Wearing a mask at a protest? That's a 10 year prison term

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

There is no law against wearing a mask at a protest..so i am not sure what you are talking about. Have you been at a riot?

But now the police can arbitrarily call a protest a "riot" and start busting skulls left right and centre. No better way to break up a riot than having full clearance to use any means necessary against anyone wearing a mask.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But now the police can arbitrarily call a protest a "riot" and start busting skulls left right and centre. No better way to break up a riot than having full clearance to use any means necessary against anyone wearing a mask.

Cmon now. This Harper government would never do anything to violate protestors democratic rights.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But now the police can arbitrarily call a protest a "riot" and start busting skulls left right and centre. No better way to break up a riot than having full clearance to use any means necessary against anyone wearing a mask.

Right because the line is so thin between a protest and a riot.

[ripTDR]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

I'm operating under the assumption that peaceful prostestors in masks participating in a legal protest will now be strongarmed and bullied by our government when a few bad apples turn a peaceful demonstration into a non peaceful one.

THIS!!!

geeze do we have to back to the g8 protests

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You can wear a mask at a protest...you know speaking of being informed

You don't normally play the ignorant troll.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

You don't normally play the ignorant troll.

I don't see the big deal. My life hasn't changed one bit since this became law and won't.

But don't worry I am sure the Liberals will remove this law when they sweep to power in 2015

[Traditional_Ale]

The Liberals are going to win the next election on "cleaning up the Conservative's mess" alone. It really is the only platform they need to win.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay yeah, I get you. I guess the issue there is that you can have the mens rea to engage in a lawful assembly, but what happens when that assembly turns unlawful and you're in the midst of it wearing a mask? Do you need to have the mes rea to engage in an unlawful assembly? The way I understand it is that your presence is sufficient, am I wrong in thinking that?

Anyways, it's really an issue of the law being applied responsibly. If it's use is limited to going after the losers who are smashing things etc. I don't have a problem with it, just seems a bit broad.

If the nature of your assembly changes and you knowingly continue to partake in it, then yes you should be found guilty under this law. The purpose of this law isn't to get the guy who is participating peacefully while a group of anarchists is smashing windows. There's going to be (or at least there should be) enough leaway in the interpretation of the unlawful assembly to target specific people. These would be people who jeer on the unlawful people. People who stay with the group of people commiting the unlawful act.

The idea is that you are trying to target people who actively obstruct the police's ability to deal with violence or people who actively encourage others to commit violence. Whether or not the police and courts apply the law that way is another matter.

Keep in mind it is up to the police to prove their case agasint you. But if you were to be moving away from the group or unaware that the group was being violent and a police officer arrested you, the police would still have to prove you were knowingly assembling with the group.

The tricker part I could see is the case of someone who wants to watch or record the riot.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But now the police can arbitrarily call a protest a "riot" and start busting skulls left right and centre. No better way to break up a riot than having full clearance to use any means necessary against anyone wearing a mask.

Please read my last posts regarding the definition of a riot in Canada. You are told 30 MINUTES AHEAD OF TIME after the riot act is read and before it is considered a riot. If you want to continue to wear your mask and stay in the area after that, fill your boots.

Its not like it happens at a flip of a coin when its going to be a riot. Furthermore, being part of a group that is still present after the riot act is arrestable already. There is no lawful protest at that point. You could be arrested regardless.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The Liberals are going to win the next election on "cleaning up the Conservative's mess" alone. It really is the only platform they need to win.

They could, but my money is on the election after the next one.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have witnessed on riot kick off, and everyone knew it was coming.

Sample size = 1. Well that settles it.

The law must consider what could happen, i.e. "if we pass this law, could we be imprisoning people without a morally sound reason to do so?"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

But now the police can arbitrarily call a protest a "riot" and start busting skulls left right and centre. No better way to break up a riot than having full clearance to use any means necessary against anyone wearing a mask.

Except that the police cannot arbitrarily call a protest a "riot". That would involve reading the Riot Act, and by law, gives people 30 minutes from that point to disperse.