Wear a Mask During a Protest In Canada: 10 Years In Jail 342
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."
roadrage demonstrations. (Score:2)
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. (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone wearing a mask is up to no good.
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:4, Funny)
And a helluva guitarist.
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 fing
Problem! (Score:3)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Protesting is not "an illegal act".
Well, if you read the proposed law (too much to ask? [slashdot.org]), 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:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:5, Funny)
No need for a motorcycle, this is Canada. Put on a goalie mask and say you just got back from the pond, eh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
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 arrest
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds like Congress in session to me. So when do we get to send in the cops on them?
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
my first thought: they're going to arrest police? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:my first thought: they're going to arrest polic (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
>>>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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. (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.
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (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.
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:4, Informative)
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. (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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:roadrage demonstrations. (Score:5, Insightful)
Politician's logic (Score:5, Funny)
Longer jailtime allows the police to arrest you harder.
Below 10 years, the arrestiness would just not be enough.
Corrections (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.
Re:Corrections (Score:4, Insightful)
but it likely won't survive through first reading anyways
I said that about the patriot act here in the US. So...
Re:Corrections (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the mistake there was that you expected the US Congress to give it at least 1 reading before passing it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Harper government has announced that they support this bill which all but assures it passage.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
I have to say it is true that the US and Canada (like Great Britain) are divided by a common language.
Re:Corrections (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.
Re:Corrections (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re:Corrections (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 regardin
Re: (Score:3)
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
To even suggest.. (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.
No Question At All (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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 citi
Re:No Question At All (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up
Re:No Question At All (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
In the United States at least, there are recent well documented cases of this exact tactic:
2008 Democratic Party Convention [denverpost.com]
2004 Republican Party Convention [nytimes.com]
Older uses of the same tactic are included in the reports [icdc.com] 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 (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you'll have to settle for reading it there. Video of them here: Police Provocateurs stopped by union leader at anti-SPP protest [youtu.be].
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously implying that there is never a need for anonymity in civilized societies?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Anti-conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
Sending the wrong message. (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
I see we taught you well.
Sorry about that.
They are not stupid.. (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.
Re:They are not stupid.. (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"...
Re: (Score:2)
"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 Stat
Re: (Score:3)
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,
A Minor Correction (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.
Re:Citation requested (Score:4, Informative)
G8/G20 Summit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit [wikipedia.org]
McLean's article: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/06/27/torontos-g20-summit-a-failure-all-around/ [macleans.ca]
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/27/g20-rioters-toronto-protests [guardian.co.uk] (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 [thestar.com]
Parliamentary Committee Slams Police Brutality during the Summit: http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/03/parliamentary-committee-slams-g20-police-brutality.shtml [drdawgsblawg.ca]
Amnesty International: http://rabble.ca/news/2010/06/amnesty-international-wants-g8-g20-security-reviewed [rabble.ca]
Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxuYOoNk7U [youtube.com]
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 [youtube.com]
Just some quick grabs from the Interwebs.
what about gas masks? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Police (Score:2)
No right to anonymity when committing a crime (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ma
Re: (Score:2)
That being sa
Unintended Consequences (Score:2)
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.
Different kind of three strikes law (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Reducing Riot Police Responsibility (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Jail the MPs! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3)
No Right to Anonimity when Committing a Crime (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: [justice.gc.ca]
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 rio
Re: (Score:2)
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 (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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
haha, what? (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Not really surprising (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 m
Alternatives? (Score:2)
Summary Wrong Again (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
(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.
What about the swat teams (Score:2)
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.
Making a statement? Identify yourself. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
What a retarded comparison. (Score:2)
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.
A couple of points. (Score:2, Troll)
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 [news1130.com] which
Sign the Petition (Score:2)
http://www.petitiononlinecanada.com/petition/anti-bill-c-309/792 [petitiononlinecanada.com]
Opposition in Guy Fawkes Masks (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 [justice.gc.ca]
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
ummm (Score:3)
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'll be sure to remember this (Score:3)
Clearly over kill but I hate masks at protests (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.