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."
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.
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.
(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 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.
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.
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.
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?
Naturally, these same rules won't be applied to the gubbamint.
Anyone wearing a mask is up to no good.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
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.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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.
Sounds like Congress in session to me. So when do we get to send in the cops on them?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
No need for a motorcycle, this is Canada. Put on a goalie mask and say you just got back from the pond, eh.
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
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
>>>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"
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
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.
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.
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.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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
We will put guy fawkes on teh banners!
As the presumably loyal opposition,...
I...what? Oh. Well, I certainly haven't objected yet, so I suppose you have a point.
~Loyal Opposition
I aim to misbehave.
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?
I love opportunistic humor :)
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.
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.
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 ...
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
Next time a holier than thou Canadian is on slashdot bashing the US. Yeah, Canadians elect idiots, too and let tyrannical laws pass.
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?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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
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?
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.
In consideration of the PM bad wigs are excluded from this bill.
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.
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.
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.
I am officially gone from