The ‘Occupy’ movement has been going on for a month or 2 and today there was a big dust-up in NYC as the police threw the protesters out of a park that apparently is privately owned, but has some connection to the city. The protesters went to court and got a judge to order the city to allow them back into the park with their tents and sleeping bags and such.

Technically the protesters are breaking the law by staying in the park all night (most parks close at 11pm), but I think the bigger issue here is the disruption to people near the park and those who like to use the park as a park. 

This morning there was a woman on the news who said she would really like the park back and that she misses visiting the park during her lunch break. Others have said they they too would like the park back and some local residents have apparently grown tired of the constant noise and distraction. 

I have to admit that I really don’t understand what the Occupy folks are protesting about, but I know I’ve enjoyed public parks during lunch or after dinner and I would be rather put off if I had to walk through a tent village rather than stroll through the park. 

This whole situation brings up the classic issue of rights. The Occupy people claim they have the right to break the law and take over the park, but what about the rights of ordinary citizens who like to use the park as a park?  Who’s rights are more important? A judge ordered that the Occupy people were to be let back into the park, but it would be interesting to know what he or she thought about the rights of the greater public. Does the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

I’ve always been fascinated by the issue of rights when the rights apparently conflict with someone else’s rights. I guess there are no easy answers, but if it were me, I’d like my right to eat my lunch in peace in a public park, free from tents and protesters.