Wear a Mask During a Protest In Canada: 10 Years In Jail

Phrogman writes "The Conservative government of Steven Harper in Canada has proposed a new bill that would impose a jail term of 10 years for anyone wearing a mask while 'participating in a riot or unlawful assembly.' The conservative backbencher who proposed the bill makes it clear that he intended it to allow police to arrest anyone wearing a mask 'before protests spiral out of control.' Since this is the same government that arrested hundreds of protesters during the G8/G20 summit using a law that didn't actually exist, it raises the question as to how they will define 'unlawful.' The 10-year penalty is more than double the penalty awarded to a person who murdered someone in a fit of 'road-rage' recently."

Comments

roadrage demonstrations.

[gl4ss]

the solution is obvious!

and uh how do you know what's an unlawful assembly beforehand and does a beard count as a mask?

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[durrr]

Bring a motorcycle and a helmet(it's not a mask, it's a safety feature demanded by law) and drive around inside goverment buildings, trying to run over the lawmakers behind this atrocity.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an unlawful protest if you don't have a permit. Hint: if the group organizing the protest start with Occupy, odds are they don't have a permit and the protest is unlawful.

I obviously think this proposed law is ridiculous, but I do have to say, as a NYC resident who works down the street from Zuccotti Park, the refusal of the OWS retards to get a permit really pisses me off. It wastes taxpayer money, inconveniences people working or traveling in the area, and marginalizes the effect of the protest. And honestly, I think they do it solely with the intention of getting shut down so the can say "Fuck the police, they're violating our constitutional rights" despite the fact that the Supreme Court has long held that the right to peaceably assemble is limited by reasonable time and space constraints, and permit requirements are completely lawful.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Roujo]

From Wikipedia:

Under Part II of the Canadian Criminal Code (Offences Against Public Order), Unlawful Assemblies and Riots is when the assembly of three or more persons who cause fear and on reasonable grounds disturb peace in the neighborhood.

From what I know, at some point during a protest, police may declare a protest illegal if they believe that it will lead to a disturbance of the peace, for example to a riot. It happens on a pretty regular basis lately here in Montréal, and I've heard that once they declare it as such they go around and tell everyone to disperse and leave, informing them of the fact. Now, if they do so in a way that people have a reasonable chance to understand it and GTFO if they'd rather not get arrested, I can't say - I wasn't at any such protest.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[durrr]

We could simply stage an unlawful protest at a masquerade the politicians attend to, being lawful cititizens we would of course not bring masks ourself.
Also, every year during halloween.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Thud457]

Naturally, these same rules won't be applied to the gubbamint.
Anyone wearing a mask is up to no good.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[jamstar7]

Funny, I thought requiring government workers to wear masks at work would add a touch of honesty to them. Let's face it, the difference between the government and the James Gang was, the James Gang had horses.

And a helluva guitarist.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[KhabaLox]

the refusal of the OWS retards to get a permit really pisses me off. It wastes taxpayer money, inconveniences people working or traveling in the area, and marginalizes the effect of the protest.

How would them having a permit save the taxpayer money, inconvenience you less, or increase the effectiveness of their protest?

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[jamstar7]

Under Part II of the Canadian Criminal Code (Offences Against Public Order), Unlawful Assemblies and Riots is when the assembly of three or more persons who cause fear and on reasonable grounds disturb peace in the neighborhood.

Sounds like Congress in session to me. So when do we get to send in the cops on them?

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Face recognition is a b****
Motorbike number plates are far nicer to deal with. Thanks.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

When a protest is planned and permitted, the appropriate police force is brought in ahead of time, barriers are erected, and the protesting group is cordoned into an appropriate area. When a large group of people just shows up, hundreds of police officers swarm the area, streets get shut down, checkpoints get set up, and all hell breaks loose.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Dahamma]

No need for a motorcycle, this is Canada. Put on a goalie mask and say you just got back from the pond, eh.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Beardo the Bearded]

Nah, we'll just start protesting in the winter.

It's not a mask, it's a balaclava. It's not a burning police car, I'm just cold.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Cito]

you are not suposed to get a permit if you want to protest...

permits to protest were added to curb free speech.

canada and U.S. constitutions give right to protest and right to assemble it dont mention permits...

permits were added later to curb free speech.

now they want to curb freespeech and catalog and I.D. every protester and toss them in a database to label as a "troublemaker"

fuck the police and fuck the government, they keep it up then I am 100% behind burning them to ground and hanging the government offenders by the neck from the street lamps

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[AngryDeuce]

When a protest is planned and permitted, the appropriate police force is brought in ahead of time, barriers are erected, and the protesting group is cordoned into an appropriate area.

Thus becoming completely marginalized. This is precisely why protests like this are not done "by the books".

It's really no different than the "Free Speech Zones" they started breaking out during W.'s term. Keep the people with the bullhorns far away from the tourists so nobody has to look at them or hear what they're saying. You can understand why that's not exactly conducive to a 'protest' actually being effective, right?

The fact that you were inconvenienced means the protest is working exactly as intended.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[mhajicek]

If an authority has the power to grant "permits" and "licenses", it also has the power to deny them. If you have the right to do something, that right cannot be denied by the authority, and therefore any "permit" or "license" is meaningless. Any statement to the contrary is an attempt to strip you of your rights.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Barbara, not Barbie]

So wear a hospital mask - they're still legal since their purpose is to help you avoid picking up air-borne diseases (after all, who knows what germs the other protesters are carrying around), not to disguise your appearance (which is just a secondary effect/benefit).

Or do like KISS - lots of makeup.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Trepidity]

As the presumably loyal opposition, certainly nobody could object to choosing to protest in the times and locations that Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, or one of her authorized representatives, indicate would be most pleasing to Her Majesty, as expressed through Her Majesty's Government.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, first amendment bro. Welcome to how gun owners feel all the time about everything. I wish they would stop trampling all over the first, second and in many cases fourth amendment (right to refuse unreasonable search and seizure) already.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[LoyalOpposition]

As the presumably loyal opposition,...

I...what? Oh. Well, I certainly haven't objected yet, so I suppose you have a point.

~Loyal Opposition

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you were inconvenienced means the protest is working exactly as intended.

You're a child. The purpose of a protest is to have an opportunity to voice your concerns. At the very most, it should only be disruptive to the party you're protesting - not interfering with the lives, safety or movements of people who aren't involved.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[CanHasDIY]

It's an unlawful protest if you don't have a permit.

Got one right here.

... "Fuck the police, they're violating our constitutional rights" despite the fact that the Supreme Court has long held that the right to peaceably assemble is limited by reasonable time and space constraints, and permit requirements are completely lawful.

K, I'm gonna lay some free-range truth on you here; whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you:

It doesn't matter one bit what the SCOTUS says when it comes to the Constitution - the fact remains that the Constitution is, by its own wording, the supreme, undeniable, unquestionable law of the land, and short of a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary, approved by 2/3 of the population, it's going to stay that way. As a matter of fact, if not for seditious turncoats such as yourself, we wouldn't have to be concerned about getting government approval to exercise our Constitutional rights, as no patriot in their right mind would ever allow such a travesty to occur, regardless of how they felt about the protest.

In summation: fuck you and your cow-towing to the political elite and their attempts to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to exercise my right to peaceably assemble whether you like it or not - you can take your 'permit' and shove it up your ass.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Luckyo]

Actually the real purpose of the facemask is to avoid spreading your germs on others. It's usefulness at protecting the wearer from others is questionable at best.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[JustSomeProgrammer]

I love opportunistic humor :)

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[AngryDeuce]

If I'm trying to just get the fuck to work so I can pay my bills, suffering a delay because some OWS chuckleheads have decided that it's a good idea to form an impromptu road block or occupy a fucking bridge is NOT going to get me to think any better of them or anything they say

Maybe not, but you will think about them, as opposed to the current, legal method of protest which barely gets a 30 second soundbite on the 11 o'clock news.

Do you think they honestly give a fuck what you think of their reasons for protest? The whole point is to bring attention to issues that normally do not get attention, and the way you do that is protests just like this.

How many people were "inconvenienced" by the sit-ins at the lunch counters down south in the 60's? I bet there were a lot people bitching that they just want a sandwich and that everyone should stop making it difficult for them to get one, just like you bitching about being late to work. Sometimes it takes drastic measures to get attention to a problem. It wasn't until the crack epidemic spilled out of the inner-cities that anyone started doing any fucking thing about it. People don't notice the homeless until they have to step over them on the curb or are forced to ignore them when they come by shaking their cup for some spare change.

You understand this perfectly, I know you do, which is why I'm forced to conclude that your problem is not with the protest itself but the message behind it, which is pretty obvious given the way you describe it. Based on that, I think you can now perfectly make the connection between your attitude and why they don't give a single fuck about you being late for work.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[AngryDeuce]

At the very most, it should only be disruptive to the party you're protesting - not interfering with the lives, safety or movements of people who aren't involved.

Once they're affected by the protest they're no longer uninvolved. Again, that's precisely the point of a protest. If it can be easily dismissed and ignored then it's not an effective protest.

You may disagree with the message, but you're forced to deal with the protest, whether you like it or not. Mission Accomplished.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Actually the real purpose of the facemask is to avoid spreading your germs on others. It's usefulness at protecting the wearer from others is questionable at be

I'd say it depends ... if it lets you get away with shoving someone who insists on continuing to hack all over you instead of covering their mouth and nose, I'd say it serves its purpose.

Also, people wearing facemasks are less likely to pick their noses while wearing them, so it helps slow down the #1 method of spreading germs - contaminated fingers. Consider it the booger equivalent of a dog muzzle.

Look what happens to people who pick their nose while driving and the airbag goes off ...

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[hairyfeet]

Exactly. Can you imagine if the civil rights movement would have followed the same advice? they would have been given 5 or 6 blocks in the middle of the black section of town with a nice barricade between them and the white sections. The local governments would have then shown the reporters the white sections and said "protest? What protest? See, everything is nice here" and that would have been the end of that.

To expect one to follow rules set up by the opposition (who wants them to fail and who is in bed with the very 1% they are protesting against) is the true height of insanity. As we have seen time and time again the rules they apply to the commoners don't apply to them, so if they don't follow their own rules and laws, why should the serfs?

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[sir-gold]

A permit to protest? are you completely insane?

Getting a government permit to protest the government is like asking someone for permission to punch them in the face. Even if they give you permission, they are going to do whatever it takes to minimize the damage/message.

It would be like the RNC protests in Minnesota in 2008, the protesters were literally keep in a chain-link cage, with DOZENS of mounted police patrolling the area rounding up any loose protesters

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Auroch]

It's an unlawful protest if you don't have a permit.

Got one right here.

... "Fuck the police, they're violating our constitutional rights" despite the fact that the Supreme Court has long held that the right to peaceably assemble is limited by reasonable time and space constraints, and permit requirements are completely lawful.

K, I'm gonna lay some free-range truth on you here; whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you: It doesn't matter one bit what the SCOTUS says when it comes to the Constitution - the fact remains that the Constitution is, by its own wording, the supreme, undeniable, unquestionable law of the land, and short of a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary, approved by 2/3 of the population, it's going to stay that way. As a matter of fact, if not for seditious turncoats such as yourself, we wouldn't have to be concerned about getting government approval to exercise our Constitutional rights, as no patriot in their right mind would ever allow such a travesty to occur, regardless of how they felt about the protest. In summation: fuck you and your cow-towing to the political elite and their attempts to subvert the Constitution. I'm going to exercise my right to peaceably assemble whether you like it or not - you can take your 'permit' and shove it up your ass.

Good job thread (news?) jacking this into some american pissing contest over the use of guns.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[kaladorn]

This sort of law is the inevitable response to the G8/G20 and the student riots in Quebec as well as various recents sports-related riots.

Average folk in the business community, working folk, plus of course the cops, the firemen, the EMS guys, politicians, bankers, and students who don't want their ability to go to school impeded are all demanding the government deal with these violent protests.

Yes, free speech is a right. Impeding me going places is debatable and the more people use that sort of approach (and threaten me if I cross a picket line), the more likely I am likely to vote for a law that makes that sort of crap harder for the ***clowns involved.

Just because somebody has the right to speak freely to me does not mean I'm obliged to listen nor does it give them the right to impede my passage or cost me money by impeding my right to an education.

So, these sorts of issues, which go with all the recent protests and riots, will (if the riots and protests get worse) continue to be passed into law with broad support.

And in the long run, if the protesters push hard enough, they will find out the state cannot allow itself to be dictated to by pressure groups. I don't want to see that day come because their will be blood spilled if that happens. But if the protesters can't recognize when they have exceeded the boundaries of general public toleration, they'll find out what happens the hard way.

I think the Quebec students can protest as they want to and the G20 crowd to up until it impedes my ability to do what I want to. What gives them the right to impact my activities? Does that give me a reciprocal right to resist their impact on my activites? That's not the kind of scenario we want playing out because that just gets into mob clashes.

Your right to do whatever you want extends until it enters my personal space (generally). Many protesters at G8/G20 and at the Quebec protests violated this.

Also, the destruction of property is a criminal act. This includes the injury of police (which costs taxpayers money) and the destruction of government behicles. These things all requrie law enforcement to gear up their ability to pursue, capture, and prosecute offenders successfully.

The right to protest is not the right to commit crimes. Crimes against property or the government are not victimless crimes.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[icebraining]

Sorry, but no one has a right "not to be inconvenienced".

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

A few minor corrections to your rant here.

A: This is in Canada, not the USA...
B: The SCOTUS has zero say in Canada, and nor should it, we are a sovereign nation with our own Supreme Court, and Government.
C: The US Constitution is not the Canadian Constitution, there are a number of differences.
D: You bring that "Permit" to a protest in Canada, you WILL be arrested, and not for protesting but because you're carrying a gun, you do not have the right to bear arms in Canada, and doing so can get you a multitude of firearms related charges. If the handgun isn't registered, you have fines on top of the charges.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[NightLamp]

In consideration of the PM bad wigs are excluded from this bill.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep the people with the bullhorns far away from the tourists so nobody has to look at them or hear what they're saying. You can understand why that's not exactly conducive to a 'protest' actually being effective, right?

Actually, many – if not most – of the protests in Ottawa take place at the Parliament Buildings, arguably one of the biggest tourist attractions in the city, or surrounding one of the Embassies, which are often in the city core. They are very difficult to ignore, especially when you're driving and most of the lanes are closed off.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no right to convenience. yes, a protestor cannot physically stop you from doing anything, but by that same token, you also have no right to physically remove them from your desired path. thus, your preference to not be inconvenienced does not override a protestor's right to sit, and occupy.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[jmac_the_man]

It's really no different than the "Free Speech Zones" they started breaking out during W.'s term.

They were first used at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, but thanks for trying.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[sjames]

Well, with all those people around, if you might be catching a cold, it's only polite to not make them sick if you can help it.

I wish politicians would be so polite to their constituents.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[sjames]

So you believe citizens should be required to seek permission before they exercise their right to peaceful public assembly?

Don't you think they're likely to end up assigned to 'free speech zones' where absolutely nobody will see or hear anything? You don't believe that might defeat the purpose?

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[sjames]

No. this is your permit. You showed the last resort means of enforcement.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so right. How about all the people who were "inconvenienced" by the geniuses on Wall Street who caused our economic melt down with their casinos and are still getting their obscene salaries and bonuses while we the 99% have to bail them out? What balls these guys have. Someone should kick them.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[AngryDeuce]

They were first used at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, but thanks for trying.

As if that invalidates any point I made...

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if this is passed or not. It'll be struck down by the courts as it violates our freedom of expression.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, actually obstruction of traffic is illegal, and traffic also includes pedestrian traffic. The protesters have no right to break the law while they protest, so they also have no right to impede a person from their path. On the other hand, I am absolutely allowed to cross any path as long as I do so peacefully, and I am free to defend myself from anyone that does not have the legal authority to stop me. An OWS protester on public land does not have legal authority on that land, but the police do.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this isn't the same as "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Because in the end, it's up to the government to decide whether they'll listen or not, and the people that got inconvenienced are going to sure as hell make sure that the government they vote for is not going to put up with that bullshit.

Some people might want to believe that the G8/20, Quebec tuition, and OWS protests are about some kind of big human rights debate, but they're really about a bunch of children wanting to blame and shame someone, anyone at all, because they think that'll fix all of the bad things going on in the world (in the rare cases when it isn't just about not getting their entitlements). You want to know how a real protest about real inequities gets the word around, read about these people. See how many of them annoyed or harassed the general public into seeing things their way.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, yes we do: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Life: The right to be alive.
Liberty: The right to act without being physically restrained.
Security: The right to the privacy of the body and health.

If a protester stops me, they are violating my liberty. If they attack me, they are violating my security. I have every right not to be stopped or attacked by anyone without the legal authority to do so. At that point, the "peaceful" assembly right is broken anyway, and the protesters no longer have a right to be there.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[icebraining]

"Being attacked" is not a inconvenience, so that doesn't contradict what I said. It's also a red herring, since the vast majority of OWS protesters didn't attack anyone.

If a protester stops me, they are violating my liberty

Imprisoning you is clearly a violation of your liberty, but just being in your way isn't.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[jmac_the_man]

They were first used at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, but thanks for trying.

As if that invalidates any point I made...

Well, you ascribed them to George W. Bush. In 1988, Bush was not an elected official. He was also never a Democrat. Not every bad thing is the fault of the Bush administration. Given the extent to which Democrat groups are trying to control the Occupy protests, the fact that Democrats came up with the tactic of "Free Speech Zones" (and still use them liberally) is kind of relevant, no?

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[jamstar7]

Dunno how your high courts work up there, but down here in the Lower 48, Da Supremes are packed with political hacks that toe the Party line no matter what, every chance a Regime gets.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Universe wide "governments have been organizing" to make protesters targets for their push to generate new video games. The anti-rights fighters agency {ARFAs} has secretly been acquiring public tax money financed pilot-less drones for the first ever game invented by a government agency. The new game uses a government satellite facility to gas, arrest and stone protesters and the game is known as [GASp}". As we speak, teenage gamers are being trained to play the new GASp game. Everywhere governments are implementing the jobs to talented gaming-teens program passed last session. It is thought the program might help the government to accomplish its year 2012 goal: 100% of the private workforce fully unemployed.

A change in the law was necessary to enable the GASp games to be played. Seems before one can play GASp, a picture of the face of a target protester must be captured from the satellite to a GASp game enabled player console video screen. A player then copies, pastes and registers the protester's face from the console to the target protester [TP] directory: hence the reason for the law change. GASp cannot be played until the rank, name and serial number of the protester has been identified to a face registered in the TP directory. Making the protester experience frustration, bewilderment, blood and pain is the point of the game.

Studies have shown GASp to be highly addictive to players. Its patented GAS and PAIN cycle arouses player emotions and enhances player desires: a GASing move hit [player side] =>draws expressions of pain, frustration, bewilderment and blood from the GASed [target side]. Facial Expressions of pain yields 10 points; frustration 2 points, bewilderment 1 point and a showing of real blood yields 15 points, unless the blood is from the head of a protester, in which case it generates 50 points. To score: the emotion or blood must be visible in the face of the protester on the video screen of the player during the game.

The AFRA believes if the game is successful, neither experienced pilots nor trained cops will be needed to rid the world of protesters. Talented, experienced teenager GASp players can GAS thousands of protesters from the safety of their parents living rooms. Hospitals have been advised to give bed space priority to mouse fatigue MF syndrome sufferers. MF syndrome is common among GASp players.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Kreigaffe]

I kinda cringe that you and I got modded down for being reasonable folk.

I'd say this country has gone to shit but it sounds like you're from Canada, so I suppose this continent has gone to shit. Which means this world has gone to shit.

Fucking awful.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[Kreigaffe]

Ever hear someone say "There's no such thing as bad PR"? It's a fucking lie. Interfering with my life? Bad PR. Causing problems in my life? Bad PR.

That doesn't mean the wall street chuckleheads have me on their side, but it does mean that the OWS chuckleheads don't either. Neither group has shown an ounce of compassion for their fellow man, not one iota of decency and respect for other human beings. NEITHER group.

Fuck them all. Send them all to jail. Bring out the tasers and the tear gas and fuck the whole lot. I'm fucking done with people who think they're more important than everybody else, and I don't give two shits why they think that.

Your whole deal with the Woolsworth sit-ins is bullshit; nobody was prevented from ordering food, nobody was shitting in the streets. The protesters were nonviolent, respectful, and had a clear message with a clear solution. I don't even know what the fuck your deal with crack is -- are you suggesting that you SUPPORT the efforts undertaken by the War on Drugs, specifically with regards to crack cocaine? Are you fucking mentally retarded, or just a troll piece of shit? And yep, nobody notices the homeless -- except the many shelters and soup kitchens and outreach organizations.

The message of OWS -- at least, what message you can claim they have, as it's unclear, muddled, broad, and confused -- but the general message that wall street and corporate america is run by scumbags fleecing the nation for their own personal gain? I can get behind that, and have been behind that for a hell of a lot longer than anyone camping in a park has been able to read and fucking write.

The difference is that I take action by telling people about the problem, explaining why it is a problem, how it is a problem, and admitting that there is no clear and easy solution to it but that the first step is to recognize and agree that it is a problem.

They take action by disrupting the society they purport to support, by only inconveniencing and troubling those who are not a part of the problem, by acting like misanthropic children who hold the mistaken belief that theirs is a holy crusade that forgives all sins of those who ride under its standard. Actually they're not acting like that -- they ARE that.

Re:roadrage demonstrations.

[dkleinsc]

The thing about restrictions on firearms which are different from restrictions on protests is that protests are not designed to kill people. You are quite probably thoroughly responsible about keeping your gun properly stored so that your child doesn't blow his own head off, but many gun owners aren't responsible and some are crazy or criminal. The goal of gun laws should be to force gun owners to be responsible with their weapons and keep them out of the hands of the crazies and criminals.

Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ? Last riot in Victoriaville, QC was been fun :P

Politician's logic

[zAPPzAPP]

Longer jailtime allows the police to arrest you harder.

Below 10 years, the arrestiness would just not be enough.

Re:Politician's logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada was co-opted by a fascist coup led most recently by the harper dirtbag. The entire harper cabal is pure evil. haper's bully-boy left-hand shitbag is also an evil fat smelly blowhard pig.

Re:Politician's logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this why pirating one mp3 is 10 to life?

Re:Politician's logic

[jamstar7]

Is this why pirating one mp3 is 10 to life?

They're working on it. Remember, the *AA fatcats deserve their 4 martini lunches on the expense account and their hookers & blow on demand,

Seriously, though, seems like the Harper government has picked up on the NeoCon playbook ('free speech zones' far away from the maddening crowds & pesky newsie cameras, draconian copyright laws that violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty, government of the people by the people for the corporations, etc) fairly well. Big question is, did they pay the proper licensing fees to use said playbook?

Corrections

[MightyMartian]

So far as I understand it, it's not a government bill, it's a bill that a government backbencher is going to introduce. I'm not even sure it's made it to the order paper, but it likely won't survive through first reading anyways.

Re:Corrections

[cpu6502]

Right. Too soon to get upset. It's just a bill. It will likely never pass, just as Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill never passed.

Oh wait.
It did pass.
Nevermind.

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, like when a backbencher proposed a law defining life as beginning at conception, or possibly even at ovulation, so taking oral contraceptives is legally murder. Nobody at all backed it but it was still a "proposed Harper law." Very dishonest reporting.

Re:Corrections

[interkin3tic]

but it likely won't survive through first reading anyways

I said that about the patriot act here in the US. So...

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

The Harper government has announced that they support this bill which all but assures it passage.

Re:Corrections

[dkleinsc]

Well, the mistake there was that you expected the US Congress to give it at least 1 reading before passing it.

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well pass first reading. It passed second reading on Feb 15 and is now in front of committee. It was amended at second reading to increase the punishment from 5 to 10 years. It is thought the committee will report in a few weeks. This could be law by June.

Normally private members bills don't get passed into law but this government is using them to pass what normally would be a government bill.

Re:Corrections

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

I have to say it is true that the US and Canada (like Great Britain) are divided by a common language.

Re:Corrections

[MightyMartian]

In general in Westminster Parliaments the failure rate of private member bills is very high. First of all, you have to convince the Government to put them on the order paper. That pretty much kills the larger part of them right away. Then it has to make it through three readings, through committees, where almost all the rest die. Looking at this one, the government supports it, but I still wouldn't hold my breath. Even when everyone says "Yeah, that sounds alright", they still have a high failure rate.

Not that I'm necessarily against the general notion, though the fines are absurdly high and would likely get nailed on a Charter challenge, but it's a long ways away from law.

Re:Corrections

[MightyMartian]

The Government sits on top of a sometimes restless coalition. Harper has to throw bones to the social conservatives. That's what the hub-bub about the renewed abortion debate is. But do you think, with the NDP in a statistical dead heat with the Tories, that there's any way Harper is going to allow this sort of debate to go too far? He's looking at a left-wing party starting to gain popularity even in some traditional Tory ridings. No, he'll let them make some noise, and then will snuff it out as quietly as he can.

Re:Corrections

[flar2]

The Government has stated they will support the bill.

This Conservative Government has a strategy of having backbenchers introduce potentially controversial bills.

Re:Corrections

[aynoknman]

Yup, like when a backbencher proposed a law defining life as beginning at conception, or possibly even at ovulation, so taking oral contraceptives is legally murder. Nobody at all backed it but it was still a "proposed Harper law." Very dishonest reporting.

If you're referring to the recent private member's bill, you are misreporting it yourself. The bill asked for a parliamentary committee to examine the issue of when human life begins.

Currently, there's no abortion law at all in Canada. If you kill a baby in the womb, even if it's viable -- even up to nine months, it's not murder. If you're a doctor you'll face losing your license. If you're not, you'll face charges of practising medicine without a license. Nevertheless, you haven't broken any law regarding abortion. It was this anomaly that (on the face of it) the private members bill was trying to address.

Canadians can't come to a consensus on what the abortion law should be, so we're currently living (or dying) with no law at all on the subject. Any proposal to come to a consensus is screamed down or characterised just the way you did, as a back door means to introduce draconian laws.

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

TFS says:

"The Conservative government of Steven Harper in Canada has proposed a new bill that would impose a jail term of 10 years for anyone wearing a mask while 'participating in a riot or unlawful assembly.' The conservative backbencher who proposed the bill makes it clear that he intended it to allow police to arrest anyone wearing a mask 'before protests spiral out of control.' Since this is the same government that arrested hundreds of protesters during the G8/G20 summit using a law that didn't actually exist, it raises the question as to how they will define 'unlawful.' The 10-year penalty is more than double the penalty awarded to a person who murdered someone in a fit of 'road-rage' recently."

cpu6502 wrote:

Right. Too soon to get upset. It's just a bill. It will likely never pass, just as Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill never passed.

So good to see our youngsters leaving grade school unable to tell the difference between Canada and the USA. :)

Re:Corrections

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Montreal is also passing its own version (Mayor Tremblay is so underwhelming ... "go back to school!" Yeah, right - why not fix the problems with the billions lost to corruption at city hall first?)

This whole thing may be unconstitutional under Section 2 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms - freedom of both expression and association are guaranteed for everyone.

Section 1 only allows for temporary suspension of the rights guaranteed in Section 2 - for example, if the FLQ goes back to putting bombs in mail-boxes.

Re:Corrections

[mk1004]

I think the gist of the post is that shit bills can get passed into law, regardless of the country.

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Too soon to get upset. It's just a bill. It will likely never pass,.

In fact, it's exactly the time to hit them back hard. Sort of a reverse Overton Window. Because that may be exactly what this is - float this out there and then scale it back to something less. Let them know there will be massive numbers of politicians un-elected if this kind of onerous shit passes. But, if it gains any traction, I imagine it'll sail right into law.

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

So far as I understand it, it's not a government bill, it's a bill that a government backbencher is going to introduce. I'm not even sure it's made it to the order paper, but it likely won't survive through first reading anyways.

Except that the Harper Government(tm) seems to be using private member bills so that the legislative changes don't go through the same scrutiny as official Cabinet bills:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1176615

One of the nice things about the Westminister system is that (usually) major changes are done by Cabinet ministers, so you only really have to watch some people. Contrast this with Congress, where any critter can make bills and amendments, so you have to watch *everyone*. These private members' bills is turning Ottawa into Washington in a way, and personally I don't think that's good.

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

If the guys up north have been paying any attention to their neighbors, it'll be tacked onto the bill raising their pay.

Re:Corrections

[Zoinky]

It used to be just a backbencher's suggestion, the government decided to back the bill a few days ago. Barring something unforeseen, it will become law.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/06/pol-ottawa-bill-targets-masked-protesters-jail-fines.html

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one more correction, it's that you'll get 5 years in jail already, so either way, it's illegal mask in an unlawful assembly, or a riot. The difference is the other 5 years.

Source: http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5151861

Re:Corrections

[Auroch]

Right. Too soon to get upset. It's just a bill. It will likely never pass, just as Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill never passed.

Oh wait. It did pass. Nevermind.

I don't ever remember Ron Paul running for office in Canada. Thanks for trying, though.

Re:Corrections

[Maow]

The Government sits on top of a sometimes restless coalition.

I wish I saw some signs of this restlessness. I mean where is the dissent within the back benches - nothing but silence.

Harper has to throw bones to the social conservatives. That's what the hub-bub about the renewed abortion debate is.

Agreed, although it seems just as likely that it was a distraction from all the scandals, specifically election fraud and F-35 double-book-keeping financial fraud.

But do you think, with the NDP in a statistical dead heat with the Tories, that there's any way Harper is going to allow this sort of debate to go too far?

I think he doesn't care, he'll plan on 2 years of negative attack ads against the opposition leader (again, and it's already started against Bob Rae), combined with more refined voter suppression and yet more election fraud, and finally, if the bill allowing snooping through ISP records eventually goes through - Conservative hacks will be the ones spying on opposition party members to dig up (or make up) dirt to smear them with.

TL;DR version: Harper doesn't plan on allowing free & fair elections, so has no fear of being defeated over this.

No, he'll let them make some noise, and then will snuff it out as quietly as he can.

I sincerely wish I could agree with you.

My take is that Canada has suffered a silent coup and by the time Elections Canada & the RCMP get to the bottom of the current scandals another election will have passed and the list of criminal activities will keep 2 RCMPs busy for a decade.

Re:Corrections

[dryeo]

My take is that Canada has suffered a silent coup and by the time Elections Canada & the RCMP get to the bottom of the current scandals another election will have passed and the list of criminal activities will keep 2 RCMPs busy for a decade

Elections Canada is getting defunded and the RCMP just got bribed, er I mean a pay raise.

Re:Corrections

[jamstar7]

Let them know there will be massive numbers of politicians un-elected if this kind of onerous shit passes.

The media reported lately that the Harper government got into power through election fraud. Having pulled that off once, you think they'd give up on that trick again if it keeps them in power?

What gets me the most is that the media reported the election fraud. With all the government love by the media, I'm surprised at that. Did somebody not get the proper payoff and decided to burn the house down or something?

Re:Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me the most is that the media reported the election fraud. With all the government love by the media, I'm surprised at that. Did somebody not get the proper payoff and decided to burn the house down or something?

The media have to play at being unbiased. In the final analysis, they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Politicians raise obscene amounts of money and spend it ... in the media. It comes full circle. Repeat every couple of years as necessary.

What if I...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wore a mask AND drove?

To even suggest..

[Anonymous Coward]

To even suggest this as a law shows they are unfit to oversee the interests of Canadians. The government forgets their role is to be accountable to the interests of the people, not rule over them.

Re:To even suggest..

[Anonymous Coward]

So Canada isn't a monarchy? I really never understood their following and undying love for thy precious queen and then stating they have a parliament and what not.

Re:To even suggest..

[shutdown -p now]

Queen is not hated largely because she doesn't actually do anything meaningful as far as governing goes, other than photo sessions with other heads of states; all the politics are decided by the parliament. Besides, the Queen resides in UK, and Brits foot the bill, so you can't even pin some kind of lavish expenses on her in her capacity as a Queen of Canada.

On the other hand, it allows Canadians to stick "royal" onto everything from police to post office, which, admit it, sounds cool.

Re:To even suggest..

[Anonymous Coward]

Your context lacked income and was 1 dimensional as a result. Let me add the depth for you.

The government knows damn well their role is to be accountable to the interests of the rich people, not rule over them.

fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. I'll just paint my face.

Re:fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blue, perhaps, on just one side of the face?

They may take our masks, but they can never take our freedom!

No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting AC because I'm at work.)

....it raises the question as to how they will define 'unlawful.'

No it doesn't. It doesn't raise any question at all. The answer is obvious - anyone gathering for anything that Harper disapproves of will be considered unlawful. Period.

The sad thing is I really am not joking...

Re:No Question At All

[icebike]

A riot is generally not something you easily mistake for an orderly protest.
And illegal assembly is defined by law.

The summary substitutes "protest" for the bills actual wording. (Its slash dot after all).

TFA says:

[existing Canadian law] Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence,

Is a peaceful protest and indictable offense in Canada? Does Harper's opinion change the definition of an indictable offence?

Is smashing storefronts, and burning police cars based on the outcome of a hockey game a peaceful protest?

Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot?
Isn't Canada a long way from Syria, both geographically and socially?

Re:No Question At All

[dkleinsc]

A riot is generally not something you easily mistake for an orderly protest.

Imagine this scenario, if you will: A large group of citizens are walking across a bridge holding signs, singing songs, and chanting. When they get to the end of the bridge, an empty bottle comes flying out of the crowd. Police attack the crowd, ostensibly to protect themselves from the bottle. Chaos ensues, many protesters are beaten and arrested, some are trampled while the crowd is trying to flee.

Was that an orderly protest or a riot? Include in your analysis consideration of the fact that the person who threw the bottle may be somebody in the employ of the police force.

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

When it become illegal isn't determined by the event specifically. There is a bunch of permits and requirements that need to be met for the protest to be legal in Canada. Further a single person can often ruin it for the whole group by being unruly or a police officer paid to incite a riot. I bet most protests are illegal without the public realizing it.

Re:No Question At All

[davegravy]

Mod parent up

Re:No Question At All

[DNS-and-BIND]

No, no...entirely the opposite. The vanguard of the people's revolution must be in the thick of such things, otherwise the people might become complacent. When a provocateur attacks the police from the safety of the crowd, the police must retaliate - on otherwise innocent people. This creates many more new recruits for the people's revolution. The police would be fools to put its own provocateurs in such a position. Mao Zedong wrote about doing exactly this sort of thing to build the strength of the revolution, as did Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and other leading lights of 20th century radical leftism. Don't tell me you got through four years of university without a solid grounding in all the great Marxist thinkers!

Re:No Question At All

[mdielmann]

(Posting AC because I'm at work.)

....it raises the question as to how they will define 'unlawful.'

No it doesn't. It doesn't raise any question at all. The answer is obvious - anyone gathering for anything that Harper disapproves of will be considered unlawful. Period.

The sad thing is I really am not joking...

Of course, no instancesof abuse towards protesters was ever made against the majority government just before this one. Only the conservatives would do that, not the liberals. Oh wait...

Re:No Question At All

[Kidbro]

Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot?

Are you seriously implying that there is never a need for anonymity in civilized societies?

Re:No Question At All

[tlhIngan]

No it doesn't. It doesn't raise any question at all. The answer is obvious - anyone gathering for anything that Harper disapproves of will be considered unlawful. Period.

The sad thing is I really am not joking...

Given the way the National Energy Board is doing their consulting, there's a lot more at play. They cancelled a meeting because members of a native band gathered at the airport to protest the Enbridge pipeline "scared" them (they were holding signs).

Given that once pipeline construction starts (they had to put a law in saying they can override all NEB recommendations, and even if the answer is "do not build", you can bet it's going to be built regardless), you can bet there will be lots of protests by the native bands and they will wear masks. On their land, of course. Given Harper's "oil all the way" mentality, we can't let this stop construction, so arrest them all because they're illegally blocking construction!

It's just putting in place all the pieces necessary to ramrod a pipeline through, consultations and recommendations be damned.

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the U.S.A., your very last point is the best: Often the instigators of the worst behavior are working for the government. This bill would be a way to essentially outlaw any disliked protest in the U.S., since the feds or police would just have someone go in an stir up shit in order to get the protest shut down. Hell, you could see it eventually morph into something like the way the senate no longer has actual filibusters but procedures instead: The people file for a protest, the police look it over, mark it with a "will become a riot" stamp, and the protest is stopped before it starts.

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't need anonymity to exercise free speech, except that the reason for free speech is when the government is getting un-civil.

Re:No Question At All

[Kjella]

Was that an orderly protest or a riot? Include in your analysis consideration of the fact that the person who threw the bottle may be somebody in the employ of the police force.

Oh please, the false flag theories are being thrown around so often and carelessly on Slashdot that this is starting to turn into a conspiracy nut site. If you go to a soccer match there'll be 10000 people looking to see the game and 100 hooligans. If 10000 go out for beers and fun on Saturday night, 100 go out to make trouble and pick fights. Get 10000 people for a demonstration and 100 will be there to throw bottles and rocks and general vandalism. Not to mention a lot of these people have enemies, like racists and anti-racists, environmentalists and oil companies, that sort of thing. The police would be rather far down on my list of suspects even if there was a false flag operation.

Re:No Question At All

[Jazari]

How did this get modded "insightful"? Can you name a single protest which has been deemed "unlawful" by this government? Don't you know that in Canada it's judges who would make that decision anyway? Do you think your inflamed rhetoric is conducive to legitimate debate?

Re:No Question At All

[seyyah]

If you don't believe Canadian police would try to provoke violence then watch this: Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest.

Re:No Question At All

[Jazari]

Whether you wear a mask or not would make no difference in the example you use. You could still be arrested for participating in a riot.

Re:No Question At All

[seyyah]

Well, you'll have to settle for reading it there. Video of them here: Police Provocateurs stopped by union leader at anti-SPP protest.

Re:No Question At All

[mk1004]

Typical politician. Avoided answering the question. Called the other person names. Oh, wait, this is /.

Re:No Question At All

[Uberbah]

You responded to his question, but you sure didn't answer it.

Re:No Question At All

[CanHasDIY]

TFA says:

[existing Canadian law] Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence,

Is a peaceful protest and indictable offense in Canada?

Well, if Canadia is anything like Amerika, then "resisting arrest" is an indictable offense, even for lack of actual offense, so... yes.

Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot?

No. That's just silly.

Besides, what if the protest is against government regulation of mask-wearing? In that case, not wearing a mask would be counter to the protester ideal.

Re:No Question At All

[Jazari]

I would have thought that the answer is pretty obvious: A riot will be considered illegal if three things are true:
1- The police (usually provincial -- nothing to do with the Federal Conservatives) consider it a riot, and arrest you;
2- The Crown attorney (usually provincial -- nothing to do with the Federal Conservatives) agrees with the police and presses charges; and
3- The judge or jury agree with the Crown attorney and convict you.

In a free country like Canada, if you're reached this stage, it probably means that you did in fact participate in a riot.

Re:No Question At All

[Uberbah]

Oh please, the false flag theories are being thrown around so often and carelessly on Slashdot that this is starting to turn into a conspiracy nut site.

Nevermind how often they're proven to be accurate, of course. How how many poor Muslims are sent to jail after a informant or undercover officer encouraged them to plan an attack, then provided them with pretend bombs and weapons with which to carry it out.

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you need it or not, you should be able to have it if you want it.

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a new take on the "The 1% are the problem" thing that I've not heard before. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:No Question At All

[shutdown -p now]

Well, if Canadia is anything like Amerika, then "resisting arrest" is an indictable offense, even for lack of actual offense, so... yes.

This kind of legal sophistry is rarer in Canada, because the cops can simply detain you for "breach of the peace" (which is not itself an offence, and such detainment does not constitute an arrest).

Re:No Question At All

[dkleinsc]

In the United States at least, there are recent well documented cases of this exact tactic:
2008 Democratic Party Convention
2004 Republican Party Convention
Older uses of the same tactic are included in the reports of the Church Committee.
But yeah, that's all wild conspiracy theories.

One of the basic rules of political protest: If you're at a peaceful demonstration, and somebody starts suggesting violence, (A) don't listen to him and certainly don't take his advice, (B) identify him as likely police, and (C) make sure protest organizers are alerted to what's going on.

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#Canada, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

On August 20, 2007, during meetings of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in Montebello, three protesters were accused of being police provocateurs by Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. The three masked protesters, one of whom was notably armed with a large rock, were asked to leave by protest organizers. After the three protesters breached the police line, they were brought to the ground, handcuffed, and taken away. The evidence that the arrested people were police provocateurs was circumstantial, including the fact that they were wearing boots identical to those worn by police.[11]

After the protest, the police force initially denied[12] then later admitted that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators; however, they denied that the officers were provoking the crowd and instigating violence. The police released a news release in French where they stated "At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts," "It is not in the police force's policies, nor in its strategies, to act in that manner." "At all times, they responded within their mandate to keep order and security." [13]

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine this scenario, if you will: A large group of citizens are walking across a bridge holding signs, singing songs, and chanting. When they get to the end of the bridge, a tear gas canister flies into the crowd from a group of Police officers. The crowd attacks the Police. Chaos ensues, many protesters are beaten and arrested, some are trampled while the crowd is trying to flee. Will you blame this on the Police? If yes, then you should blame the crowd in your scenario (particularly since whoever shot the canister might be trying to gather sympathy for the cause, fair both ways, yes?).

Re:No Question At All

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to be careful posting as "Anonymous" Coward. That's getting awfully close to wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. Ah wait, it's because you're at work. No problem then.

That Guy Fawkes mask thing is, without doubt the exact thing that the Canadian government are afraid of and getting at. You're supposed either not to protest, or to protest in such a way that your face can be caught on camera so you can conveniently be arrested afterwards. Buy the GF mask thing goes a step further. Due to that silly movie, It unites. If there are enough people protesting something. What are they gonna do, arrest 10000 protesters? Ultimately, it's still the people giving governments their power and privileges.

As for the poster saying "A riot is not an orderly protest", it's not unheard of that the police provoke protesters to turn the protest into a riot. That way, they can start putting people away. Governments and those working for it like to think they're above the law. But it's a mistake to think that way.

Re:No Question At All

[fatphil]

One of the ways that the enfranchised can stand up as a citizen for or against some idea is to vote for a party of their choice in an election.

Do you demand ID numbers and signatures on ballot papers now?

Why should one expression of preference how the country is run forced to be non-anonymous, and another forced to be anonymous?

Re:No Question At All

[fatphil]

Exactly. Is your ID number, or your signature, on your ballot paper? Anonymity when casting votes has been held up as one of the vital tenets of democracy for a very long time.

Re:No Question At All

[jamstar7]

Was that an orderly protest or a riot? Include in your analysis consideration of the fact that the person who threw the bottle may be somebody in the employ of the police force.

Oh please, the false flag theories are being thrown around so often and carelessly on Slashdot that this is starting to turn into a conspiracy nut site.

So those reports of the FBI infiltrating leftist groups in the 60's and encouraging them to run rampant is just an urban myth, eh? Even after the paid informants came forward and admitted it and the Freedom of Information Act filings confirmed it before all got redacted? And believing the Harper Government couldn't possibly consider such tactics as valid is rational non-tinhat thinking?

Re:No Question At All

[jamstar7]

This kind of legal sophistry is rarer in Canada, because the cops can simply detain you for "breach of the peace" (which is not itself an offence, and such detainment does not constitute an arrest).

Kinda like 'enemy combatants' aren't military, civilian, or quasimilitary but something else entirely, $DEITY knows what, and Camp Xray isn't a military prison, holding facility, extreme rendition endpoint, detention center, or tropical resort but something else entirely.

Here in the States, 'breach of the peace' is an indictable offense. Expect the Canadian position on it to change soon.

Re:No Question At All

[tbannist]

A riot is generally not something you easily mistake for an orderly protest.

Really? Fire two cans of tear gas into an orderly protest and I'd bet it looks exactly like a riot.

Re:No Question At All

[Uberbah]

Yes, it's obvious you're still not answering the question:

Imagine this scenario, if you will: A large group of citizens are walking across a bridge holding signs, singing songs, and chanting. When they get to the end of the bridge, an empty bottle comes flying out of the crowd. Police attack the crowd, ostensibly to protect themselves from the bottle. Chaos ensues, many protesters are beaten and arrested, some are trampled while the crowd is trying to flee.

Whether the bottle comes flying from the hands of an agent provocateur or an actual violent troublemaker is kinda beside the point: that police could assault the crowd in order to "defend themselves" from the bottle thrower and, after the ensuing chaos, arrest everyone for rioting.

Even though 9,999 of the 10,000 protesters were acting perfectly peacefully beforehand.

Anti-conservative

[uniquename72]

Nice to see that the U.S. isn't the only country with a "conservative" party that's not at all conservative.

Re:Anti-conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see that the 'no true scotsman fallacy' is alive and well. Conservatives have always been for increased police states and government intervention in your life. That anyone has believed them when they claimed they are for 'small government' is hilarious.

Re:Anti-conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see

No.

No it's not.

Re:Anti-conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

I came to think that Conservative no longer refers to "fiscal conservative" or "personal freedom". What Conservatives really believe in is two things,

  1. police
  2. government is bad, unless it is to expand the powers of the police

They want a police state preferably run for their own benefit. They don't view police as enforcers of order - they view them as police, jury and executioners rolled into one (think Judge Dread)

This is why many so called Conservatives think that TSA groping and xraying the public is a Good Thing and should be encouraged. Of course they would like that it only affects "the other guy".

Re:Anti-conservative

[Zeromous]

It may be a fallacy but your idea of the purported "conservative ideology" is a recent thing. AC posted from some college campus somewhere.

Re:Anti-conservative

[X0563511]

It's not a "no true scotsman fallacy" if the party in question isn't what they say they are at all!

Re:Anti-conservative

[bky1701]

They are real conservatives. "Conservative" means resisting change. It's the political AND dictionary definition. Unfortunately, many so-called conservatives live at least a century in the past, making them seem rather like fascists. Effectively, there is not much difference between the two, and never really has been, nor will there ever be.

Re:Anti-conservative

[sco08y]

Nice to see that the U.S. isn't the only country with a "conservative" party that's not at all conservative.

Yeah, if you listen to conservative talk radio or read blogs, you certainly won't get any different argument from self identified conservatives, who are convinced the GOP is teeming with moderates.

The reality is that, like liberalism, conservatism is a big tent ideology and the political parties are both even bigger tents. Most conservatives have an "issues"-based understanding of the ideology, that is, they are quite aware of a set of current day issues that they follow in the news, but their grasp of the philosophy and roots of conservatism is pretty thin. And many liberal challenges to conservative philosophy have actually become part of the conventional wisdom, for instance, there never was any notion of "capitalism" until Marx invented it, and now many conservatives proudly call themselves capitalists. You get a tremendous number of people who aren't remotely conservative in their worldview, but because of the flux of politics, they happen to line up with conservatives on a number of issues and thus self-identify as conservative.

The parties themselves really do have very different agendas and those agendas really are based on constant contact with constituents, but they are also have a much longer view of politics than their constituents. Most conservatives are, politically, idiots. (Most liberals are, too, of course.) People really do believe that if they just find a candidate who is The True Conservative, all the liberals and moderates will say, "I was wrong all along, now that conservative principles have been explained to me, I realize that they are the epitome of common sense and I will abandon my former worldview." The first hurdle in understanding politics is grasping that the other guy really does believe what he's saying; it's very hard to fully grok. If you think I'm wrong, keep trying to grok this. But the result is that when politicians don't go after the other guy hammer and tongs, they assume that their guy refuses to lecture liberals on True Conservatism because he's really a moderate.

The other big factor is that people think the parties are perpetually conspiring to elect moderates. In a primary, the parties will do all the polling and research, and they will support candidates who are likely to win. They're wrong, occasionally, but you will get new candidates who come in thinking that the party has anointed a "RINO", whereas they're True Conservatives and are thus guaranteed to win. When, as often happens, they fail miserably and it seems like the party was one step ahead the whole time, they assume that there was a conspiracy, when really the party just knows what the hell they're doing. And, of course, the smaller candidates get a lot of mileage by claiming a conspiracy even if they know it's total bullshit. All through the Republican primary, people were complaining that the "establishment" was "shoving Romney down our throats" (I saw this precise phrase in a mailer) when there hasn't been any kind of establishment in 40 years, and we had 13 debates where all the candidates were carefully considered.

Those are the big reasons why Joe or Jane Conservative will consistently say the Republicans are exactly like the Democrats, even while the two parties are perpetually at loggerheads, and, even when the Tea Party movement has completely changed the direction of the GOP, virtually over night. I suspect a lefty who follows politics would give you pretty much the same story.

Re:Anti-conservative

[dryeo]

Conservative has always meant keeping past values, namely large government to intervene in your (and others) life which means a large police state. The only thing that has changed in my 50 years is what they say they stand for but their actions have been pretty consistent.
This government claims to be for fiscal responsibility while squandering the surplus to put us back into debt, cutting the parts of government that were there to protect citizens and replacing it with parts of government to remove our rights, throw us in jail and buy lots of (useless in Canada) military equipment without even a bidding process and lie about the cost.
A good example of Conservative is our Public Safety Minister, who wants to spy on everyone. He freaked when it was publicized (it was public record due to his divorce) how he had an 8 year affair with the babysitter until she was old enough to marry him. Then he got a divorce.
(note I'm not sure of the babysitters age actually besides the fact she was a lot younger then him and for 8 years he lied to his wife. Good old family values).

Sending the wrong message.

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well come armed. You'll get less time for killing a police officer.

Sorry you guys up there in Canuk Land are so screwed. Maybe you'll learn your lesson about electing conservatives. Of course, you did just watch what happened down here...

Re:Sending the wrong message.

[realityimpaired]

and more people didn't bother to vote at all, because they didn't think it would change anything, than actually voted for the cons.

Don't you love a first-past-the-pole multi-party system? ugh.

Re:Sending the wrong message.

[jamstar7]

We did not elect them, there was elections fraud.

I see we taught you well.

Sorry about that.

Re:Sending the wrong message.

[Anonymous Coward]

You new or something? Not read the headlines? The cons are a mess. It's not about defeat, it's about Canada becoming America.

Re:Sending the wrong message.

[bky1701]

You mean like the conspiracy to make people think Obama is an actual citizen of the US? Oh, wait, no; that was just conservative bullshit made up to complain about losing the election. Right. Care to tell me how the "Ds in America" are horrible, again?

They are not stupid..

[pablo_max]

The people in power did not rise to power because they are stupid or have no understanding of how humans behave. They came to power because they are clever, ruthless and know how humans behave in most situations.
When you see those in powers start making harsher and harsher laws which protect themselves against the population they are ruling, chances are they already see that the people are starting to become angry and soon will start demand changes and action. Of course, no changes will be forthcoming and as such the people will take to the street.
It is critical for the ruling class to lay the groundwork now to deal with the initial rablerousers so as to strike fear into the common man, thus preventing him from also taking action.
It is not only the Arab countries governments who are oppressing and controlling their populations. They were just the first to awaken and take action.

Re:They are not stupid..

[Anonymous Coward]

The people in power did not rise to power because they are stupid or have no understanding of how humans behave. They came to power because they are clever, ruthless and know how humans behave in most situations.

No. They came to power because they engaged in a widespread campaign to misdirect voters who were planning on voting against them. They literally stole the election. Bare minimum, they should not have the majority they enjoy (and abuse) today which, in Canadian politics, means they could have the most seats but actually be the official opposition (assuming the other parties could agree to stand united against them, which they almost did until Harper prorogued government (one of the several times he did it to dodge events that were going to bring about the downfall of his government)).

Then again, maybe you're right if you meant "ruthless" in the sense of "lacking any and all morals and willing to lie, cheat, and steal to win"...

Re:They are not stupid..

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

"They were just the first to awaken and take action" not sure if your saying the people in the street or the Governments in place are taking action.

Unfortunately marketing works. What most of these bozo's understand in how to sell (focus groups, psychological profiling of populations... ala Karl Rove) and know how to say what will sell and keep hidden what their true intentions are and what their agenda's are until they are elected. Well there can be effective reactions to that as we are seeing in the States in Wisconsin where the governor is about to be recalled by the electorate after his true face was revealed.

Go Walker! (somewhere else than Wisconsin)

Re:They are not stupid..

[MightyMartian]

It didn't work that well. It's not like Harper has a commanding majority, the Tories squeaked past, and now that it looks like the Liberals are dead men walking and centrist and left-leaning voters have decided to throw their weight behind the NDP, the Tories are going to have a lot tougher time. It's still early days, but at some point Harper is going to have to put the lid back on the social conservatives and the extreme law and order types. He's letting them loose right now because it's still early days, but after he crosses the halfway mark, you're going to see these guys thrown back in their cage, because it's precisely these kinds of loudmouthed hard right types that could lose the majority for him, and he certainly didn't put all this work into reuniting the right just to have some pro-life blowhards delivering votes into the NDP's hands.

Re:They are not stupid..

[Anonymous Coward]

>It is not only the Arab countries governments who are oppressing and controlling their populations. They were just the first to awaken and take action.

The Arab people who are revolting now are the same people who revolted 40-60 years ago to get those dictators there in the first place to replace their monarchies. They're not exactly an example you want to follow.

Not to mention their inability to actually change the government if it's willing to crack down hard enough (i.e. Syria, Iran, et al). In some of the countries, the monarchy is so strong, they put down even a hint of revolt from people (e.g. Jordan and Black September).

We don't need violent revolts to affect change in our government. The very fact that we can openly talk about our dissatisfaction with the way the government is going is something that itself is a sign of a not yet ruined civilization.

Re:They are not stupid..

[dryeo]

Harper is smart, even after getting the majority, he is smart enough to implement his agenda slow enough and keep the marketing up, to not get really rejected by the Canadian population.
This is the problem with representative democracy, the best lying marketer wins.

Re:They are not stupid..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not only the Arab countries governments who are oppressing and controlling their populations. They were just the first to awaken and take action. ...and I'm sure the uprisings in the Arab countries had nothing to do with how oppressive those governments were or anything right? Government == Government == Government == They're-all-bastards.

This 10-yr jail sentence is obvious nonsense and will not become a law. The intent however is to prevent basic anarchists from "participating in protests" where all they do is run around destroying while wearing a mask and therefor being prevented from prosecution unless they are literally caught in the act--and that requires a mobilized and engaged police in the midst of a protest which is clearly NOT a good idea. Better to let the protest occur, then sort out what they want and who did what.

Re:They are not stupid..

[jamstar7]

Harper is smart,

Harper's handlers are smart. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for public office in modern politics. In fact, it can backfire on you. Given the choice between a photogenic meat puppet and somebody that knows what's going on, a party tends to pick the meat puppet every time. They're easier to control, and having them on point distracts the masses and lets the government get on about it.

This is the problem with representative democracy, the best lying marketer wins.

That's the problem with popularity contests. Bigger problem is, the other systems seem to be even worse. Democracies demand an informed electorate in order to work halfways decently. With modern campaign methods bordering on downright black propaganda, and with educational values slipping in the US at least, it's just this side of impossible to have an informed electorate.

A Minor Correction

[hyades1]

It wasn't actually Harper's pack of neocon thugs who arrested people "using a law that didn't exist". It was the Liberals under Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty who did that. Don't worry, though, there were lots and lots of police at all levels laying beatings on people. There were the RCMP (federal) the Ontario Provincial Police (provincial) and the Toronto Police (city), all mixing together for a lovely little club fest. From the way the cops behaved, you'd have thought the protesters were wearing baby seal costumes.

Re:A Minor Correction

[mdielmann]

An excellent baby seal joke and not one funny mod. How sad...

Re:A Minor Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

And who decided to hold the G20 in the busiest part of the busiest and most densely populated city in the country, turning it into a police state in the first place?

Re:A Minor Correction

[Zeromous]

Someone wanting a test-run

Re:A Minor Correction

[hyades1]

I feel your pain...I was proud of that one.

what about gas masks?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this interact with face coverings that are worn for reasons other than preserving anonymity? Gas masks to protect you from tear gas? Surgical masks to protect people around you from your flu? Burkas? Big shaggy beards?

Also, I assume that riot cops who cover or remove their name badges so they can beat people up with impunity will also get ten years if caught? Or is it only people pro-democracy types who aren't allowed to protect their identities?

from the bad-news-for-student-protesters dept

[Roujo]

I think this move probably has something to do with the current situation here in Québec, where student protests have led to the formation of less-than-pacific groups of masked protesters roaming the protests and causing havoc in Montréal. I can see the motive behind such legislation - make suspect identification easier if they bolt after throwing a brick through a storefront - but wow, that's a pretty strong penalty for what is a essential victimless crime, if it can even be called a crime in the first place.

Now, will police officers ask for masks to be taken off? I don't think there are enough officers to actually enforce this with any efficiency, nor will it prevent people from putting a mask on just before committing an illegal act - and then running away. Sure sounds like more of a "let's reassure the general public that we're in control here" move than a policy that'll actually have a positive effect, IMO.

This comment is illegal in Canada

[SockPuppetOfTheWeek]

n/t

Police

[Githaron]

Does this mean the police will have to arrest themselves? The are obviously wearing gas masks if they are going to pop gas grenades.

No right to anonymity when committing a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's about time there was a response to this Black Bloc crap. No one should have the right to anonymity preserved in the comission of a crime.

The purpose of protest is to be noticed. Too many people are using legetimate protest as a cover for hooliganism, and it's a shame.

While 10 years is a lot, it's the maximum. I'd be surprised if it wasn't just double the maximum for doing the same thing without a mask, which seems perfectly fair to me. I think the majority of cases will involve people in masks being arrested, identified and released without charge. Hopefully it will reverse the trend of anonymous violence embedded in legitimate protest.

Re:No right to anonymity when committing a crime

[interkin3tic]

This is a point that is going to be lost in the debate. The ability to wear masks doesn't really help legitimate protesting (at least not in places where you're not going to get lynched for standing up for your rights). With protests here, the ones wearing the masks are generally stupid entitled kids who just want an excuse to smash stuff and steal things, and law enforcement doing cointelpro, posing as protestors, starting violence, so that the protests can be put down with a vengeance.

That being said, if the government really wanted to stop that, they'd stop giving people a reason to protest, and would prevent their police from doing scummy things like that.

Re:No right to anonymity when committing a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I'd rather wear a mask when peacefully protesting. I don't want to be profiled and harassed.

Re:No right to anonymity when committing a crime

[interkin3tic]

I understand, but the only way to solve police-state behavior like that is to expose it as much as possible. If the government forces you to protest with a mask or not at all, they'll be able to shut down protests more easily with the cointelpro tactics. If you get profiled and harassed, make a stink about it. That's the only way they'll stop.

I'm not judging though. Protesting injustices with a mask on is still better than not protesting injustices at all.

Re:No right to anonymity when committing a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Protesting isn't a crime.

If a protestor (wearing a mask or not) actually does something illegal, then go ahead, arrest them for that illegal activity - at the time it's happening.

This law is all about having the ability to use videos (like youtube posted cellphone vids) to arrest people without having to strain the cops by actually making them go out and see what's going on.

Don't pass a fucking stupid law just so you can try and arrest people later using youtube videos as evidence, get the cops off their asses, have them stand on the side lines ready to arrest someone who actually does something illegal, don't have them wade in and beating the crap out of innocent, doing nothing but standing and talking, bystanders. If I see a cop start beating someone for no reason, I'm sure as hell going to arrest that cop myself - citizens arrest - while another person stands on recording the unwarranted beating and arrest.

More stupid laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the Tories are having a blast using the student strike in Montreal as an excuse to push this law. It's also been said that this is a more severe sentance than raping someone. You could get 10 years in jail for wearing a mask, even if you are totally peaceful, but the scum who raped a woman would spend less time in jail.

I didn't understand why masks were allowed during demonstration until I read a little more about it. You can mask yourself during a protest for the same reason that you have the right to remain anonymous when you vote. I've heard one report recently of a person being attacked because he was wearing the red square this week. I don't know if this is true, but if you follow the current #ggi trend on Twitter, you can see how things can become very personnal. The right to remain anonymous is important and the police already have the right to arrest you once you commit an infraction, what they are trying to get out of this is a way to arrest people on the possibility that they could create a crime simply because they look a certain way. I look forward to being arrested simply because I wear black all the time and people in black tend to smash windows right?

Anyway, the mayor of Montreal is also looking into adding a bylaw to make it illegal to wear a mask during protests. Not everyone agrees, but at least he isn't proposing to jail offenders for 10 years.

Also, this is how some people are protesting these crazy potential laws: https://p.twimg.com/AsfxE-MCAAIYog8.jpg . Expect mascots to do 10 years in jail soon! :p

Re:More stupid laws.

[MightyMartian]

Let's not put to sacred a mantle on masked protesters. History shows that, by and large, it's the anarchists who put the masks on. The reason you put a mask on isn't to make a point, it's to evade later arrest after you lit a Starbucks on fire.

Re:More stupid laws.

[X0563511]

Yet another case of "this is why we can't have nice things."

Re:More stupid laws.

[bky1701]

Great. If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide. No one ever suggested something that ingenious before!

Pick up a history book, maybe. One about the 1930-1950 time period, ideally.

Re:More stupid laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have proof that would satisfy you in a scientific argument that says people who put on masks are 95% certified anarchists? Or do you have a lower threshold of probability for denying people rights?

Re:More stupid laws.

[schmiddy]

Yeah, just like these destructive no-good anarchists destroying perfectly good Starbucks tea for the hell of it:

While disguising their individual faces was imperative, because of the illegality of their protest, dressing as Mohawk warriors was a very specific and symbolic choice.

Sure, let's make masks illegal... can't have people getting away with anything which might possibly be illegal without direct and immediate repercussions.

Unintended Consequences

[ThomasLB]

One of the problems with the "three strikes" laws is that a person already facing life without parole has little to lose by killing the policeman they send to arrest him.

This veers into the same territory. A person already facing ten years has little to lose by setting a fire or two or lobbing a rock through a window, and has a strong incentive to resist arrest.

Reducing Riot Police Responsibility

[davegravy]

To me, this law provides even more incentive for riot police to aggravate peaceful protesters towards violence. They have a number of ways of doing this, including infiltrating protest groups and inciting violence from within.

10 years, or any kind of jail or financial penalty seems excessive for being in the wrong place at the wrong time while wearing a mask (or religious face covering). The G20 in Toronto was entirely peaceful until a few rogue protesters ruined the party. Peaceful protesters were arrested en-mass but almost all were released without charges (since there were none that would stick). I hate to think how many would be spending 10 years in jail consuming my tax dollars if this law had been in place.

So if you're a peaceful protester in a protest which turns violent, you have at most 2 options:

1) forfeit your anonymity (take off your mask)
2) leave the protest (except that, as happened in the G20, many people were boxed by riot cops and unable to leave).

Re:Reducing Riot Police Responsibility

[denis-The-menace]

And so we have yet another police state in the making.

It seems conservatives (PC in Canada and Republicans in USA) are always happy to create suffering with bad laws provided it helps the wealthy and connected.

Re:Reducing Riot Police Responsibility

[AdrianKemp]

Your comment appears to be that of someone who has taken part in such things, forgive me if I'm wrong about that but it seems so.

I have a completely honest and innocent question, then, to ask of you:

Why would you want to wear a mask?

I cannot imagine a situation where I believe strongly enough to protest something (which I have exactly once in the past) and yet would wish to be anonymous in doing so. To me that's effectively saying "I believe so strongly in this I don't want my identity anywhere near it"

So I'm legitimately curious as to why anyone would want to wear a mask (not that I support making it illegal in any way shape or form)

Re:Reducing Riot Police Responsibility

[davegravy]

I've never attended a protest in my life. I have however studied a number high-profile protests and heard first-hand accounts of how they unfolded.

With respect to your question about why I'd want to wear a mask to a protest, I'd refer you to my other post:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2844423&cid=39970717

It's the same question as "Why do you need anonymity or privacy if you're not doing anything wrong? If you have nothing to hide, why do you want these rights?"

I believe that we should consider potential distant future consequences of our laws before accepting them. Our constitution was drafted with the intention of providing protections for us against highly corrupt and power-hungry people. Just because these people don't seem to exist among us today, it doesn't mean we should throw away these rights, for who knows what tomorrow will bring, and what we will need to do to get these rights back.

It's the age old argument about privacy, security, and freedom.

Re:Reducing Riot Police Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

If, in fact, you believe that your anonymity is more important than any given cause you object to, then the matter seems fairly cut and dried... don't bother to protest. If you don't learn how to pick your battles and only fight the important ones, all you will end up doing is being everybody's enemy.

Jail the MPs!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

An unlawful assembly is a gathering that causes fear.

If that is true, it logically follows that the parliament assembly discussing this bill should be jailed en masse.

Somebody in parliament owns stock in EBbra

[robot256]

Sounds like they just found a killer app in the Canadian market for the bra that doubles as a gas mask.

No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Blasphemy]

I think it's about time there was a response to this Black Bloc crap. No one should have the right to anonymity preserved in the comission of a crime.

The purpose of protest is to be noticed. Too many people are using legetimate protest as a cover for hooliganism, and it's a shame.

While 10 years is a lot, it's the maximum. I'd be surprised if it wasn't just double the maximum for doing the same thing without a mask, which seems perfectly fair to me. I think the majority of cases will involve people in masks being arrested, identified and released without charge. Hopefully it will reverse the trend of anonymous violence embedded in legitimate protest.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

FTA...

Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence, which one expert told the committee made Richards's bill unnecessary. It just seems a little redundant, if your in a riot, committing crimes, and wearing a mask your already in a world of shit, why not just amend the already existing law?

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Roujo]

Too many people are using legetimate protest as a cover for hooliganism, and it's a shame.

Yup, I agree. There's civil disobedience, and then there's "let's do illegal stuff and say it's activism". Breaking a storefront window tends to be the latter, IMO. I do hope that it'll go as you say, and that the 10-year penalty will only be awarded to people who did a lot worse than simply having a mask on.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's about time there was a response to this Black Bloc crap.

This. If all of the protesters had been peaceful, NO ONE would have considered this law. I know that OWS likes to say that their protesters are peaceful, and says the Black Bloc folks weren't with them. For an average person that's not actively doing research on the groups, the difference between one group that is very angry at the banks and wall street and another group that is violently anti-capitalist is pretty difficult to see, especially if they both seem to show up to all of the same events. We're all judged by the company we keep, even if it sometimes seems unfair.

Gotta agree that the penalty is a little over the top. Wear a mask, get taken in, pay a fine or help clean up after the protest while wearing an orange jumpsuit.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, you have no right to anonimity when commiting a crime, but you do have a right to anonimity when peacefully protesting. Police can already arrest people committing a crime. This law exist with the sole purpose of arresting people before they can commit a crime, regardless if it's their intention or not. It's exactly the same as profiling and arresting people on how they look. What's next, arresting people dressed in black?

There are legitimate reasons to mask your face in a protest, but like any tool, it can be used for good or for bad. Once you ban a tool because a minority are using it do to bad things, you lose the benefit of that tool. Let's ban torrents? Same thing. The issue is that most people don't understand the importance of being able to make a political stance and remainin anonymous. If people all wear armbands with the logo of the party they were going to vote in the next election, I'm willing to bet that you would have a few people fighting and insulting each others, just like you see some of the red and the green at war in Quebec.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[davegravy]

I'd rather have a few ruffians dressed in black getting away with smashing a few windows and police cars than lose an important right. It's NOT a worth-while trade-off.

The reason anonymous protest needs to be protected is the same reason anonymous voting needs to be protected. Imagine living in Nazi Germany knowing that the government had a record of you voting or protesting against the Nazi government. And don't tell me society will never again make the mistake of electing a Nazi-like government.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[static416]

I think it's about time there was a response to this Black Bloc crap.

Two responses:
#1 - It's not like these people utterly destroyed downtown Toronto. There were some cop cars burnt and some windows broken, but that doesn't excuse putting 1100 people into makeshift concentration camps for days. And potentially putting someone in jail for 10 years for wearing a mask while performing vandalism is beyond excessive.

This isn't happening because people wearing masks are genuinely dangerous. This is happening because those in power and those that vote for them, don't like having their authority questioned.

#2 - My buddy was physically at the site of the protest when the cop cars were set on fire, and I was a few blocks over. It's not like the police were overrun, they voluntarily withdrew despite outnumbering the protestors significantly. Following that they left those cop cars out there for hours and hours before anything happened to them. My buddy lives next door, and he called the cops and warned them that there were people milling around the cars and getting bolder. He called 3 times over the period of an hour, and every time they said they had other matters to attend to.

In our opinion the police deliberately left the cop cars exposed in an attempt to incite precisely the response they got. That way they could justify the massive crackdown that came immediately after.

That doesn't excuse burning cop cars or breaking windows. But proper police action could have stopped much of that. 10 year sentences, fake laws, and 1100 people in holding cells wasn't needed.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Mashiki]

Sadly I don't think the author understand that 351 of the CC is for B&E's aka entering a dwelling house(home), vehicle, etc, etc, etc. 351 does NOT cover wearing a disguise while committing a I/O. It only covers it in s.351.

351 in the full text:

351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,

                (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

                (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
        Marginal note:Disguise with intent

        (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

What this law would deal with is the same as what Quebec passed about 10 years ago to deal with black-block and anarchists, and other shit rats who like to hide their faces and smash property, businesses and all the rest. Protest all you want. But if you riot, your ass is going to be nailed for that and trying to hide. It would be so much easier if they simply started using the riot act again.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[jklovanc]

And don't tell me society will never again make the mistake of electing a Nazi-like government.

There has never been a Nazi-like government in Canada where this law would be in effect. I also thing that in the foreseeable future there never will be a Nazi-like government in Canada so you postulation is invalid.

Here is a little history. The main reason a Nazi government came into power in Germany was the Treaty of Versailles signed at the end or WW!. Even at that time there were people saying that the treaty was too harsh on Germany and would have consequences in the future. It included loss of land, harsh reparations, outlawing of a German air-force, curtailment of the German fleet, etc. In the years between the wars the Nazi party effectively used these issues to portray Germany as being under the thumb of Europe and blamed in all on a scapegoat; the Jews. They convinced Germans that the only way out was to go to war again. This is not a scenario that would be effective in Canada and therefore I believe a Nazi like government would never be voted into office in Canada.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason anonymous protest needs to be protected is the same reason anonymous voting needs to be protected. Imagine living in Nazi Germany knowing that the government had a record of you voting or protesting against the Nazi government.

That's nice but we aren't in Nazi germany, and we should vote laws according to Canada and not Nazi germany. Right now the thugs dressed in black are a huge issue. I'm not saying 10 years makes sense (it doesn't), but the fuckerlords are making it very difficult for the actual protesters to protest because they keep kicking the shit out of anything and turning the most legit and peaceful protests into police beating fests. Those idiots are impossible to identify because they're all wearing masks. They serve absolutely no good to society.

I don't have a solution either, so I'll leave you with a question instead. How do you allow peaceful student protesters to do it while:

a. The students retain anonymity,
b. The police are able to identify and arrest the retards breaking down store fronts,
c. The police are not able to abuse that right to arrest anyone doing anything.

This bill probably stems from ideas thrown around by Montreal's mayor who suggested the same thing at a municipal level since his town is getting run over by Black Bloc right now.

To be honest I'd rather have a dumbed down version of this bill and lose very few rights than have a lot of protests be turned illegal due to a small cluster of assholes, losing even more freedom.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Totally, wholeheartedly agree. Amazing how the /. idiots run to post in this type of thread with their propaganda nonsense. If you want to get a point across, lobby peacefully for it through the proper channels. if you wanna be an anarchist and a bad ass, I hope they beat the shit out of you and leave you for dead in a gutter. Seriously. Or just kill you and set your worthless corpse on fire in an Occupy camp as a "warning" to others. Flame away - I got karma to burn. I am tired of this whole neo-con revolution thing. Act like grown ups or be subdued, quickly and forcefully, so others get the message and leave those of us who are living decent lives alone.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you give power, you lose that power. It doesn't matter that Canada has never elected the Nazi, all you need is one bad government to screw you over. The current government has been caught calling non-conservative voters to confuse them during election day. How did they know who was going to vote for them or not? If people remain anonymous, you can't track who's going to vote against you and you can't mislead them come election day. Anonimity is extremely important because you can't have faith that people will not exploit a system for their own gain. But right now, we're stuck with a government that would like nothing more than you to believe that you don't need to be anonymous and you don't need any privacy, and we need to fight to preserve those rights.

You know, as a Canadian, I understand why some American consider that it's extremely important to have to right to arm yourself, because they see a weapon as a tool to protect their freedom should the government go to far. Anonimity is a tool just the same.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Blasphemy]

A lot of people don't understand that, when you attack the police, you are not making a statement against authority, you are attacking the community served by the police.

I must distinguish that I am not talking about acting against the unjust actions of a police officer, but the unprovoked attacks against people that we, as a community, entrust with preserving the public order. There are many just arguments that individual police officers committed offences during the protests (and some of been deservedly repremanded), but no one car argue that a police vehicle sitting in the street did them wrong.

Those police vehicles were destroyed in a wanton rampage and no matter how long they were left there, there can be no justification for torching them.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Barbara, not Barbie]

If you want to get a point across, lobby peacefully for it through the proper channels.

And when proper channels don't work because the government in question (in the case of the student protests in Quebec) has lost all legitimacy through its' exposed ties to organized crime?

After all, how credible is Quebec's Education Minister when she has to publicly admit that this story about how she takes campaign contributions from the mafia is true? And that the RCMP wanted to protect mobsters from a government inquiry that the Quebec government first refused to hold, then tried to water down? Quebec is the most corrupt place in North America.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[MightyMartian]

Germany had pretty much fully recovered by the late 1920s. It wasn't the harsh repayments of Versailles that lead to the rise of the Nazis, it was the harsh economic conditions of the early 1930s.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Blasphemy]

Nothing beefs up an argument better than bringing the Nazis into it.

While you may feel that broken windows and other acts of vandalism and the fear they instill are not worth pursuing, you would probably feel differently if it was your window that was broken or your family that was scared for their safety.

Some have called these crimes "victimless", but they are not. We are all victims of these useless crimes. We all pay the cost of the cleanup - either through higher costs passed along by the businesses affected or higher insurance rates to cover the losses.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[bky1701]

"There has never been a Nazi-like government in Canada where this law would be in effect. I also thing that in the foreseeable future there never will be a Nazi-like government in Canada so you postulation is invalid."

So it's ok to violate your human rights, because no one is going to use those violations to further abuse your human rights? Pull your head out of your ass.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

It is worth noting that recently a deliberate vehicular homocide was rewarded with 5.5 years in prison. This guy hit a kid, turned around and ran him over again. So instead of wearing masks at a protest it might be better to come prepared for something a bit more vigorous.

The G20 overkill was a clear message that the government is prepared to respond with force to anyone who objects or wants to restore democracy. The withdrawal of the huge police force when the 'black bloc' folks came out was very curious -- very curious indeed. Guess they didn't want to interfere with their own...

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[sedmonds]

Fun fact, s.351(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada already makes it an offence to wear a mask while committing an indictable offense.

The government wants it to be an offence to wear a mask while disagreeing with those in power.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[jklovanc]

It looks like you need a little more knowledge of history . Hitler and the Nazi party began their rise to power in the early '20s when the treaty was still fresh in the minds of most Germans.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Caerdwyn]

There has never been a Nazi-like government in Canada where this law would be in effect

Tell that to an Anglophone in Quebec, or a member of the Iroquois or Cree, or the family of anyone who lost members in the wake of the Grand Civilization Act and the Indian Act of 1874, or forcible sterilizations in the early 1930's.

Canadian history is just as brutal to its native population as American, and nearly as brutal as The Country Led By The Man In The Tiny Moustache. Canadians don't get to pretend they're better behaved - they're not, not ever have been.

Not that the "First Nations" are any better - they were just as brutal to each other. Goes with being human. There's no such thing as a saint.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[jklovanc]

Please show me where there is a right in Canadian law to protest with a mask on? Show me where there is a right for thugs and vandals to hide behind the veil of protest to commit their crimes? As Gandhi has shown, effective protest does not need to include violence and vandalism.

To me, and many law abiding people, the unrest and vandalism actually detracts from the issue being protested. I, and probably many others, will not support thugs and vandals not matter what their cause is. I will not be intimidated into agreeing with a movement. To me a peaceful demonstration is much more effective in gaining my support.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[MightyMartian]

Hitler only came to power because that fool von Papen thought he could control Hitler and in no small part because Bismarck was by that point almost completely senile. It's all documented, Hitler gained power by appearing to be a compliant candidate for Chancellor.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[jklovanc]

Sorry but equating the forcible sterilization of fewer than a thousand First Nations members to the Nazis who hause the death of millions of people and the near destruction of an entire continent is not valid.Should forcible sterilization been done? No, but it does not compare with WW2.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[jklovanc]

First, I think you mean Hindenberg and not Bismarck. Your supossition completely ignores the fact that the Nazi part had been gaining seats in most election and in the 1932 election the Nazis held the largest minority. It is true that Pepin's incompetence didn't help the situation but it is difficult to say that the outcome would have been different. The information I have been giving is to indicate why so many common Germans voted for the Nazi party.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have a few ruffians dressed in black getting away with smashing a few windows and police cars than lose an important right. It's NOT a worth-while trade-off.

The right to peaceful protest is an important right. The ruffians are endangering that right, by turning up at so many protests looking for a fight with the police. Nobody pays attention to the protest itself when that happens, only to the hooliganism. I'm all in favour of stripping these brigands of their anonymity; then perhaps the right to peaceful protest will be protected from them.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 351.2 as you quoted it makes no reference at all to Section 351.1. So, at least as I read it, 351.2 covers not just break and enter, but as it says “ Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence”.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

We don’t have a law which says we get to protest with a mask on because by default anything that is not illegal is legal, and there is no law which makes it illegal to wear a mask whether you are protesting or not.

We already have a law that says it is illegal to wear a mask while doing something that is otherwise illegal, but protesting, just protesting in and of itself, is not illegal.

Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Those police vehicles were destroyed in a wanton rampage and no matter how long they were left there, there can be no justification for torching them.

Was this reply needed for comment ending with:
 

That doesn't excuse burning cop cars or breaking windows. But proper police action could have stopped much of that. 10 year sentences, fake laws, and 1100 people in holding cells wasn't needed.

?

So what's the lesson here?

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Conservatives are evil. Don't be one.

http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/05/greg-abbott-wins-appeal-tx-ban-on.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110614035520AApWGtA

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-13/news/31054067_1_professors-obscenity-first-bill

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/43388331#43388331

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michelle-bachmann-signs-social-conservative-pro-marriage-pledge-that-also-bans-porn/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/05/07/conservatives-back-ban-on-begging/

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/11/wyomings_self-described_conser.html

http://stfuconservatives.net/post/19427221927

my first thought: they're going to arrest police?

[poetmatt]

Police "participate" in riots via trying to shut them down, and commonly wear masks. So are the police going to be arrested?

hello law of unintended consequences.

haha, what?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

The 10-year penalty is more than double the penalty awarded to a person who murdered someone in a fit of 'road-rage' recently

Because wearing a mask is twice as bad as murdering someone.
Lets hope no one is caught wearing a mask while they commit a murder.

Re:haha, what?

[wiedzmin]

Lets hope no one is caught wearing a mask while they commit a murder.

As long as it's not done as a sign of protest, you will still get 5 years.

Re:haha, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now when police offiers go to arrest someone wearing a mask, it would be better for the mask wearer to get mad and kill the officer.

Slashdots' human validation system suggestings beheading

Not Surprised

[Dakiraun]

I do believe in a decade or so we'll be able to look up the word "Retarded" in the dictionary and see "Harper" listed as one of the synonyms.

This isn't the first time he and his government have done such a thing - last year it was the new crime bill, which awards more jail time for pot growers/dealers (a harmless drug, at that) than to a paedophile or rapist. Seriously:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1126546--harsher-sentences-for-pot-growers-than-for-pedophiles-caught-pm-s-eye-documents

Oh... and despite tossing out more and longer prison sentences, he's also shutting down prisons. Logic is not one of his strong points.

Not really surprising

[static416]

Other fun things this government has instituted:
- Mandatory minimum sentences. Despite all the scientific evidence showing it doesn't work, and the original creators of similar US policies testifying that it's a mistake.
- Actually PLANNING to dramatically increase prison populations through increasingly draconian crime policies, despite all evidence showing that crime is decreasing.
- Requiring the approval of the PMO before any government-funded science is discussed publicly by the scientists that performed it. You know, just like the USSR.
- Making the long form census voluntary, thereby making a key source of government data largely unreliable.
- Destroying the long gun registry against the protests of all levels of law enforcement. Admittedly it went far over-budget in it's creation, but once it exists, why spend further money getting rid of it?
- Introducing a bill to publicly debate the possibility of re-criminalizing abortion.
- Attempted to pass legislation requiring ISPs to provide facilities for warrantless monitoring of all internet communication. Fortunately the outcry was a little too great, even for them.
- Continuing to move forward with a plan to buy F-35's, a plane we don't need to fight an enemy we don't have, and lying to the public about the cost. A cost which is continually increasing to the point that even the US is rethinking their procurement strategy for this aircraft.

Re:Not really surprising

[bussdriver]

Well, I blame the Queen for the continued wrath of Harper.

What amazes me is how many people shut off their brains over "unlawful" and they just assume anybody they agree with is going to be lawful. As if the government or some officials do not mislabel or make up laws in order to use abuse their powers... That last summit comes to mind where they falsely arrested people.

In the USA, you have to apply for a permit to protest, be approved and PAY money to have a lawful peaceful assembly. Those morons do not mind and probably will not stop the US government when they figure out they can make Americans pay for permits for free speech and in a free speech designated zone... I bet they don't even know their right to speech is right next to their right to peaceful assembly in their constitution. Also, peaceful assembly has no time limit just as speech has no "zone" limit.

Alternatives?

[wiedzmin]

Is make-up considered a mask? Can I wear a fake mustache and contacts? Huge sunglasses? What about motorcycle helmets? If I ride my motorcycle there - it's an enforced safety measure, right?

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you should ride your motorcycle to your job and not to some fucking protest, hippie.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don’t know about the proposed law, but Section 351(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada already makes it a crime to wear a mask or disguise while engaged in a criminal activity.

Summary Wrong Again

[neonv]

According to the article,

a proposed law that would make it a crime for people rioting or at an unlawful protest to conceal their identities

The important difference is that it is legal to wear a mask while protesting, but illegal to riot with a mask. That's an important distinction. Also note that it's already illegal in Canada to wear a disguise while committing a crime (Section 351), so this is a clarification of the criminal code, not a change.

The controversy is in whether police will misuse this to arrest legal protesters and release them later.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[davegravy]

The important difference is that it is legal to wear a mask while protesting, but illegal to riot with a mask. That's an important distinction.

When it's up to the cops' discretion whether you are rioting or protesting, not really. That's giving them way too much power.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[neonv]

It's always been to up cops to determine the borderline between rioting and protesting. And it should be. If a riot occurs, I sure as hell don't want to wait for a judge to reply to an arrest request before they do something. And we can't put everything to a mass vote before action occurs. Most cops have good intentions, and it's the best system so far. We have to deal with it's shortfalls.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[Scott64]

What's determines the difference between a lawful and unlawful protest?

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[davegravy]

It's more important to protect the many good people from the few bad cops than it is to protect the many good cops from the few bad people.

Today if you are present at a protest which in their judgement "turns violent", and you get arrested, then they need to prove you were contributing to the violence in order to convict you.

Tomorrow, if you are wearing a mask and are present at a protest which in their judgement "turns violent", and you get arrested, all they need is a photo of you wearing your mask to throw you in the slammer for 10 years, even if you were sitting on the grass singing "Kumbaya My Lord" the whole while.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[neonv]

The law states that you have to be wearing a mask AND rioting. Sitting on the grass and singing "Kumbaya My Lord" isn't enough. Hence, the problem with the law is just unwarranted arrests and harsh sentences as the article states, not convictions from wearing masks sending innocent people to jail for 10 years. The only thing bad cops can do to good people from this law is detain people unnecessarily.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[Uberbah]

No, that's up to a jury. I'm wondering if you're arguing this out of naivete or out of authoritarianism. As if cops don't already use ordinances like "disorderly conduct" as a catch-all reason to arrest whoever they want to arrest.

This story is for Canada, but legislation just made it's way through Congress making it an offense to "disrupt" an event where someone was under Secret Service protection. So, you could be protesting a BOA shareholder meeting in the parking lot of a convention center, and be charged because Jill Biden was at another event in a different room.

Stranger things have happened.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[Trepidity]

If the real goal were to stop people who're actually rioting, the law seems superfluous at best: it is already illegal to riot, with or without a mask. If you're caught throwing a molotov through a shop window, whether you're wearing a mask or not isn't really relevant.

Hence the worry you mention in your last sentence; the only plausible use case for this seems to be arresting people who the police cannot legitimately arrest for any other reason.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[Pulzar]

Also note that it's already illegal in Canada to wear a disguise while committing a crime (Section 351), so this is a clarification of the criminal code, not a change.

That doesn't sound right. Of course it's illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime, since it's illegal to commit a crime wearing anything at all (or nothing at all, for that matter).

My understanding is that this increases the punishment of wearing a mask while committing a crime, but it doesn't make it any more illegal than it already is.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[Anonymous Coward]

a proposed law that would make it a crime for people rioting or at an unlawful protest to conceal their identities

So one needs permission to protest in public. Apparently, during the black rights movement during the 1960's, US mayors demanded the black people not upset the (white) citizens during their protest. I wonder what that would look like.

The controversy is in whether police will misuse this to arrest legal protesters and release them later.

Look at the good side. When police pay a masked protestor to throw bricks and bottles, the law-abiding citizens can arrest the provocateur the second he places a mask over his face.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[Hentes]

So why were you wearing a mask in the first place? Isn't the point of a protest is to support a cause by being physically there, supporting it with your identity? As for a protest turning violent, most serious protests quickly tell those violent provocateurs to GTFO. If you observe violence and don't act to stop it, you are just as guilty as the one committing it. While protests would seem like a great way to hide behind the masses from responsibility, not even the mob that was there will protect you. You won't get convicted for something that's not a crime, therefor wearing a mask is a sign that you are, in fact, a criminal. There are many places that don't allow you to conceal your face like banks and supermarkets, why would protests be different? What you do on the public streets is not your private business that you can hide. As for the police, the cops will not have any respect if they can't even protect themselves. And without authority, the police force is worth nothing.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[fatphil]

Nope. It's now illegal to *intend* to riot (or commit another offence).

The mask (or makeup or other disguise) turns thinking about committing an offence into an actual concrete offence.

Thoughcrime!

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[fatphil]

What's quoted above is:
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

At no point does "and rioting" enter into that. There's "with intent" instead. Which is of course completely intangible and unprovable, and undisprovable. Why would you be in a rioting crowd if you didn't intent to riot? Bang - 10 years.

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[fatphil]

Nope. From a quoted passage above it seems the law states that only *intent* to commit a crime is enough to make you guilty of committing a crime, if you're obscuring your face.

Which probably means if you go to a Mardi Gras style parade all dressed up and made up (it's explicitly not just masks, make-up can be sufficient), and even *think* about what it would be like to caress any breasts or buttocks, round and curved, like the moon, that you see - you've committed assault!

Re:Summary Wrong Again

[ToddInSF]

If it's ALREADY illegal, then they don't NEED this "clarification". "Clarification", cracker, please !

What about the swat teams

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

I would assume that all the swat teams would receive equal treatment, with their face masks. I'm sure the prison population will welcome their visits with relish.

Now I would also say that many politicians would be considered arrestable if they showed up to a demonstration on face value.

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish, but police are above the law. Case in point, they often don't display their matricule during a protest or a riot, so you have no means of reporting which officer was doing something bad.

Southern Neighbor

[techoi]

Damn, Canada. Been watching your retarded neighbor south of you too long and now wanting to get further into the business of stupid governance? Impressive attempt.

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[networkBoy]

What if it's flu season and you are wearing a surgical mask?
What if you are a painter and you are wearing a fume mask and come outside to see what the ruckus is about?
What if you simply hold your hand over your face in such a way as to occlude a view of your features?
What if you are an Islamic female and you are wearing a burka (sp?)
What if you are an undercover officer and you're wearing a mask, but the RCMP doesn't know you're there?

So many ways this law could go sideways...
-nB

dahhhh

[perles]

Does make up counts? And about wearing nothing like the Femme girls, does it make it better?

Time for reenacting "V for Vendetta" end scene ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say 10,000 people gather in a silent protest against this law.

Or maybe 30,000 people. Or maybe 100,000 people.

And every single one of them is wearing a mask.

The police simply cannot arrest all these people.

When the government passes such laws, the government deserves no respect
and must be resisted by all possible means.

The government exists to serve the people, not to suppress them.

Making a statement? Identify yourself.

[Corson]

If one has something to say (i.e., in a protest) then they should identify themselves. This is consistent with the election system in North America: you want to see/know the person you vote for, who will represent you; then you should not hide.

Re:Making a statement? Identify yourself.

[Maow]

If one has something to say (i.e., in a protest) then they should identify themselves. This is consistent with the election system in North America: you want to see/know the person you vote for, who will represent you; then you should not hide.

That sounds too much like "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you won't mind us snooping through your web history."

Police have for a long time photographed and video recorded protests, as well as infiltrated left-leaning peace protesters, and kept a still-classified file on Tommy freaking Douglas.

If someone values their anonymity in a peaceful protest, that should be their right.

Re:Making a statement? Identify yourself.

[mark-t]

That sounds too much like "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you won't mind us snooping through your web history."

You are making the fallacy of assuming whenever X is similar to Y in some regards, then everything that is true for X should be similarly true for Y. This is an over-generalization. At best a weak analogy. At worst, simply false.

Re:Making a statement? Identify yourself.

[fatphil]

And yet you vote anonymously.

You didn't think that one through, did you?

Re:Making a statement? Identify yourself.

[Maow]

That sounds too much like "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you won't mind us snooping through your web history."

You are making the fallacy of assuming whenever X is similar to Y in some regards, then everything that is true for X should be similarly true for Y. This is an over-generalization. At best a weak analogy. At worst, simply false.

Oh bullshit. I didn't accuse the OP of holding any particular views. I simply pointed out "X is similar to Y". Talk about over-generalizations...

You are free to give up any rights you want, the rest of us may not be interested in giving up rights; even those we don't use.

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[cpu6502]

>>>Police "participate" in riots via trying to shut them down, and commonly wear masks. So are the police going to be arrested?

I was thinking the same. Outlawing masks will make it easier to Occupy and other protestors to identify agent provacateurs that are actually police employees. So YES pass the law..... outlawing masks is bad for the government and good for the common people.

Another deceitful title... RIOT != PROTEST

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have masked protests all you want in Canada. It's perfectly legal. The point of the law is simple: if your peaceful protest turns into a riot, remove the mask or you'll be arrested on the spot. As a Montrealer who's had enough of these student protests, I welcome this law even though I generally despise the Conservative Government. For once they did good.

How about a small fine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of a 10 year sentence, which is given to murderers and drug dealers where I'm writing this, a small fine would be more proportional. Proportionality is obviously an unknown concept for some legislators. (HULK) IDIOTS! (/HULK)

What a retarded comparison.

[nedlohs]

The road-rage incidence was a conviction under "causing death by criminal negligence" which has a maximum penalty of life in prison and a minimum of 0 (unless a gun is involved).

So does this idiot summary writer really think that a maximum of 10 years in prison is greater than a maximum of life in prison?

And yes people convicted for wearing a mask are also not going to get the maximum.

Re:What a retarded comparison.

[fatphil]

No, the summary writer presumably does not think that. Nobody with a brain would conclude that he thinks that from what was written.

He cites a single case. For you to interpret that as anything but information about a single case makes you the idiot. Please read for comprehension next time.

If they passed that here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would procure one of those Guy Fawkes/V masks and commence wearing it whenever I'm out in public. If it does pass in Canada, I encourage y'all Canucks to do so before Congress copies you.

What kind of commitment is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Punishment aside: If you need to wear a mask to a peaceful, lawful protest, then I would question your commitment to the cause and/or your intent.

Demented priorities....

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load. Most child rapists get less than 5 years serving on average 18 months in the actual jail....for raping children....

Clearly protesters with masks are more of a concern than the safety and well being of our children... :(

all masks?

[Anonymous Coward]

what about a burqa?

Some nuance

[jiteo]

I live in Montreal. The Liberal Party, the current ruling party in our provincial government, decided to raise tuition fees for university students. So for about three months now, a good chunk of university students have been on strike against the fee hikes.

While there have been a few peaceful demonstrations, including a huge one downtown on March 22nd, there have also been many less peaceful demonstrations. For example, a few days ago at a Liberal Party conference in Victoriaville, a demonstration devolved into violence. Tear gas, rubber bullets, the lot. A few protesters were hurt, and a policeman was outright beaten by multiple so called protesters.

Unrelated to protests and violence, but just to show you how bad it's become, yesterday, during morning rush hour, smoke bombs were set off in our metro, paralyzing it completely. No service on any line. That was the latest in a series of similar incidents, including previous smoke bombs in the metro and the blocking of bridges.

All that to say that it's an ugly situation, made even more ugly because it's being exploited by people who have nothing to do with the student cause. Anarchists, criminals, call them whatever you want, show up at protests and start trouble. Usually they are masked. You have the right to express an opinion publicly, but you do not necessarily have a right to do so anonymously, especially if you're not really trying to express an opinion, but rather are trying to break a few windows, burn a few cars, and throw rocks at a few policemen.

I know that it's a slippery slope, and that he who gives up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither, but we've shown that large peaceful protests can happen, and that at this point, it's no longer about freedom of anything, it's about preventing crime. And I remind you that John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory works in real life as well. So take away the anonymity, and you might just end up with fewer total fuckwads.

Re:Some nuance

[jklovanc]

One of the most effective and peaceful protests was organized my Mahatma Gandhi. Anyone following Gandhi's teaching did not commit any violence or destruction of property but it was effective enough to bring a world power to it's knees. None of those protesters wore masks.
The issue is that if protesters can not control their emotions then don't go to the protest.

A couple of points.

[jklovanc]

1. It is not Harper proposing the bill it ias a Conservative backbencher. I think it is funny that when Harper controls caucus he is "acting. like a dictator" but when he does not "he is not leading as he should".
2. The ten years is tha maximum sentence for the mask offence. Someone convicted of this new crime could get no time at all. The article referenced the read rage conviction in Langly BC where the sentence was 5 years six months. The defendant was convicted of criminal negligence causing death which has a maximum penalty of life in prison. Comparing a sentence for one crime with the maximum sentence for another is not valid. The valid comparison is 10 years for the mask law and life for manslaughter.
3. Masks are being used more and more by agitators, anarchist and thugs who have no interest in the protest. They are there just to have a good time smashing things and injuring police. There needs to be a way of dealing with these people. Is a mask law a good way? Maybe, maybe not. What it hopefully does is spark the debate on the difference between protesting for a cause and rioting for fun.

What?

[Murdoch5]

So if a fight breaks out during Halloween then everyone is screwed?

Sign the Petition

[davegravy]

http://www.petitiononlinecanada.com/petition/anti-bill-c-309/792

Citation requested

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to hear more about this issue. Any good links?

Re:Citation requested

[Phrogman]

G8/G20 Summit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit

McLean's article: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/06/27/torontos-g20-summit-a-failure-all-around/

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/27/g20-rioters-toronto-protests (Note that the video attached to this article is now unavailable because the Guardian "no longer has rights to it". Isn't that another lame example of DRM?). Note the law concerning coming within 5m of the fence mentioned at the bottom of the article never existed, and was a fabrication of the Toronto Police Dept.

Police assaulting a reporter: http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/902236--toronto-journalist-witnessed-police-brutality-at-toronto-g20

Parliamentary Committee Slams Police Brutality during the Summit: http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/03/parliamentary-committee-slams-g20-police-brutality.shtml

Amnesty International: http://rabble.ca/news/2010/06/amnesty-international-wants-g8-g20-security-reviewed

Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxuYOoNk7U
  Notice that most of the people are really there to watch the spectacle and take pictures on their cellphones. Only a handful stand up at the police line and passively protest. The police presence here (almost 1Bn spent on security for this event - although a lot of that was misappropriated pork-barreling by politicians as well) is a bit overboard.

Police as Agents Provocateur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo

Just some quick grabs from the Interwebs.

Re:Citation requested

[hyades1]

Nice work, but I'm accurate about the law. It was primarily the Toronto Police who enforced it, often with excessive force, but it was the province that misled people about its existence, then left Bill Blair to explain it all. Here's the best link you'll find on the matter: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/29/g20-chief-fence571.html Cheers.

Different kind of three strikes law

[plover]

I still want a Three Strikes and You're a Serial Tyrant law. If you introduced, voted in favor of, and/or signed into law a total of three bills that are each later overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds of being unconstitutional, you are guilty of depriving the populous of their rights, and are guilty of being a tyrant. 10 years in federal prison, no statute of limitations, no executive pardons.

Congress (or Parliament for those of you up in Canuckistan) would consist of a bunch of guys who would be a whole lot more concerned about the crap laws they pass. The MPAA lobbyists would never even see their bought-and-paid-for congressmen: they'd basically be turned away at the door by flunkies. Harper's bill would die by unanimous disapproval.

Re:Different kind of three strikes law

[CanHasDIY]

Only 10 years? You're a far more compassionate person than I.


IMO, Tyrants should hang from the neck until dead. Period.

No mercy for the wicked.

Re:Different kind of three strikes law

[Anonymous Coward]

Tempting thought, but I think it would backfire by getting Congress to simply work even harder to make sure that only "friendly" judges get appointed.

Re:Different kind of three strikes law

[c]

> Congress (or Parliament for those of you up in Canuckistan)

That's Socialist Canuckistan, you ignorant Yankee!

Re:Different kind of three strikes law

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the MPAA lobbyists would just buy out the supreme courts, or the Government would
just place people in the supreme court that are less likely to overturn a bill.

Now you have a tyrannical government and a supreme court that cannot stop them...

(Remember the supreme court is appointed by the current PM, some of them...)

Re:Different kind of three strikes law

[dryeo]

Up here, the government can even ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a law before it is given royal assent so they can't plead stupidity. While previous governments did do this, the current one wouldn't dream of it as they seem hell bent on removing the rights of common citizens and giving rights to non-people.
Of course there are the borderline cases, notable ones are often decided quite differently by the Canadian Supreme Court from the American one. An example is searching computers, smart phones and such. Here the Supreme Court decided that as they such private things, a separate (separate from eg the warrant to search your house) search warrant needs to be issued before they can actually search your computer or iPhone whereas in the States it seems it's open season on your private papers, er I mean private electronic storage.

Opposition in Guy Fawkes Masks

[DarthVain]

If this ever makes it to parliament (which I seriously doubt), I would love to see the Opposition all come to work wearing Guy Fawkes masks in protest. I might actually watch parliamentary TV that day!

Of course knowing Harper, he would just arrest all the opposition and throw them in jail for 10 years, at the same time announcing his new title of King Harper.

Meh

[Mashiki]

The entire article is flamebait as it stands. 10 years is the maximum you can get. And our judicial system is built around the judge deciding the punishments anyway. So you might have 10 years on the books, and end up with them having a S/C(summery conviction) style sentence applied. 30days-weekends, 2 years less a day(no federal time served), community service.

I already mentioned this in another post but 351 does NOT cover wearing a mask/ect while committing an I/O. Full text of course:

351

        351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,

                (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

                (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
        Marginal note:Disguise with intent

        (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

CC 351(2) only covers S.351 that's it. Meh typical CBC tripe and garbage, can't even be bothered to ask someone from the legal dept. to check to make sure that their understanding of the law is correct. Let alone call the upper canada law society, they give out advice on this stuff for free!

guy fawkes

[KraxxxZ01]

We will put guy fawkes on teh banners!

Time for a new consideration.

[pecosdave]

Guy Fawkes Makup almost as good as a mask on some people.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion

[Jazari]

What a poor summary (shock!)
- It was not the (federal) Conservatives who arrested protestors during the G8/G20, but the (Provincial, Ontario) Liberals.
- You cannot compare a maximum sentence (10 years) with an actual sentence (5 years). In Canada that "10 year" sentence would probably translate into a suspended sentence (0 days) unless aggravating factors were present (violence).
- The bill is redundant anyway, since (according to TFA!) the "Criminal Code ... already criminalizes the wearing of a disguise."

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[Anonymous Coward]

bang on. a large portion of the masked 'rioters' in vancouver for example, were undercover police and possibly US DEA, who have an office in town across the street from me with no windows. :-|

In Soviet Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have a few ruffians dressed in black getting away with smashing a few windows and police cars than lose an important right.

... your rights are not inalienable.

Wasn't that what some famous revolution was about?

ummm

[Bobtree]

Rioting is already illegal.

What if they wear face paint, or have facial tattoos, or fell in the mud, or got sunburned, or have a skin condition?

Suppose the rioters are a lynch mob, and their victim wears a mask to hide. Is that target guilty of wearing a mask in a riot?

You are correct.

[roman_mir]

You are right of-course, major turmoil is coming, it is all about the economy and it is in critical condition.

Now step back and think for a moment: if it is not a good sign that political freedoms are being limited this way because the government is expecting problems with handling of the people down the road, then is it a good sign that economic freedoms are stolen from people?

My proposition of-course, is that the economic liberties that are stolen at some point, eventually lead to economic downturn, and the more government involvement there is, the worst the downturn is.

In turn this leads to serious social problems and eventually disruptions and the government wants to stay in power (by definition), so it uses whatever resources it has to grow bigger and get itself more powers over the people so that they can be controlled via more and more force.

What abotu muslims?

[JustNiz]

So what about muslims that wear niqabs, burkas or other face or head coverings because of religious beliefs?
Do they get a free pass?

Conservative = facist

[Anonymous Coward]

smaller government in everyone's business. Sounds like an oxymoron.

Only victory is total defeat

[BadPirate]

This seems so ridiculous the only thing in mind could be a lesser desire... Basically:

Want A
Ask for A * 2
Major uproar created
"Compromise" and offer A as a reduction
Get A, while opponents feel like they've won

Hopefully we won't see a law in the next couple of years that punishes mask wears with 5 years in prison.

I'll be sure to remember this

[doston]

Next time a holier than thou Canadian is on slashdot bashing the US. Yeah, Canadians elect idiots, too and let tyrannical laws pass.

Re:I'll be sure to remember this

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're going to act like the same person who you detest, thus continuing the vicious circle?
Or how about those "holier than thou Canadians" are just doing the same thing you are doing, tired of being belittled or bashed on and are pushing back?

Re:Time for reenacting "V for Vendetta" end scene

[MightyMartian]

Because, of course, protests never get ugly.

Oh wait, they do. It's because you idiots don't call the cops the second you figure out an anarchist is in your ranks, but just stand around like fucking morons while he and his buddies basically evaporate public sympathy for your cause.

Perhaps some of you should be deputized and forced to police your own protests.

Tear Gas

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Tear gas

2) Pepper spray

3) Smoke from fires

4) Making a point like those Nov 5th guy masks

V for Vendetta

[SustainableJeroen]

Isn't it "funny" how reality sometimes seems to catch up with fiction. The movie sums up nicely where the world is going.

Again

[glorybe]

Here we have another sterling product that makes clear the wonder and joy of the conservative mind (or lack there of).

Way easier to identify cops posing as anarchists

[Anonymous Coward]

If passed, this would certainly make it way easier to suss out all the cops pretending to be "black block" Anarchists - they'd be the only ones with masks that *weren't* getting arrested. Much more efficient than the tried-and-true "wearing their cop shoes" method...

Re:There is a simple solution

[CanHasDIY]

It is called voting.

Rioting and protesting because your views aren't represented and government is kind of pointless when you have 38% voter participation among your general age group.

Yea, and voting is kind of pointless when your options are "corrupt corporate whore #1" and "corrupt corporate whore #2."

What's yer point?

cops in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes me very happy that cops in Canada can no longer wear masks during protests without the possibility of spending ten years in prison!

Halloween Protest Scheduled!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun Ensues!!

TAKING ALL BETS!

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before the UK passes a similar law?

rather than pick an exact time

[Chirs]

when life begins (which is what was asked for), why not do what other jurisdictions have done and make it a sliding scale? As the fetus grows older, it would require more and more significant justification to allow an abortion. If they want to take an abortion pill the day after sex, no problems. If they want an abortion a couple months before it's due, it better be life-threatening to the mother.

Re:rather than pick an exact time

[aynoknman]

why not do what other jurisdictions have done and make it a sliding scale?

Fine, perhaps a good idea. but even having the discussion is not permitted in Harper's parliament

Not going to pass

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a backbencher bill, it's not going to pass. The end of the world isn't coming (yet).
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-309/

Problem!

[Auroch]

Too bad we already have a law in place, that makes covering your face while committing a crime, illegal.

That's all this law is - you ALREADY can't wear a mask when committing an illegal act (or it's two illegal acts). In other words? Move along, nothing to see here. Most states have the same law on the book, fwiw.

Re:Problem!

[zill]

Protesting is not "an illegal act".

Re:Problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on your point of view. If you're the one protesting then you're exercising your right to free speech. If you're the government then the protester of the status quo are dissident terrorists and therefore criminals.

In any case, most countries, provinces, counties, cities, towns, etc will have a defined number above which the group can be charged with illegal assembly if they haven't a permit for their actions. Again, yes, they are criminals.

You silly people still believing you live in democracies with citizens' rights. When will you learn that we've already passed into a police state and the few freedoms we do still enjoy are merely because the governments haven't yet marshaled all the resources needed to lock everyone down. It's coming but only after the populations have been softened up with some "accidentally" released pandemics.

Re:Problem!

[fatphil]

Since when was protesting a crime?

Well, in supposedly democratic countries anyway. I know many non- or faux- democracies outlaw such freedom of expression. With your mention of
"states" having such laws, are you confirming that the US is such a faux-democracy?

Re:Problem!

[Auroch]

Protesting is not "an illegal act".

Well, if you read the proposed law (too much to ask?), you'll notice that it isn't about protesting with a mask on. It's about doing things illegally with a mask on. The article mentions illegal protesting as an example, and hypes it up to sound as if protesting is being made illegal.

Re:Problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't "doing things illegally" already... illegal?

Re:Problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't "doing things illegally" already... illegal?

MOAR E-legalz, apparently. Like, robbing a liquor store with a mask is worse than just robbing a liquor store. Or, rape+murder is worse than just flat out murder.

Re:Problem!

[JBaustian]

Protesting is legal, but when illegal activities happen at a protest, it is helpful to the police and beneficial to the cause for which everyone was assembled if the police can identify the ones who are breaking the laws.

If the protesters are wearing masks, then everyone present must be assumed to be guilty of the violent or destructive activities.

Personally, I don't care what reason is used to justify the arrest of masked protesters. They are the "Anonymous Cowards" of the physical world.

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[Auroch]

Police "participate" in riots via trying to shut them down, and commonly wear masks. So are the police going to be arrested?

hello law of unintended consequences.

... right, just like they wear handguns in public (illegal, in canada), and confine people against their will (also against the law in canada). It's totally wrong for the police to do things that regular folks can't...

*sigh*

Wear a helmet

[dindi]

It is simple: wear a (full face, motocross style or street bike) helmet. You are legally allowed to wear a full face helmet on a bike, car or on the street. It is for your own protection. Make a law agains that if you can.

Riots

[nurb432]

Are illegal anyway arent tehy? More redundant laws..

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[Hentes]

Police also wear identification numbers.

not the right fix

[deatypoo]

I know what they are trying to achieve, they want to get rid of the "professional" trouble makers that highjack protests and make them escalate. When they wear masks, usually if you search them you realize they came prepared.

Come to Montreal !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah come to Montreal see the FUCKING mess these assholes are Making...... fuck them

Laws != Morality or Justice

[DMJC]

People seem to confuse the Law with Morality and Justice a lot. Laws are not always Just or Moral. Following the Law isn't always the Moral or Just thing to do. Where is the morality in allowing someone to die because you're not legally obligated to help them? Where is the justice in laws that allow you to manipulate and steal from other people? Laws are just rules which the people in power at any given point in time have decided to set for people to follow. It is up to individuals to decide which laws should and should not be followed. If the government makes a law that makes it legal to kill someone, that doesn't make it Moral, Just, or even right. History has many examples of Unjust laws that people followed, many laws are made to be broken by people because they are badly written legislation. People who fail to understand these concepts usually end up being the patsies who wonder how Hitler, Stalin, and Mao got into power, and how did the country go so wrong? The answers are pretty simple. Not every Law should be followed. Not every criminal branded as such by the state is a bad person out to do you harm.

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[c]

What if you're a police officer wearing headgear with your name/badge number concealed and you're caught on camera illegally beating the shit out of an innocent bystander?

What's good for the goose...

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[networkBoy]

Oh I agree, but we all know that this law will be enforced selectively, even in the cases I listed.
It's a "Because we need a reason" law.
-nB

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this legislation applies to the police infiltrating the black bloc at protests, as agents provocateur, or if it makes a distinction between a wearing a mask and covering one's nose and mouth with wet cloth to counteract the effects of the excessive use of tear gas by officers, who themselves wear gas masks at these things?

As long as it does, sure, why not. It'll weed out the anarchists from legitimate protesters.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Masked or not, agents provocateur will still be able to provide an excuse for the police to hurt people.

Protests, I think, only work if they end with a lot of hanged politicians, bankers and sundry elites. Otherwise, the only purpose a mass protest serves is to provide the bastards at the top with an excuse to further ratchet up population control measures.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no gist, just blind Americanism as seen through the actions of one possessing the disease. This kind of self-centrism is an over-riding feature of the disease.

Love,
Your kindly neighbour to the north

Show me the "soccer hooligans" in Canada eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

We do throw a festive riot after a sports victory or defeat, but hockey games are attended across the country without there being mass outbreaks of violence in the crowds, or the parking-lots before or after the event.

You fail on not being Canadian-enough to speak to the context, thank you come again.

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[sjames]

In fact, other than agent provocateurs, the leading cause of rioting during a protest is the police busting the skulls of peaceful protesters.

If you REALLY want the protest to stay peaceful (if perhaps a bit disorderly), round up the cops and take them away.

Someone needs to shave!

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to a protest? Grow a beard! Girls and women too! Its not a mask, its natural facial hair (actually, it would be good if it was tear-off-able so that if the cops try to grab you by your mutton chops, they get a handful and you aren't injured. Otherwise, its not a mask, and you are good to go! This is a stupid right wing bill that needs to die on the floor. The ultra-right-wing that everyone suspected of these guys is really starting to show. They know their popularity is only at 33%. Sadly, the NDP is heading to the wilderness too. The liberals would be a choice, if only they were a choice.

Re:Time for reenacting "V for Vendetta" end scene

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, of course, protests never get ugly.

Oh wait, they do. It's because you idiots don't call the cops the second you figure out an anarchist is in your ranks, but just stand around like fucking morons while he and his buddies basically evaporate public sympathy for your cause.

Sometimes, the anarchists in their ranks are the cops, in which case calling their uniformed colleagues does no good at all. Once they succeed in provoking violence from other, non-porcine protestors, the uniforms have an excuse to come in and roll the thing up.

Perhaps some of you should be deputized and forced to police your own protests.

Believe me, many if not most "good" protestors would like nothing better. But there's nothing worse.for the pigs, so don't expect this logical measure to be implemented any time soon.

Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Karmashock]

First and I really can't stress this enough... I'm not in favor of this law. It's clearly absurd.

That said, I hate masks at protests. I can understand that in repressive governments where you're worried about the secret police finding you. But in the west it's at best creepy and at worst facilitates mob behavior. If you have lots of people walking around in masks they think they can get away with anything and that's not the point of free speech or freedom of assembly. By definition, if you're protesting, everyone should see your faces. You want attention? Who are you?

I think the other people that are having the protest inflicted upon them deserve that much.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Uberbah]

But in the west it's at best creepy and at worst facilitates mob behavior.

Creepy in the age of mass CCTV and government surveillance? Not so much. Before, the FBI would just keep a file on you if you were a nonviolent protester. Now they can keep permanent databases filled with CCTV footage filtered through facial recognition software.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Karmashock]

First, they have you on camera? So? Only a problem if you do something illegal. Don't take a dump on police cars or expose yourself or break store windows and we don't have a problem.

Second, if people wear masks they're going to feel like they can get away with things. It encourages violence and mob behavior.

Third, you see people wearing masks at protests in third world countries where they worry about a secret police tracking them. This is not a reasonable concern in the first world.

Again, I wouldn't put these people in jail for wearing a mask. I would however pepper spray them in the eye. I really really really don't like masks at protests. You have a freedom of speech and assembly but not one to show up at city hall with a mob of masked crazies and intimidate everyone.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Uberbah]

First, they have you on camera? So? Only a problem if you do something illegal.

Eh? Did you really just make the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be worried about" argument?

Second, if people wear masks they're going to feel like they can get away with things. It encourages violence and mob behavior.

And if people are allowed to own handguns, it will just encourage violence and mob behavior. Sorry, but this seems to be a bit of a tautology.

Third, you see people wearing masks at protests in third world countries where they worry about a secret police tracking them. This is not a reasonable concern in the first world.

The first world that has FBI files on nonviolent actresses and civil rights activists?
The first world where undercover agents go so far as to impregnate the nonviolent activists they are spying on?
The first world that constantly uses entrapment to prosecute "terror" cases?
The first world which has recently passed both laws allowing military detentions of citizens and criminalizing "disrupting events" where someone is under Secret Service protection?

Lets say you decide to protest a Bank of America shareholder meeting at a convention center. You're peacefully protesting in the street and the parking lot, but totally unknown to you, Jill Biden was quietly on her way to meet some Democratic donors in another room at the convention center.

But she was a few minutes late getting past the crowd, so you and your fellow protesters "disrupted an event" where the Secret Service was protecting someone. That spiffy new spy center in Nevada runs CCTV footage through their facial recognition software, and not only picks you out of a crowd, but is able to cross-reverence your location with a warrantless wiretap on your cell phone. Presto, you receive a summons in the mail a few weeks later.

It'll be the new speed camera fine-by-mail.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Karmashock]

Having a file on someone isn't a violation of their rights and if you're protesting in front of city hall we have an interest in knowing who was there. Not to harass or intimidate them but simply to keep track of it in case things get ugly.

And they do get ugly sometimes. Sometimes protesters plant bombs. I'm sorry but we need to know.

And this isn't a f'ing third world country where you need to worry about the secret police disappearing you.

Anyway, if you're unwilling to accept any restrictions on masks at protests then I'm unwilling to vote against unreasonable restrictions against masks. So, in this case I'd vote in favor of ten years in jail for it even though I feel that's wildly unreasonable.

I find it unacceptable that masks are allowed at such events. Agree they're not allowed and I'll agree to very reasonable consequences such as a warning followed by a small fine if they don't stop it. But if you're going to be unreasonable then I'm going to be unreasonable.

I've seen throughout my life that if unreasonable people are not given concrete and consistent consequences they tend to continue. So here it is... unreasonable for unreasonable.

Game on.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Uberbah]

Having a file on someone isn't a violation of their rights

How very authoritarian of you, to support investigations when one is suspected of committing no crime. And of course there are rights violations if one shred of that evidence was obtained without a warrant when it should have been.

and if you're protesting in front of city hall we have an interest in knowing who was there

For merely exercising your first amendment rights? How unbelievably authoritarian of you.

And they do get ugly sometimes. Sometimes protesters plant bombs. I'm sorry but we need to know.

I'm sorry but you're talking straight up nonsense now. How many bombs have been planted by OWS? By the Tea Party? You have a greater chance of dying in your own bathtub because you slipped and fell than you have of dying in a terrorist attack.

And this isn't a f'ing third world country where you need to worry about the secret police disappearing you.

Unless you're last name is Padila or Manning, of course. And then there's all the people the U.S. government has kidnapped and sometimes tortured. Your "crazy hypotheticals" have already happened.

I find it unacceptable that masks are allowed at such events. Agree they're not allowed and I'll agree to very reasonable consequences such as a warning followed by a small fine if they don't stop it. But if you're going to be unreasonable then I'm going to be unreasonable.

Go right ahead and list all the bombs planted by mask wearing OWS protestors before you start throwing stones on unreasonableness, you good little authoritarian you.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Karmashock]

Collecting freely available information doesn't require a warrant any more then it requires a warrant to look your name up in a phone book and then write it down in a log.

Anyway, you're responding by being even more irrational. That's fine. Children sometimes do that it never works to plead with them to be sensible.

All I can do is smile at you and ignore you. If you want to have a real discussion on the issue you can be reasonable. If you don't want to be reasonable then I'm not going to make any effort to convince you otherwise. It's like dealing with north korea... you don't invite kim to the white house after he's made a nuclear test. If he wants one of those he can act like a sensible human being for about ten to twenty years.

Till then, you can just be mad about it. Please protest and if you get so angry that you feel the need to plant a bomb or deface property... remember we're watching and we know your name. :-)

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Uberbah]

Collecting freely available information doesn't require a warrant any more then it requires a warrant to look your name up in a phone book and then write it down in a log.

Private phone calls aren't "freely available information". Your private email and Facebook messages are not "freely available information". The government has massively tapped the former, and can get the latter merely by sending a "national security letter", also without a warrant.

Anyway, you're responding by being even more irrational. That's fine. Children sometimes do that it never works to plead with them to be sensible.

If you're going to start throwing stones on rationality, how rational is it to justify police state tactics when you have a greater chance of dying after a fall in your bathtub than in a terrorist attack? How rational is it to make crazy slippery slope arguments while ignoring the recent history of mass warrantless wiretapping, military detentions without trials, torture, and assassinations? Which, unlike your mask wearing, bomb planting protesters, has actually happened?

Children sometimes put their fingers in their their ears and chant "la la la la" rather than deal with facts they don't like.

Please protest and if you get so angry that you feel the need to plant a bomb or deface property... remember we're watching and we know your name. :-)

Please not that I will still defend your civil liberties, your increasing attempts at obnoxious condescension notwithstanding.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Karmashock]

We're talking about seeing your face in a crowd in a public setting. We are not talking about tapping your private phone calls. That does require a warrant. I know the patriot act bs is trying to erode that but generally that requires a warrant.

Your face however is something I get to see.

If you want to hide your face in public then we have a problem. And if you want to be unreasonable about that, then two can play at that game.

Uncover your face and speak. You have nothing to fear from me unless you cover your face. I will assume ill intentions if you do. Bandits cover their faces. Robbers cover their faces. That will be my assumption. It is not in your interest to give people that impression.

You can either take my word for that or you can find out the hard way.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Uberbah]

We're talking about seeing your face in a crowd in a public setting.

In the age of ubiquitous CCTV cameras and facial recognition software, massive government databases for domestic spying, laws criminalizing protesting under flimsy pretenses, and increasing police state laws and tactics, one year after the death of Bin Laddin and more than 10 years since the last terrorist attack. Don't ignore the forest for the trees. And besides, you are now on the record of wanting to know who people were, merely for showing their face in a public setting.

Whereas before, you could have 20 cops for every single protester (like in Toronto where a squad car was conveniently left parked unattended for hours as a target for vandals). 20 cops could look at your face....and unless you did something to stand out, you would be gone from their short term memory in about....3 seconds.

If you want to hide your face in public then we have a problem. And if you want to be unreasonable about that, then two can play at that game.

Too bad. If someone wearing a mask commits a crime, we already have laws to prosecute said crime. If someone is peaceably wearing a mask for the sake of anonymity or as a political statement, it's none of your damn business what's under the mask.

Bandits cover their faces. Robbers cover their faces. You can either take my word for that or you can find out the hard way.

So tell us about your annual Halloween rampage, you gung-ho condo commando, you.

Re:Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests

[Karmashock]

Again, if you're not going to be reasonable then I see no reason to bother to be reasonable either.

So... lets see... how about you get pepper sprayed in the eyes if you have a mask on? Seems fair... That's the new program. You could of course complain but maybe I wore a mask too... I'll get one of those cool V for vendetta masks... oh man... I'm so cool now...

If you were half as free thinking as you thought you wouldn't mindlessly copy every stupid social and fashion fad. People didn't used to wear these masks all the time. But oh noes... stupid v for vendetta comes out... some idiots show up at a protest with that on because the movie wasn't that old yet... and now every twit that wants to feel provocative puts on that mask or something equally silly.

Take it off and there's no problem. Have your peaceful protest. Put it on and you're not protesting anymore.

Till then, I hope you like the taste of pepper spray... in your eyes. ;-D

Remember remember!

Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a "Because we need a reason"...."to arrest the Black Bloc assholes that incite peaceful crowds into rioting" law.

but what if...

[xlovenuggetx]

What if you wore a mask of your own face?

Extremely Misleading Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done Slashdot. You have placed your link farm squarely within the putrid puddle of salacious commentary. These are very important subjects, particularly in countries where these issues are a matter of life and death. This proposal whether misguided or not (I believe it to be misguided) was a response to Hockey Riots resulting in destruction looting and violence perpatrated by Canada's equivalent of soccer hooligans. Conflating the former with freedom movements is intellectually dishonest and an insult to all those struggling for civil and human rights around the world.

Come on Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real, wearing a mask might mean your up to no good but you could just be in fancy dress! If you are masked I am sure current laws allow for suspicion and arrest anyway, you need NO new laws. Don't fall for the government trick and see your selves become a far right state!

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you haven't worked out that corruption doesn't pick sides, then you've got a lot of catching up to do.

Reign in your hate for 'lefties' and spend that energy on some research.

The banks own us all, and even that system is just a tool in higher hands.

Democracy is a farce.

If only we had a constitution with teeth..

[doccus]

If we in Canada had a constitution worth more than the paper It was printed on, the Gov't would NEVER be able to ram laws like this down our throats.. but since ANY government can enact any law overturning any article in it... especially Harper's, since he feels justified in ignoring the laws that inconvenience him..

The Best Option

[DavidIAm]

If you are inconvenienced by a protest, it is your fault (and the fault of all the other people inconvenienced as well, quite possibly a lot of possibly apathetic people who aren't inconvenienced as well) for not forcing the system to change in such a way as to make the best option of marginalized people the act of obstructing you and those like you. People behave predictably in the path of their best option - whether that is working, protesting, killing, robbing, or getting high. Any of these acts can be an entirely rational reaction to the situation that people find themselves in. (though possibly not ethical or appropriate!) Fortunately, by changing the circumstances of those around you - through policies of the government, for instance - you change what their best option is. Make sure they have a better and/or more convenient option than advocating change through interrupting your day as a protest, and I am utterly confident you won't find them doing that.

Re:There is a simple solution

[DavidIAm]

Whats the point? the point is there are far more people than corporations - an alternative party can be formed and put their own money into it and post their own anti-corporate candidates on the ballot if they want to. The only explanation I see is that people simply don't think that its important enough to do so.