It seems that people involved in the "occupy" movements across the country are finding out that "rights" aren't the same thing as "doing whatever you want."
After a woman died of a suspected drug overdose in the Occupy Vancouver camp, the city's mayor is moving to get a court injunction against the camp. In London, Ont., police moved in and dismantled the occupy camp; Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said it's time for the city's protest to end.
Occupy movement activists are pushing back, saying they have the right to assemble and the right to protest - and therefore can't be touched.
But rights also come with responsibilities, and despite what many people think, they often come with limits.
While people might have the right to protest, they don't have the right to burn vehicles and homes, smash stores, and beat up others in the name of "protesting" - as those involved in protest riots sometimes state.
And there's a big difference between a group of people assembling peacefully, and moving permanently into a public space in a way that disrupts other people. There's also a difference between a peaceful assembly and creating a semi-permanent campground - especially when you don't have camping permits.
Nearby residents of St. James Park in Toronto, where the occupy camp has moved in, say they're being denied the use and enjoyment of the park by the cluster of tents and collections of protesters.
Businesses in the area of occupy camps are being affected too. Rightly or wrongly, many people simply won't want to wade through a crowd of people - peaceful they may be - and risk a confrontation, simply to shop.
Does the right of these people to assemble mean that everyone else's rights have to be stepped on? The answer would seem to be obvious - but it's likely going to be up to the courts to decide.
If there is a "right to protest" - and it's not listed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - then what constitutes a "protest" is the all-important point. Does taking up space in a public park constitute a protest? Does it override other people's rights to use that public space, or to use it without feeling threatened? Does the right to freedom of expression for a few protesters imply that other people's less defined rights (like the right to enjoy a public park) get swept aside?
Freedom, living in a free society, does not mean having the "right to do whatever you want". There are rules and boundaries - without them, "rights" degenerate into simple anarchy or rule by the strongest.
We've seen some of that - in world summits where peaceful protests are disrupted by anarchists who think the protest gives them the right to vandalize and destroy anything in their path. It's the unthinking creed of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" backed up by force and violence. But anarchists and vandals need to be reminded that's it's only society's civilization - the very thing they're trying to disrupt - that lets them survive at all.
None of the occupy movement camps are at that stage - so far, the protests have been reasonably peaceful.
But we may are starting to discover that, in major Canadian cities at least, people don't have the right to indiscriminately move into public places and take them over indefinitely in the name of making their voices heard.