St. Patrick's celebrations

[jamincan]

I'm pretty sure the Ezra Street parties would be considered unlawful assembly under the Criminal Code, and therefore technically illegal. I'm also pretty sure that participating in a street party without a special event permit from the City of Waterloo would also contravene whatever special events by-law the City of Waterloo has. (It definitely is for the Region, but I can't track down the equivalent by-law for the City).

This is absolutely not unlawful assembly, if it was, the police would have arrested the people involved.  I'm guessing you weren't there, there was no rioting, no major fights or other disturbances of the peace.

As for the street party, the police are the ones who closed the road, it was open, up until the police decided to close it for public safety, thus, it wasn't a street party.

Public drunkenness and blocking the street would both constitute disturbing the peace, as far as I understand. Obviously the police are going to act with discretion when dealing with thousands of drunk students. I'm not saying students should be arrested, but assembling for the purpose of getting drunk in a public place is definitely not legal in Canada and therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to call this an "illegal party." They're not gathering to sing songs, they're gathering to drink alcohol.

As far as I can tell, the Region of Waterloo's Special Events By-law also covers local municipalities in lieu of them not having their own by-law. This seems to be the case in Kitchener where their permits specifically reference the Region's by-law, and I therefore assume it's also true for Waterloo which doesn't seem to have a by-law covering special events.

According to the by-law, a special event includes a street party, which you would surely agree this is. The by-law further stipulates that it applies when a road needs to be closed, or where it would interfere with the normal flow of traffic. The party definitely impedes normal traffic on Ezra Street. The only thing I'm not clear on is if it only applies to Regional Roads or not. The by-law, being a regional by-law, specifically states it only applies to roads under the jurisdiction of the Region, but that would then seem to mean that there is nothing prohibiting people from blocking municipal roads. I'd be curious if someone has insight into this.

[jamincan]

What should be done is that someone should apply for a special event permit for Ezra Street during Homecoming and St. Patrick's Day. They would have to show that insurance is arranged for the event as per the requirements of the by-law. They'd have to have medical staff on hand and appropriately trained people serving alcohol. The logical group that should be organizing this is the Laurier Students' Union. They are also the logical group who should be paying for it. I don't personally think it's the city's responsibility to organize a drinking party for the students, but maybe we can just chalk that up to personal differences.

[ijmorlan]

What music would be universally unfriendly?

https://youtu.be/wUOkz0a42k8

[danbrotherston]

You know what would sort this out? A good dose of Mother Nature. Something like what we had in April. Sadly we can't force weather.

However, perhaps blaring student unfriendly music onto Ezra Street might serve that function just as well as horrible weather. What music would be universally unfriendly? Waterloo could hire the city of Kitchener to do the event.

Frankly, thank you for making my, "this is clearly student hate", argument for me, a second time.

[danbrotherston]

This is absolutely not unlawful assembly, if it was, the police would have arrested the people involved.  I'm guessing you weren't there, there was no rioting, no major fights or other disturbances of the peace.

As for the street party, the police are the ones who closed the road, it was open, up until the police decided to close it for public safety, thus, it wasn't a street party.

Public drunkenness and blocking the street would both constitute disturbing the peace, as far as I understand. Obviously the police are going to act with discretion when dealing with thousands of drunk students. I'm not saying students should be arrested, but assembling for the purpose of getting drunk in a public place is definitely not legal in Canada and therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to call this an "illegal party." They're not gathering to sing songs, they're gathering to drink alcohol.

As far as I can tell, the Region of Waterloo's Special Events By-law also covers local municipalities in lieu of them not having their own by-law. This seems to be the case in Kitchener where their permits specifically reference the Region's by-law, and I therefore assume it's also true for Waterloo which doesn't seem to have a by-law covering special events.

According to the by-law, a special event includes a street party, which you would surely agree this is. The by-law further stipulates that it applies when a road needs to be closed, or where it would interfere with the normal flow of traffic. The party definitely impedes normal traffic on Ezra Street. The only thing I'm not clear on is if it only applies to Regional Roads or not. The by-law, being a regional by-law, specifically states it only applies to roads under the jurisdiction of the Region, but that would then seem to mean that there is nothing prohibiting people from blocking municipal roads. I'd be curious if someone has insight into this.

This is not a street party, in that, the street is not closed, by the party goers. The police close the street, for public safety, they tried to keep it open last year, and the students stayed off the road, when the police felt the crowds were to big to safely contain on the sidewalk, they closed the road, this is the police choice (the right choice IMO) not the students.  So it isn't a street party.

This is not a single organized event.

Again, if this was illegal, it would be shut down, the police (contrary to Jeffsters claims) cracked down on public drinking, laying many charges.  Assembling absolutely is legal in Canada.  There is no provision that says "only for non-party purposes".

It should be an event, the city doesn't care to make it an event, because that wouldn't play to the anti-student sentiment in the city.

[danbrotherston]

What should be done is that someone should apply for a special event permit for Ezra Street during Homecoming and St. Patrick's Day. They would have to show that insurance is arranged for the event as per the requirements of the by-law. They'd have to have medical staff on hand and appropriately trained people serving alcohol. The logical group that should be organizing this is the Laurier Students' Union. They are also the logical group who should be paying for it. I don't personally think it's the city's responsibility to organize a drinking party for the students, but maybe we can just chalk that up to personal differences.

Why shouldn't the city do it?  The city is the one with the problem with the current situation.

The students don't care, the university clearly doesn't care, the city is the one with the problem.  The city also organizes and runs many events of the scope of this one...their choice not to here is intentional.

Heck, they already know what the budget should be.

[Spokes]

Come on Dan. This is what you said, and it's a rather profoundly uncharitable interpretation of the situation. The whole city quite plainly has not gone straight to "shut it down". The fact is that they've done quite the opposite and have tolerated the situation for a long time now and have even tried to provide (a rather poor) alternative. Rather than discuss the substance of what people have said, you keep on painting people as if they're advocating for some sort of war on students, which couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact is that right now there are thousands of people having an illegal party on the Ezra Street, which isn't really a tenable situation in the long term. If it could somehow be made a sanctioned and legal event that can safely operate, I think most people would advocate for that. There is the issue, though, that a large number of partygoers are underage and wouldn't be allowed at any legal and licensed event. That said, I think what you're proposing is probably along the lines of the best option. If you have a credible alternative to the Ezra St. parties that attracts enough people, the parties would die, or at least be more manageable. Illegal file sharing didn't really go away with online music providers and streaming, but it's diminished considerably. The same approach might work for Ezra Street.

First of all, there is no such thing as an "illegal" party...if there was, the people involved would have been arrested and charged, there are illegal activities that take place during the event, and people are charged for them.  That does not make the event "illegal", and this framing, frankly, is part of the problem I have with the whole discussion on this issue.

And yes, I am ascribing an attitude to the "whole city" which I see mainly portrayed through facebook comments and letters to the editor which is perhaps, unfair, but I can tell you, as a student, that was the attitude I saw representing the city.

I say that the city is not interested in organizing an event, because they absolutely could do so, but choose not too, as for an event, there are no age restrictions at many events, most of those have a separate place for the serving of alcohol.

You can't honestly think that.  You cant think that every person at the party was of age, and that those that were under age were charged.  And that no one was drinking on public property and not being charged.  The police laid a lot of charges, but looked the other way to most.

[Spokes]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "illegal" party...if there was, the people involved would have been arrested and charged, there are illegal activities that take place during the event, and people are charged for them.  That does not make the event "illegal", and this framing, frankly, is part of the problem I have with the whole discussion on this issue.

And yes, I am ascribing an attitude to the "whole city" which I see mainly portrayed through facebook comments and letters to the editor which is perhaps, unfair, but I can tell you, as a student, that was the attitude I saw representing the city.

I say that the city is not interested in organizing an event, because they absolutely could do so, but choose not too, as for an event, there are no age restrictions at many events, most of those have a separate place for the serving of alcohol.

No sense of arguing the legality of this.

However, I will say that the event is popular because: 1) you can get shit-faced intoxicated 2) you can be 18 and still drink 3) $20 (or even free) can get you a lot of booze 4) it's a Laurier thing 5) the cops turn a blind eye to drinking on a city owned street.

I think the city knows a sanctioned event would fall flat on its face (in the context of a successful event for Laurier students). They'll limit alcohol to prevent people from getting drunk, they'll refuse to serve under 19 year olds, $20 gets you 2 drinks -- if you're lucky, and it would be inclusive, which means rift-raft from everywhere would be interested in attending, including 30-50 year old creepers gawking at the young females and if you step out of line, the cops will haul your sorry ass to the drunk tank in DT Kitchener, along with a knuckle sandwich as a parting gift from the rookie officer.

This.  All kinds of THIS.

The city/universities could certainly put on a sanctioned event.  But it would NEVER be as popular as what's there now.  I can't prove that with any evidence, but I believe it wholeheartedly.

[danbrotherston]

First of all, there is no such thing as an "illegal" party...if there was, the people involved would have been arrested and charged, there are illegal activities that take place during the event, and people are charged for them.  That does not make the event "illegal", and this framing, frankly, is part of the problem I have with the whole discussion on this issue.

And yes, I am ascribing an attitude to the "whole city" which I see mainly portrayed through facebook comments and letters to the editor which is perhaps, unfair, but I can tell you, as a student, that was the attitude I saw representing the city.

I say that the city is not interested in organizing an event, because they absolutely could do so, but choose not too, as for an event, there are no age restrictions at many events, most of those have a separate place for the serving of alcohol.

You can't honestly think that.  You cant think that every person at the party was of age, and that those that were under age were charged.  And that no one was drinking on public property and not being charged.  The police laid a lot of charges, but looked the other way to most.

Do you have evidence that they "looked the other way on most [public drinking violations]"?  Or is this just something you feel must be true? And this still wouldn't make it an illegal assembly.

[danbrotherston]

No sense of arguing the legality of this.

However, I will say that the event is popular because: 1) you can get shit-faced intoxicated 2) you can be 18 and still drink 3) $20 (or even free) can get you a lot of booze 4) it's a Laurier thing 5) the cops turn a blind eye to drinking on a city owned street.

I think the city knows a sanctioned event would fall flat on its face (in the context of a successful event for Laurier students). They'll limit alcohol to prevent people from getting drunk, they'll refuse to serve under 19 year olds, $20 gets you 2 drinks -- if you're lucky, and it would be inclusive, which means rift-raft from everywhere would be interested in attending, including 30-50 year old creepers gawking at the young females and if you step out of line, the cops will haul your sorry ass to the drunk tank in DT Kitchener, along with a knuckle sandwich as a parting gift from the rookie officer.

This.  All kinds of THIS.

The city/universities could certainly put on a sanctioned event.  But it would NEVER be as popular as what's there now.  I can't prove that with any evidence, but I believe it wholeheartedly.

Well, this basically means it's not worth discussing further--that being said we cannot ''prove' it but the city could easily.

[jeffster]

You know what would sort this out? A good dose of Mother Nature. Something like what we had in April. Sadly we can't force weather.

However, perhaps blaring student unfriendly music onto Ezra Street might serve that function just as well as horrible weather. What music would be universally unfriendly? Waterloo could hire the city of Kitchener to do the event.

Frankly, thank you for making my, "this is clearly student hate", argument for me, a second time.

Well, that's a complete lie, and you know that Dan. I don't hate the students. What I do hate is the extraordinary costs to the region. I hate the risk it poses to the rest of the region. I hate that the city of Waterloo, Laurier and WRPS don't do anything about it. I hate that it's going to take a tragedy to get it to stop (and yes, that could be my kid at that party once they're old enough).

And that party is illegal. Just because the police don't do anything about it doesn't make it legal. It's no different when those activists shut down the Gardiner in Toronto -- wasn't legal just because of police inaction. Just like cheating on your taxes isn't legal because you don't get caught (and you never will if it's a really small amount of money -- say $5,000).

[Pheidippides]

Do you have evidence that they "looked the other way on most [public drinking violations]"?  Or is this just something you feel must be true?  And this still wouldn't make it an illegal assembly.

Yes.

There were 22,400 people partying and only 619 charges:
Highway Traffic Act (62),
Liquor Licence Act (435),
Criminal Code (18),
By-Law offences (45),
Trespass to Property Act (50),
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (5),
Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act (4).

[robdrimmie]

I spent entirely too much time reading up on articles about the 2018 St. Patrick's party on Ezra and can't find any mention by anyone from the city or WRPS that the event isn't legal.

This article (https://www.therecord.com/news-story/833...o-5-years/) dated March 19, 2018 includes "Larkin said he believe students heard the message that there would be consequences to flagrant drinking and police would be enforcing the law."

This article (https://www.wrps.on.ca/Modules/News/inde...6f66d62246) on WRPS' site is a letter to parents and high school students in the area and it opens "As you are aware, March 17th is St. Patrick’s Day, a day that sees many University-aged students participate in an annual, although unlicensed, street gathering in Waterloo."

I think given the amount of publicity, reporting and content on the Police Service's own site if there was any law being violated simply by the party existing they would pretty clearly state "This is an illegal party" and in all instances it seems like WRPS goes out of its way to talk about actual illegal acts like liquor license violations (which is how they shut down keggers) or public drunkenness, etc.

[Spokes]

You can't honestly think that.  You cant think that every person at the party was of age, and that those that were under age were charged.  And that no one was drinking on public property and not being charged.  The police laid a lot of charges, but looked the other way to most.

Do you have evidence that they "looked the other way on most [public drinking violations]"?  Or is this just something you feel must be true?  And this still wouldn't make it an illegal assembly.

No statistical data.  Look at the number of public drinking charges laid.  Look at the video of the number of people drinking in public.  That's my evidence.  So no it's not concrete.  

I never said it was an illegal assembly.  I simply said that laws were being broken.

[Spokes]

This.  All kinds of THIS.

The city/universities could certainly put on a sanctioned event.  But it would NEVER be as popular as what's there now.  I can't prove that with any evidence, but I believe it wholeheartedly.

Well, this basically means it's not worth discussing further--that being said we cannot ''prove' it but the city could easily.

They could do it and if they think it'll be a viable solution, they should do it.  And I hope I'm wrong and it's a massive success.