10 Years In Prison For Masking Your Face In A Protest

[valo403]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Quick examples: A woman wearing a burqa protesting woman's rights. (Religion)
A group of people wearing Guy Fawkes masks - I'm sure somewhere out there, there's a Guy Fawkes club with devoted members (Association/expression)

I never said every case. Just saying, any decent lawyer should be able to find a hole in this proposed new policy.

That's about the only one that holds up.

The Guy Fawkes mask argument would get you in the door, but you'd still have to demonstrate that the mask was actually part of the expression and not just a means to hide your face while commuting a crime.

It's very easy to say 'oh that violates x clause of the Charter'. It's much more difficult to make an argument that actually succeeds.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm not being ridiculous at all. Cops definitely do have legitimate reasons to hide their identity. And some of them abuse the anonymity, but we shouldn't stop allowing police to cover their faces because of them.

And it's the same for protesters. They have every right to gather and express their grievances. Peaceful protest has been a powerful force for change in our society, and there are powerful people whose interests might be affected by these protests. So some feel the need to protect themselves against negative repurcussions these people might bring on to them. That doesn't make them a coward.

This law doesn't target anyone engaged in lawful protest

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

No kidding. So the drunk driver who killed 5 people with his cement mixer in 2007 then lied about it and tried to hide it gets a little over 5 years while people who mask their faces receive a similar penalty? Canadian justice at it's finest.

You do understand that this is about the maximum sentence, not a mandatory sentence, correct?

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by valo403

Freedom of expression maybe, but outside of that I don't see where the argument lies. You can't just fabricate a religion to claim you covered your face for religious purposes. Your right to gather and protest has not been infringed. Even freedom of expression is shaky, you'd have to establish that the wearing of a mask is a form of expression in and of itself, not just something done to conceal your identity, or that not allowing people to disguise their faces would have a chilling effect upon their ability to express their viewpoint.

And for those comparing this to sentences for other crimes you're missing that those other crimes have maximum sentences that far exceed this one. The fact that people aren't always sentenced to the maximum term doesn't decrease the sentencing guidelines. This extension would simply allow for a longer sentence, it wouldn't mandate it.

You could make compelling cases for freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, presumption of innocence, violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, a standard s. 7 challenge because it engages liberty interests, etc. And considering how sloppily the bill is drafted ("overbroad" is putting it mildly), I don't know if it would survive an Oakes analysis either.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's very easy to say 'oh that violates x clause of the Charter'. It's much more difficult to make an argument that actually succeeds.

Just saw this one after I was posted the other message - the onus would actually be on the government to justify the infringement. It's pretty clear that a number of Charter rights are engaged on their face.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Will people please stop saying things like "So a drunk driver who kills a bunch of people gets 5 years, and joe protester is going to get 10 years? What a joke".

You can't have it both ways guys. You can't complain that the Canadian justice system is way to lenient and then assume that every protester is going to get the maximum sentence for their crime when clearly that is not how the rest of the system works.

Yes it's a travesty that there are cases where people are woefully under-sentenced, and that needs to be fixed, but as a few people have pointed out, the 10 years is the MAXIMUM, and if we use the track record of sentencing to date, is unlikely to ever be handed out.

As for the comments about this is stupd and we should be focusing on stiffer penalties for other crimes, that's also irrelevant. If all we ever focused on was more severe crimes, we'd only have laws that state you get a bazillion years for rape and murder, and no laws against everything else. Of course there are other parts of the justice system that could use some tweaking, or a total overhaul, but that doesn't mean we should ignore other areas until all the big problems are 100% fixed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Just saw this one after I was posted the other message - the onus would actually be on the government to justify the infringement. It's pretty clear that a number of Charter rights are engaged on their face.

I don't see the clear infringement, although to be fair I haven't read the actual Bill. I think you'd still have a hill to climb in most cases to show an infringement. Remember who this is aimed at, not people assembling and wearing those giant paper mache heads of state masks, but rather people covering their faces while engaging in a riot. I don't see how you have a right under the Charter to hide your face while engaging in a criminal act.

[pylon]

Simple. Don't partake in mask wearing criminal activities, and you won't go to jail for 10 years.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't see the clear infringement, although to be fair I haven't read the actual Bill. I think you'd still have a hill to climb in most cases to show an infringement. Remember who this is aimed at, not people assembling and wearing those giant paper mache heads of state masks, but rather people covering their faces while engaging in a riot. I don't see how you have a right under the Charter to hide your face while engaging in a criminal act.

You don't, period end of story.

I have yet to see cops busting up peaceful assemblies, if they did, then Occupy would have died in the womb.

The police in Canada don't break up or even wade into gatherings until people or public property is threatened.

And people that wear Guy Fawkes masks should be arrested for being uncreative posers and sentenced to a vicious year of penance standing on a street corner wearing a sign that states that they're a poser.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm not being ridiculous at all. Cops definitely do have legitimate reasons to hide their identity. And some of them abuse the anonymity, but we shouldn't stop allowing police to cover their faces because of them.

And it's the same for protesters. They have every right to gather and express their grievances. Peaceful protest has been a powerful force for change in our society, and there are powerful people whose interests might be affected by these protests. So some feel the need to protect themselves against negative repurcussions these people might bring on to them. That doesn't make them a coward.

You can still wear a mask to a peaceful protest. That is not affected by this law. If the protest turns into a riot and you participate in the riot and are wearing a mask then you get the increased sentance.

Your right to hide your face while you protest is still inctact.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's about the only one that holds up.

The Guy Fawkes mask argument would get you in the door, but you'd still have to demonstrate that the mask was actually part of the expression and not just a means to hide your face while commuting a crime.

It's very easy to say 'oh that violates x clause of the Charter'. It's much more difficult to make an argument thatactually succeeds.

You speak like you dictate the law knowing precisely what would and wouldn't hold up. I'm simply saying there's a chance and certain cases where The Charter can protect against these charges.

Don't come in here saying my opinion is right or wrong. The law isn't black and white.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't see the clear infringement, although to be fair I haven't read the actual Bill. I think you'd still have a hill to climb in most cases to show an infringement. Remember who this is aimed at, not people assembling and wearing those giant paper mache heads of state masks, but rather people covering their faces while engaging in a riot. I don't see how you have a right under the Charter to hide your face while engaging in a criminal act.

The term "riot" isn't even mentioned in the draft, aside from the name:

2. Section 65 of the Criminal Code is re-numbered as subsection 65(1) and amended by adding the following:
](2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Rioting is already a crime in Canada, so I don't know how the infringement could be justified - this isn't targeting rioters, it's targeting potential participants by criminalizing the act of wearing the mask itself even if no crime had been commissioned yet. Even planning/conspiracy crimes (where no offence has yet been commissioned) require some sort of mens rea evidence. And what the heck is 'without lawful excuse' for wearing a mask?

There are major problems with how this is drafted.

[Resolute 14]

If I had a guess, the changes to these laws are aimed at groups like the Black Bloc.

The problem is things like this:

"Penalties don't necessarily mean anything for the police," Houghton said. "It's the ability to have another potential charge or give police the ability to arrest someone to prevent a crime that is important."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Van...132/story.html

Department of Pre-Crime, anyone?

I don't disagree with the idea behind the bill. And while it is not aimed at legal protesters, it is a must that the bill be written in such a way as to prevent such legal protesters from getting caught up in the law.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You don't, period end of story.

I have yet to see cops busting up peaceful assemblies, if they did, then Occupy would have died in the womb.

The police in Canada don't break up or even wade into gatherings until people or public property is threatened.

You didn't watch much of the G-20 protests then, did you? There were a lot of bully, scumbag cops out that weekend. An embarrassing weekend to be Canadian.

[YYC in LAX]

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

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Rather than discussing bullsh** like this, how about we increase the penalties for child molesters, rapists, pedophiles, and other such crimes.

I blame Vancouver Canuck fans for this.

Add god damn drunk drivers to this list. What a joke of a penalty it is now.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by VO #23

You didn't watch much of the G-20 protests then, did you? There were a lot of bully, scumbag cops out that weekend. An embarrassing weekend to be Canadian.

That weekend certainly was embarrassing to be a Canadian, but it wasn't because of the police.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by valo403

The Guy Fawkes mask argument would get you in the door, but you'd still have to demonstrate that the mask was actually part of the expression and not just a means to hide your face while commuting a crime.

For a Fawkes mask specifically it's probably pretty easy to justify it as expression given it's rather broad use as a symbol (almost a brand really) of protest against real or preceived tyranny. Similerly someone wearing one of those exagerated politicial figure masks should likewise have little trouble justifying it as an act of expression. Probably harder to justify a belaclava or bandana on those grounds though.

Considering that it's already a crime to wear a mask while in commission of a crime I think this is at best a waste of time and at worst a potential infringement of civil liberties.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have no problem with someone that's in a riot masked and performing violent acts having the book thrown at him. We've seen a uptick in terms of violence during riots perpetrated by the Black Bloc or
pretenders to the black bloc.

I think that being masked and smashing windows or beating down cops cancels out any consititutional challenge ie freedom of expression, as freedom of expression cannot include violent acts or acts that put the public in jeopardy. If you could then you'd see serial killers fighting their convictions based on the line, I am the first fully functional homicidal artist.

IS 10 years a little severe? Maybe, but its a sentencing guidline and not a mandatory sentence.

For me, I see it as a blanket rule that undermines many liberties.

We've already seen it used in the States in PEACEFUL Occupy Protests.

In fact, it's been used by private companies to corral people around Scientology (brainwashing) centres.

We are living in a society that is increasingly invaded by media. Where has our privacy gone?

Don't get me wrong. If such masked people are proven in a court of law to be in a VIOLENT PROTEST, sure, tack some time on.

But to make it a blanket law is an undermining of civil liberties and another step in Big Brother. We've already seen this law used abroad to make quick arrests that are questionable.

Not to mention, then you got to figure out the whole religious debate. Burka, Turban, etc.

I don't entirely disagree with the spirit of the law. I could work with a gentler reworking. But, the law as it is, is an affront to civil liberties at the best, and another Conservative jail booster at worst.

EDIT: The problem for police isn't in finding a crime with which to charge violent or destructive rioters, she added. It's about identifying those who commit the crimes if their faces are masked. Boivin said she fears police will see the bill as a way to pre-emptively arrest masked protesters, even if they're peaceful.

And it's happened many times abroad.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by VO #23

The term "riot" isn't even mentioned in the draft, aside from the name:

2. Section 65 of the Criminal Code is re-numbered as subsection 65(1) and amended by adding the following:
](2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Rioting is already a crime in Canada, so I don't know how the infringement could be justified - this isn't targeting rioters, it's targeting potential participants by criminalizing the act of wearing the mask itself even if no crime had been commissioned yet. Even planning/conspiracy crimes (where no offence has yet been commissioned) require some sort of mens rea evidence. And what the heck is 'without lawful excuse' for wearing a mask?

There are major problems with how this is drafted.

Thanks for this. Yeah, seems to be some major drafting issues from just a quick glance. I've never understood how some of these laws come to be drafted in a manner that makes them wholly ineffectual.