10 Years In Prison For Masking Your Face In A Protest

[Rathji]

As mentioned a couple times:

A sentence that is given out cannot be directly compared to a maximum sentence without the understanding of the sentencing guidelines and circumstances involved in both cases.

I don't understand why this change is needed though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

As mentioned a couple times:

A sentence that is given out cannot be directly compared to a maximum sentence without the understanding of the sentencing guidelines and circumstances involved in both cases.

I don't understand why this change is needed though.

It's not. It's used to undermine privileges. Like with North Carolina proclaiming gays can't marry. It's already not allowed. They just add it to further persecute. To make it easier.

That's the point. That's why it's scary. They shouldn't need to, but yet, they feel the need to.

[Itse]

If a country has a problem with rioting, it's usually because of a corrupt or otherwise illegitimate government, or because of very serious social issues, which usually are a result of terrible political decisions.

Rioting is almost always a crime against property. 90% of the time it's a crime against large corporate property. A punishment of this length gives a clear signal as to what is more important; property or people.

Not that it's anything new. In most countries crimes against property are penalized on a scale that is completely disproportional to crimes against people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Also, don't like the generic title of the article/thread. "Protest" is pretty vague. You have peaceful protests, violent protests, and riots. All different.

Um dude, I was at the G-20 protest in Toronto and took some excellent pictures of some thugs breaking glass and destroying public property (note to self, never did get my memory card back from the police)

And the protestors weren't exactly completely innocent and were just arrested for struumming guitars and singing gentle protest songs.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Daradon

It's not. It's used to undermine privileges. Like with North Carolina proclaiming gays can't marry. It's already not allowed. They just add it to further persecute. To make it easier.

That's the point. That's why it's scary. They shouldn't need to, but yet, they feel the need to.

What is scary about a law that clarifies the offence? Would you rather them be vague and allow for abuse of power?

The fact that the offence could be changed under a different law only means that it might have been a waste of time making this law, but the fact that it seems the penalty was increased means that you really couldn't say that.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What is scary about a law that clarifies the offence? Would you rather them be vague and allow for abuse of power?

The fact that the offense could be changed under a different law only means that it might have been a waste of time making this law, but the fact that it seems the penalty was increased means that you really couldn't say that.

No, what's scary is how far reaching it is. How, if it's explained correctly in the article, gives for broad power.

That's the point, at least how it's explained here. It's not clarified. Masked 'protesters' could get ten years.

I will admit I haven't gone through the boiler plate of the actual code, but that's not the point of the article. And I'm not a lawyer. If the actual law is very specific and understanding, I could recant. But not how it is explained here.

(And yeah I know to debate one should get it down to the brass tacks, but you must understand that most people don't even read the article (as I did), they read the headline and make up their mind. So I'm that much further ahead.)

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Um dude, I was at the G-20 protest in Toronto and took some excellent pictures of some thugs breaking glass and destroying public property (note to self, never did get my memory card back from the police)

And the protestors weren't exactly completely innocent and were just arrested for struumming guitars and singing gentle protest songs.

Huh? That has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm just saying there is a big difference between rioting and protesting.

The title of this thread is, "10 Years in Prison for Masking Your Face in a Protest" which makes it sound like you could get charged for wearing a mask at a peaceful protest...that's not true. Only when a protest turns illegal or into a riot would the bill kick in.

The way I interpret the Bill and the way it's explained in the article basically says you can cover your face as long as it is a peaceful demonstration. You have to remove your mask once illegal acts are being committed.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Daradon

No, what's scary is how far reaching it is. How, if it's explained correctly in the article, gives for broad power.

That's the point, at least how it's explained here. It's not clarified. Masked 'protesters' could get ten years.

If they are part of a riot or unlawful protest.

I guess it really depends on what an unlawful protest is, because I don't know the legal definition of it as it would relate to this Bill. If being part of an unlawful protest is, as the article suggests, an indictable offence, then they are already in violation of section 351 anyway, so the only thing that really changes is the penalty.

Assuming that is correct, is the Bill still giving far to broad of power?

[Hatter]

I think this legislation gives legitimate, peaceful protest more power rather than take it away. Unlawful protest and rioting easily turns public opinion away from a cause, rather than improve it. Giving police another tool to deal with the thuggishness often associated with protest (see Quebec student protests) will hopefully help ensure that these violent elements which inevitably turn up are removed quickly, allowing the original cause for protest to not be overshadowed by the actions of a few masked idiots.

[Flacker]

Thread title is pretty misleading:

protest ≠ riot

If you are protesting peacefully with a mask on you aren't doing 10 years.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Thread title is pretty misleading:

protest ≠ riot

If you are protesting peacefully with a mask on you aren't doing 10 years.

Is it possible for a peaceful protest to also be unlawful? I really don't know the answer, but if it is, then you could be arrested if this bill was made law.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Is it possible for a peaceful protest to also be unlawful? I really don't know the answer, but if it is, then you could be arrested if this bill was made law.

That`s what I`m trying to ask!

Are you being DA here, cause you called me out already...?

EDIT: Yeah, looking up you are just stirring. I thank you, that you think I'm worthy of continuing the conversation. I was actually hoping for a sweep in stats from one of the many.

If we stand here tomorrow, I'll get you.



P.S. Bad Law. Or more correctly, bad extension of a bad law.

I cannot make argument because you've defended each side. But I'll try to bring something new.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Is it possible for a peaceful protest to also be unlawful? I really don't know the answer, but if it is, then you could be arrested if this bill was made law.

Trespassing is one aspect I can think of. You could try to peacefully protest inside the lobby of Encana/Cenovous's buildings, but if they ask you to leave, that might well become an unlawful, yet peaceful, protest.

The wording of this bill is important, as my admittedly weak attempt at searching the criminal code for "unlawful protest" came up empty. But if VO #23's wording in an earlier post is what the change represents, then it limits itself to section 65, which explicitly refers to riots.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Daradon

That`s what I`m trying to ask!

Are you being DA here, cause you called me out already...?

EDIT: Yeah, looking up you are just stirring. I thank you, that you think I'm worthy of continuing the conversation. I was actually hoping for a sweep in stats from one of the many.

If we stand here tomorrow, I'll get you.



P.S. Bad Law. Or more correctly, bad extension of a bad law.

I cannot make argument because you've defended each side. But I'll try to bring something new.

I don't think I am stirring.

I was actually just asking why you thought it gave too broad of power, because I could not find any interpretation that seemed like it gave any additional powers than what law enforcement already has.

That question has no bearing on me asking if a peaceful protest could be unlawful though, since in a situation that a peaceful protest could be unlawful, then (new law or old) a person could be facing charges. Since that was what the poster I was quoting was claiming.