps is interpreted as shouting. Maybe you could ask your daughter and her out of this world circle of yoga friends about it!
A better way to put emphasis on a word is to use bold .
Sheesh….

Jason King

Spartikus….criticism of policy or suggested bylaws is not invalid just because you hold a particular political view point. I think there’s fairly emotionally charged attacks and defense on both sides.

The reality is that this particular issue would traditionally be one championed by the center left rather than center right….I would think that you would spend more time critiquing the merits of a bylaw like this than attacking those that complain about it. The merits of the bylaw are still suspect regardless of the “motivation” of some of those that criticize it.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

“Yes, because a group protesting death, persecution and incarceration of their people is a perfect comparable to a group protesting access to bike infrastructure.”

No one has suggested the issues are equivalent in importance.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

“The very notion of attaching a monetary value to determine whether or not someone can ‘protest or express opinions’ in a democratic society is repugnant.”

The entire media industry is built upon the principle that you can put a price on communications. Further, the gradual loss of public access to the airwaves has left protest and opinion chiefly in the hands of a small minority and the same problem now threatens free speech on the Internet.

Jason King

“The entire media industry is built upon the principle that you can put a price on communications. Further, the gradual loss of public access to the airwaves has left protest and opinion chiefly in the hands of a small minority and the same problem now threatens free speech on the Internet.”

All the more reason NOT to limit, or put a price on, freedom of public expression or assembly. I assume that’s the point you’re trying to make.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

“The reality is that this particular issue would traditionally be one championed by the center left rather than center right”

This particular issue is always championed by whoever doesn’t hold power. Political belief has almost nothing to do with it, short of the most authoritarian schools of thought. Socialist states are as apt to stifle dissent as oligarchies when it suits them and make no mistake, if the Falun Gong held power, they’d have a little list of folks they’d rather not hear from too.

Jason King

“Political belief has almost nothing to do with it, short of the most authoritarian schools of thought.”

So you’re discounting the disciplines of political philosophy, history, and I suppose political science in general?

I think the point you’re trying to make (forgive me, but I’m never quite sure) is that the political left/right divide is more of a circle and that when you get to the far end of either spectrum the policies and actions often mirror one another. Yes, I’d agree with that.

But when we’re talking about a democratic society with two parties that fall just shy of center on most issues, I don’t really think extreme examples of socialism or fascism really come into play.

And regardless of who holds power, it’s still wrong….would you not agree?

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

“So you’re discounting the disciplines of political philosophy, history, and I suppose political science in general?”

Nope. I’m saying one’s appetite for free speech is in reverse proportion to one’s proximity to the reins of power, regardless of political leanings. Every politician tries to manage dissent and control information, regardless of what flavor of State they espouse.

david hadaway

CK #59

‘This particular issue is always championed by whoever doesn’t hold power. ‘

I hope you don’t mean that dismissively as the fact is that most of us posting here are well aware that we don’t individually hold political power, and any that think they they do are deceiving themselves.

Politicians of all stripes are very enthusiastic about free speech when in opposition, very much less so when in power. As it happens I particularly dislike Vision because, to me, they have taken the hypocrisy to a new level. However if any future administration tries to pull the same trick you won’t find me coming up with nit picking arguments of equivalence against their opponents.

Everyone who benefits from freedom of information, expression, opinion, which is to say the huge majority of us, is actually on the same side against the small elite who benefit from secrecy, suppression and control. Unfortunately once we get a pack mentality toward ‘our’ guys we forget this.

http://www.nofuncity.org ThinkOutsideABox

Dan Cooper #13 & #39

What you are dismissing as a dirty insinuation is a caption from a Globe and Mail article in which the reporter is characterizing CSIS Director Richard Fadden’s claim. Personally, I can’t tell whether either of them are Vision supporters or oppose but you can?

“Infiltrate” isn’t even Richard Fadden’s word; that’s the Globe’s security expert contextualizing, then extrapolated even further with your “spy”, “sleeper agent” folly.

That someone would claim to tip their vote over a thought provoking cut-n-paste is more baloney than I care to be bothered with after having read the countless republican Bush supporters who would do the same as sock puppets on democratic web forums during the Bush era – but it’s only mildly entertaining to see it again.

I mean, there wasn’t even a “- just sayin” in #8 to pseudo-imply.

http://www.nofuncity.org ThinkOutsideABox

@Matthew 43, it’s also hard to believe that in the very least the mayor’s staff wasn’t aware that dealings with the Chinese consulate were being done secretly. Either way, whether they were or not is puzzling.

It would be interesting to know which of the four parties: CoV, BCCLA, Falun Gong or Chinese gov insisted on the non-disclosure.

The bylaw report was made public this past Tuesday. City Engineer Peter Judd, apologized several times to Council for the lateness of the report which the City has had more than five months to work on.

Bill Good reports on CKNW Thursday morning before council was to decide on the bylaw, that Geoff Meggs supports the change proposed and then Meggs is heard stating there’s a difference between freedom of expression and attaching a structure to a sidewalk.

But on closer inspection, and in council Thursday, we learn the bylaw is much more broadly restrictive. Even more unbecoming, the bylaw report claims the BCCLA are generally supportive, however BCCLA policy director Michael Vonn speaking to council says the bylaw is deeply problematic and was dismayed by city staff’s representations.

A structure, object, substance or thing then hits the fan and damage control ensues. Stepping in it further a tweet from @mayorgregor’s account Saturday evening:

@mayorgregor: Big concerns with “protest bylaw”. Doesn’t affect right to protest, only regulates built structures. But needs changes!

Well no, it doesn’t only regulate built structures as city staff stated in front of him, in the report, to council, and to the whole world on streaming internet, just as the npa hacks gaffe did not come on the heels of a long difficult night.

Minutes later after a @mayorgregor twitter backlash, a newly framed @mayorgregor tweet recalls that oldy but goody about having to fix someone else’s problems:

@mayorgregor: Built protest structures r illegal. Court now requires city to regulate. Another mess we inherit + must fix. Carefully.

Dan Cooper

@M. Outside:

Whoever wrote the specific words of the item in question, you were the one who re-posted it here, on this thread and in relation to the issue at hand. Are you disavowing any reason for or point in doing so?

I say it was a dirty insinuation in the first place, whoever created it and the more so because it was a general tarring rather than a naming of specific people who could then defend themselves, and if there is not some clear reason for repeating it here and evidence to back up “infiltration” by specific people on behalf of a foreign power…

And, I hate to have to point out something this obvious, but – again, as I said before – it is not just this one item that has tipped me somewhat back toward voting for some Vision candidates. It is the grand totality of the behaviour and statements of their opponents.

http://www.nofuncity.org ThinkOutsideABox

No Dan Cooper, I am disavowing your falsely contrived accusation for doing so.

Bill McCreery

@ Chris 57.

The privately owned “entire media industry” is fundamentally different from ‘protest or expression of opinions’ on public property.

Jason King

“Nope. I’m saying one’s appetite for free speech is in reverse proportion to one’s proximity to the reins of power, regardless of political leanings. ”

While I certainly wouldn’t say this is a universal truth, if you’re inferring that Vision have abandoned the open and democratic principles they ran on , and are now stifling any who oppose their policies as a result of moving from opposition to “power”, I can certainly support your statement.

That, however, is not really the issue here as the falun gong are not really “opposition” to any party that holds civic office.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

Bill:

The airwaves, such as the various frequencies for over the air broadcast are public property, doled out to various private groups for their use. In fact, groups such as Adbusters have found their money is useless when trying to buy airtime for particular campaigns, so I think money is key to public expression. As they say, the power of the press belongs to those who own one.

Jason:

You mean ‘imply’ and I’m not implying or inferring anything. I’m actually trying to bring some objectivity to this discussion. This law wouldn’t surprise me coming from any party along the political spectrum with the exception of a few outliers.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

“In fact, groups such as Adbusters have found their money is useless when trying to buy airtime for particular campaigns, so I think money is key to public expression.”

Sort of a silly sounding sentence upon closer inspection, but what I mean is that ownership of a media outlet gives you the ability to stifle dissent in a public forum such as the broadcast frequencies, billboards, etc.

Julian Christians

This is a sincere question: do opponents of the by-law think that it should be OK for protesters to set-up structures on the sidewalk indefinitely, or do you agree that they should be regulated, and you’re just not happy with the wording of the by-law? As far as I can tell, what is being proposed would not stop someone standing outside the Chinese consulate with a placard 24/7 (i.e., freedom of speech is preserved)- they just can’t set up a semi-permanent shelter (not clear to me this violates their freedom of speech).

Glissando Remmy

The Thought of The Day

“I wonder… what are your rankings on the VISION’s Twitter List of Followers?”

Dan C. # 39 & Chris K. # 45,

I’m sorry to intrude in your little chat here, but I have some explaining to do. I usually don’t do that, but hey, what’s a word of wisdom in between friends, eh?

I am glad to hear that at one point in time in the past I’ve amused you, and sorrowed to hear that I’m not, anymore. On the other hand, here’s the thing, and I hope this will help you to deal with your humourless feelings, I never wrote to amuse you…I mostly write because it amuses me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu-rLA4POkI

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

Jason King

“I’m actually trying to bring some objectivity to this discussion.”

And what were the rest of us bringing? Rather ridiculous statement Chris….especially when you’re spending your time critiquing those commenting on the bylaw and making general statements that don’t even provide a definitive position on the issue.

Sorry, just an objective observation. But thank you for correcting my grammar.

Julian….fair question, and I do think there should be some limitations – a person or group shouldn’t be able to put up a structure indefinitely on a public sidewalk. But in response to this issue the city has developed a bylaw that is incredibly broad in scope (any structure, object, substance or thing on public sidewalks or rights of way in residential areas), insists on payment for such a protest (limiting expression to those with means) and appear to have consulted a foreign government (who have a big stake in the game) in order to develop this bylaw….all three are incredibly problematic.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

Jason:

If you want to tell me what I should write you’ll have to get out your cheque book.

I’m sorry that I appear to be a burr under your saddle, but you can always just scroll past my remarks.

cheers,
CK

Bill McCreery

@ CK 69.

“…airwaves, such as the various frequencies for over the air broadcast are public property, doled out to various private groups for their use.”

Thank you for further clarifying my point. We are not talking about the printed press or the broadcasting. We are talking about protests on public property.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

Bill:

Your original statement that I responded to was this:

“The very notion of attaching a monetary value to determine whether or not someone can ‘protest or express opinions’ in a democratic society is repugnant.”

That’s what I’m addressing in my comments regarding the cost of expressing opinions on public airwaves. The reality is that we regularly put a cost on expressing opinions in our society, whether it’s getting the appropriate permits to stage an event in support of (or opposition to) a cause, or buying airtime or ad space for whatever reason one chooses.

“We are talking about protests on public property.”

I thought the bylaw (which may well be fatally flawed) addresses construction of un-permitted structures in public spaces, in response to a court ruling?

Jason King

“I thought the bylaw (which may well be fatally flawed) addresses construction of un-permitted structures in public spaces, in response to a court ruling?”

It’s the “fatally flawed” part that’s the problem Chris….not to mention the fact that despite your examples of putting a “cost” on expressing opinions, “freedom of expression/speech” is a fairly well entrenched right in a democratic society….and generally it doesn’t come with a disclaimer “for only 2 easy payments of $599!”.

And for the record, by my reading of the bylaw, Critical Mass could fall under the perimeters of this bylaw if the route went through a residential area at anytime. Food for thought.

spartikus

You do understand, Jason, that prior to this $1200 “deposit” proposal structures were not allowed at all?

Anyway, it’s moot now.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

Jason:

You’ll be relieved to know the Mayor shares your concerns.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/829005–robertson-not-happy-with-proposed-protest-bylaw

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

(“freedom of expression/speech” is a fairly well entrenched right in a democratic society)

And it remains so. It’s surprising how many Vision Vancouver critics are conflating freedom (ability to choose to express an opinion) with free (no charge).

Do you really want a city where I could parade up and down the sidewalk outside your house for 2500 days brandishing a political message with which you disagree?

George

Well then, I feel relieved my Mayor is going to take care of me…

George

You are so right Chis.. I am so much happier having my freedom of movement limited to Friday afternoon rush hour once a month…

***Do you really want a city where I could parade up and down the sidewalk outside your house for 2500 days brandishing a political message with which you disagree?***

http://www.straight.com/article-245085/critical-mass-hysteria

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

George:

I’m guessing whatever point you might have buried deep in that inscrutable post might be hinged on an assumption that’s incorrect… but you’d have to actually tell us what your contention is first.

cheers,

CK

Jason King

Very glad to hear that public pressure (and maybe a little thought) has once again got our mayor backpedaling…very glad he saw the error in his ways.

Look at that, a little freedom of speech had an affect….who would have thunk it.

George

You are just trying to baffle me with the exuberance of your own verbosity… but that is to be expected…I think I made my point…

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

You’ve made no point George. You linked to an two year old story that has no connection to the current issue until you provide us with one and failed to connect it to my question that was put to Jason as well.

Frankly, I’m the one who’s baffled. What exactly are you trying to say?

George

I think AGT said it to you the best Chris…..

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

I think you should actually make whatever convoluted point it is you believe relevant to the discussion, rather than invoking your revered leader’s name in some bizarre non sequitur. Is it too much to ask of you to skip the insults and stay somewhere remotely close to on-topic?

http://www.gerrymcguire.com Gerry McGuire

88 comments, 82 of them Chris v George. It’s time for a diversion (if not an intervention)…

Max

@Chris Keam #88:

And here I thought you and AGT had found some common gound – authors. Wow, that must have quickly dissipated.

As for insults; people in glass houses should not throw stones.

F.H.Leghorn

@CK#74: “…you can always just scroll past my remarks”. Finally, some sensible advice without splitting a single hair and the sneer tempered by a smiley.

Remember, no-one objects to anything bike-related in any way. Otherwise it’s wall-to-wall Richard and Chris. Been there, been bored to death by that.

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

I guess you folks would rather gossip than actually discuss this issue which has you up in arms. Too bad, it’s an important topic deserving of a grown-up debate.

George

Frances,
I enjoyed your segment on CKNW this morning….thank you for your honesty about your experience with the bikes.. I totally agree it has a great deal to do with the attitude of cyclists towards society rather than the bike issue itself….CK is a perfect example… think about it Chris before your fingers race to the keyboard…Lets have a grown up debate…

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

“Lets have a grown up debate…”

Whenever you’re ready.

George

Chris… again you show that you are incapable of an adult conversation and in your need to have the last word you proved Frances’s theory. Your attitude is arrogant.

Had you behaved like an adult, kept the sarcasm to yourself you could have furthered your agenda, but you can’t help yourself.. Sad you had a perfect opportunity…and you chose to blow it..

http://www.chriskeam.com Chris Keam

I don’t have an agenda George. I do find the complexities of balancing free speech with the myriad other rights and responsibilities we have in our society very interesting however and would love to talk about it.

Max

Anyone read Pete McMartin’s article in yesterday’s Van Sun?

‘Absolutely impossible’ that city not pressured to remove Falun Gong

Former diplomat says Chinese consulate-general would have been on orders from Beijing to have protesters stopped

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Absolutely+impossible+that+city+pressured+remove+Falun+Gong/4599428/story.html#ixzz1JPjPmhDY

George

Max…
It really makes one think, and realize how important it is to vote in a government, that understands what they are doing, and that are willing to stand up for all of the people of our fair city…one wrong decision can start a free fall that is detrimental to so many…

spartikus

You understand the Mayor the “former diplomat” is referring to is Sam Sullivan, right?

#headdesk

City Plumber – Ask a Question

City Plumber

Any news on the COPE nominations?

Did the new five-storey building going up at Broadway and Carnarvon go through any public consultation?

Can a councillor who is out expressing opinions on the Downtown Eastside plan still vote on it?

Why are there some super-sized stop signs in parts of Vancouver?

Secret plan by Vancouver city council to increase requirements for social housing?

Categories

Post Archives