Chris_Sleeps Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Again, this is about a group failing to move from private land when asked. It's not about whether we support the right to protest or not. All protest should be done on land owned by oneself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 All protest should be done on land owned by oneself? Yes, or on public land (unless causing an obstruction to passers-by). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Yes, or on public land (unless causing an obstruction to passers-by). That's very limiting, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 All protest should be done on land owned by oneself? Yes, or on public land (unless causing an obstruction to passers-by). As above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fine line Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 That's very limiting, no? I wouldnt say "very" limiting, but it is limiting yes, and so it should be, we can't just have carte-blanche to do as we please can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 That's very limiting, no? Given the amount of public parks and highways in the city, I would say not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Have anyone actually attempted to answer my question? Apparently not, so I'll try again - even if were true that many tents were unoccupied overnight, how would this render the protester's views invalid? Seeing as you're so keen on people answering questions, how about you answer mine from post #407? "Anyway Halibut, if you're so passionate about these protests, why aren't you out there in your little tent protesting with them? Or is it easier to be a champagne socialist from the comfort of your nice warm house? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Given the amount of public parks and highways in the city, I would say not at all. It's limiting to public parks and highways, by it's very nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrians Lad Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Oh well, legal proceedings have begun to forcibly remove the protesters. Good................. they are making the streets look untidy ,and need sweeping up with the rest of the garbage on the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 It's limiting to public parks and highways, by it's very nature. So, that makes it ok to protest on private land whilst ignoring requests to move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.