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."

16 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Corrections by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Corrections by flar2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Government has stated they will support the bill.

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

  2. To even suggest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:roadrage demonstrations. by durrr · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  4. No Question At All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (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...

    1. Re:No Question At All by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. They are not stupid.. by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:They are not stupid.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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"...

  6. A Minor Correction by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. Not really surprising by static416 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Summary Wrong Again by neonv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime by davegravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:roadrage demonstrations. by Cito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  11. Re:roadrage demonstrations. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:roadrage demonstrations. by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:roadrage demonstrations. by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.