Slashdot Mirror
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."
the solution is obvious!
and uh how do you know what's an unlawful assembly beforehand and does a beard count as a mask?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Longer jailtime allows the police to arrest you harder.
Below 10 years, the arrestiness would just not be enough.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
(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...
Nice to see that the U.S. isn't the only country with a "conservative" party that's not at all conservative.
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...
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.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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?
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.
n/t
Does this mean the police will have to arrest themselves? The are obviously wearing gas masks if they are going to pop gas grenades.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
Sounds like they just found a killer app in the Canadian market for the bra that doubles as a gas mask.
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.
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.
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.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
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.
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.
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?
Bow before me, for I am root.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Does make up counts? And about wearing nothing like the Femme girls, does it make it better?
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.
>>>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.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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.
So if a fight breaks out during Halloween then everyone is screwed?
http://www.petitiononlinecanada.com/petition/anti-bill-c-309/792
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.
John
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.
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!
Om, nomnomnom...
We will put guy fawkes on teh banners!
Guy Fawkes Makup almost as good as a mask on some people.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
What a poor summary (shock!) ... already criminalizes the wearing of a disguise."
- 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
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. :-|
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 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.
You can't handle the truth.
So what about muslims that wear niqabs, burkas or other face or head coverings because of religious beliefs?
Do they get a free pass?
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.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Yet another case of "this is why we can't have nice things."
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Next time a holier than thou Canadian is on slashdot bashing the US. Yeah, Canadians elect idiots, too and let tyrannical laws pass.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Isn't it "funny" how reality sometimes seems to catch up with fiction. The movie sums up nicely where the world is going.
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.
Great Intellect...
Here we have another sterling product that makes clear the wonder and joy of the conservative mind (or lack there of).
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?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
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.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
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.
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.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
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*
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
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.
Are illegal anyway arent tehy? More redundant laws..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Police also wear identification numbers.
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.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
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...
Log in or piss off.
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
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What if you wore a mask of your own face?
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..
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.
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.