At the heart of this frustration is the perception that human rights are increasingly subordinated to economic interests. This issue manifests in various ways, from housing policies that favor corporate profits over affordable living to the broader socioeconomic structures that limit individual freedoms and opportunities.

The principle of not having dead children encapsulates the most fundamental human right: the right to life. This principle is enshrined in international human rights documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6). Yet, economic policies and practices that prioritize profitability over human welfare often lead to conditions that threaten this basic right.

In many urban areas, housing policies and market dynamics have created environments where affordable housing is scarce, and homelessness and poverty are prevalent. These conditions can lead to adverse health outcomes and, in extreme cases, loss of life, particularly among vulnerable populations, including children.

The Misguided Support for Controversial Causes (We see with this hamas support) & The involvement of youth in supporting controversial or extremist organizations often stems from a profound sense of disenfranchisement and a desire for meaningful change. This support, while sometimes misdirected, highlights a broader dissatisfaction with the status quo, where economic and social systems are perceived as failing to address fundamental human needs and rights.

Balancing Freedom and Order between maintaining public order and protecting individual freedoms is delicate and complex. In democratic societies, this balance is essential for fostering a vibrant public sphere where diverse voices can be heard and engaged. This principle is particularly relevant in quasi-public spaces like university campuses, which serve as critical arenas for debate and protest.

The debate over the University of Toronto protest encampment invites a rich theoretical discussion on the interplay between property rights and freedom of expression, particularly in quasi-public spaces. This discussion can be framed through several legal and philosophical theories.

The Public Forum Doctrine, a key element in U.S. constitutional law, provides a useful framework for understanding the legal landscape. Originating from cases like Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), the doctrine categorizes government properties into traditional public forums, designated public forums, and nonpublic forums, each with varying levels of First Amendment protections. Traditional public forums include parks and streets, where expressive activities are highly protected.

This doctrine has been extended and adapted in Canadian jurisprudence, where public spaces are considered vital for democratic participation. For instance, in Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized certain government properties as public forums for free expression, emphasizing the need for accessible spaces for public discourse.

Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" suggests that individuals acting in their self-interest can deplete shared resources, leading to the necessity for regulatory intervention. This concept contrasts with Elinor Ostrom’s work on "Governing the Commons", which argues that communal resources can be effectively managed by self-organizing communities under certain conditions. Ostrom's principles highlight the importance of collective action and local governance in maintaining public spaces, a perspective that supports the idea of universities managing protests through negotiated guidelines rather than outright bans.

John Locke’s theory of property, as outlined in "Two Treatises of Government", argues that property rights derive from individual labor and the investment of personal effort. Locke’s vision supports a strong defense of private property against unauthorized use. However, this view must be balanced against more contemporary understandings of property, such as those of Jeremy Waldron, who emphasizes property as a social construct that must consider communal welfare and access. Waldron’s critique of Locke suggests that in certain quasi-public spaces, like university campuses, property rights should be adapted to allow for greater public use and free expression.

Legal theorist Robert Post argues that free speech encompasses not only verbal expression but also symbolic acts and conduct. This view aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of expressive conduct in cases like Texas v. Johnson (1989), where flag burning was protected as symbolic speech. In the context of the university protest, the encampment itself can be seen as a form of symbolic speech, challenging the institution’s policies and investment choices. The theory of expressive conduct supports the idea that certain physical acts, even those involving occupation of property, may warrant protection as integral to the message being conveyed.

Balancing the right to property with the right to free expression often involves a proportionality analysis, a method emphasized in Canadian Charter jurisprudence and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This analysis weighs the significance and impact of the restrictions on free expression against the property owner’s rights and interests.

The Oakes Test, derived from R. v. Oakes (1986), provides a structured approach to this analysis, requiring that limitations on rights be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The role of universities as spaces for intellectual freedom and public debate further complicates the issue. Universities are unique in that they are private property with a public mission.

The theoretical landscape surrounding property rights and freedom of expression in quasi-public spaces like university campuses is complex and multifaceted.

The Public Forum Doctrine, the theories of the commons, property rights, expressive conduct, and proportionality analysis all offer valuable insights.

Ultimately, the challenge lies in crafting legal and institutional frameworks that respect both the property rights of institutions and the vital role of free expression in democratic society.

This balance is essential for fostering a vibrant public sphere where diverse voices can be heard and engaged