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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.