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

[Canuck-Hater]

10 years?? Pretty draconian law. There are murderers that spend less time in prison. Also I have a problem with "illegal protests". The criteria for illegal protest seems very vague and broad. There have been many cases where a peaceful protest has been declared illegal.

[Flashpoint]

It's Canada, and it's cold in winter.

People wear balaclava's for more than just committing acts of anarchy. Would hate to be caught up in this net because my nose was chilly and I attended a protest that turned ugly.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As valo pointed out, there are numerous reasons why a protester might choose to conceal their identity, none of which are illegal. Your logic is right in line with the "Cops should be able to search at will because only guilty people have something to hide" crowd.

I bet but as with many things in life (reality) the minority can ruin it for the majority. But this isn't about all that, it's about what did the conservative government do and let's all hate it

logic != reality

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't get this. Are you trying to say that two different posters posting two different viewpoints are somehow self-contradictory?

No, I'm saying how ridiculous it is that two people who are pretty obviously anti-Harper, have come up with two reasons why we should hate Harper over this, and they just happen to be the exacty opposite of each other.

Guess that's why it's so easy to just hate evertying Harper does.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I bet but as with many things in life (reality) the minority can ruin it for the majority. But this isn't about all that, it's about what did the conservative government do and let's all hate it

logic != reality

So let's completely undermine a form of democratic expression because of a few bad apples?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So let's completely undermine a form of democratic expression because of a few bad apples?

Let's allow people who cause millions of dollars in private and public property damage get away with it so that people who don't participate in those crimes can wear masks?

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No, I'm saying how ridiculous it is that two people who are pretty obviously anti-Harper, have come up with two reasons why we should hate Harper over this, and they just happen to be the exacty opposite of each other.

Guess that's why it's so easy to just hate evertying Harper does.

Ok champ.

It's pretty easy to win arguments when you can just dismiss the arguments of anyone not on your side as "anti-Harper".

Explain how this law is a good thing.

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's allow people who cause millions of dollars in private and public property damage get away with it so that people who don't participate in those crimes can wear masks?

Let's add a chilling effect on democratic action by forcing protesters to reveal their identities in the facebook age because some jerks destroy some property.
Let's add CCTV to every street corner because some people commit crimes!
Let's create a national DNA database because some people commit major crimes!

How about let's not throw away our freedom for the satisfaction of punishing a few malcontents more efficiently?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No, I'm saying how ridiculous it is that two people who are pretty obviously anti-Harper, have come up with two reasons why we should hate Harper over this, and they just happen to be the exacty opposite of each other.

Guess that's why it's so easy to just hate evertying Harper does.

Because sharing a viewpoint with someone while having a completely different and/or opposite justification for doing so has never happened in the history of politics.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's allow people who cause millions of dollars in private and public property damage get away with it so that people who don't participate in those crimes can wear masks?

Yeah, I think allowing people to engage in democratic expression without fear professional or personal reprecussions is worth it in the long run.

[jar_e]

I think its worth stressing again in this thread, this isn't for protests....its for riots and unlawfully assembly. HUGE difference before people start going down the slippery slope of loss of freedoms.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's allow people who cause millions of dollars in private and public property damage get away with it so that people who don't participate in those crimes can wear masks?

No offense but do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now? You're making HIS argument for him. Yes, we should allow some bad apples to get away with things if that means we don't infringe on the basic democratic rights of everyone else. That's like saying we should outlaw sex because sometimes people get raped. Or not sell cars because drivers can speed and cause accidents. Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe this point of view, with all due respect.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

How about let's not throw away our freedom for the satisfaction of punishing a few malcontents more efficiently?

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I think allowing people to engage in democratic expression without fear professional or personal reprecussions is worth it in the long run.

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

No offense but do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now? You're making HIS argument for him. Yes, we should allow some bad apples to get away with things if that means we don't infringe on the basic democratic rights of everyone else. That's like saying we should outlaw sex because sometimes people get raped. Or not sell cars because drivers can speed and cause accidents. Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe this point of view, with all due respect.

Can any of you tell me how rioting and unlawfully assembly has ever been a legal right or democratic expression or infringing on our basic democratic rights?

This isn't for lawful protests.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Ok champ.

It's pretty easy to win arguments when you can just dismiss the arguments of anyone not on your side as "anti-Harper".

Explain how this law is a good thing.

How is this law a good thing?
Well I think it's a very good thing to punish those who would riot, and cause damage. As we saw in Vancouver, so many of those that were causing problems did so becasue they thought they weren't going to be caught, or could remain anonymous. By putting extra penatlies in place, it'll proabbly make some of those people think twice.

If you take away that precieved annonymity, you take away a lot of the problems.

To add to that, I'd like to also point out the irony of people saying that this is riduclous simply becasue rapists and murderers get less than 10 years. 10 years is the MAX, anyone who thinks that'll actually happen is way off the mark.

You can't have it both ways guys, if you're using lenient sentancing over much more serious crimes as an argument about why this new maximum penalty is too harsh, it makes zero sense to argue based on the assumption that this maximum sentence will ever actually be handed out.

Also, didn't we have this exact thread like a year ago?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I think its worth stressing again in this thread, this isn't for protests....its for riots and unlawfully assembly. HUGE difference before people start going down the slippery slope of loss of freedoms.

Thanks

Peaceful/legal protest is fine.

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 10 years.
3. Section 66 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 66(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
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or


(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


(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


(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or


(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[jar_e]

And further to define an unlawfully assembly as per the criminal code:

Unlawful assembly

• 63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
  • (a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
  • (b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
  
  
  (2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.
  
  (3) Persons are not unlawfully assembled by reason only that they are assembled to protect the dwelling-house of any one of them against persons who are threatening to break and enter it for the purpose of committing an indictable offence therein.

And a riot...

Riot

64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I think allowing people to engage in democratic expression without fear professional or personal reprecussions is worth it in the long run.

And if you're doing it in a lawful manner, then this law doesn't apply to you.
If you're taking part in a riot, or an unlawful protest, then that absolutely should have professional or personal reprecussions.

You want to go march in a legal anti-Harper parade, or a legal white pride parade, fill your boots man, wear whatever you want.

But if you want to wear a mask so you can partake in an illegal protest, or flip a police car, then you should face pretty severe consequences.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I think its worth stressing again in this thread, this isn't for protests....its for riots and unlawfully assembly. HUGE difference before people start going down the slippery slope of loss of freedoms.

Again, that doesn't answer the question of what happens when a peaceful protests turns violent.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Let's allow people who cause millions of dollars in private and public property damage get away with it so that people who don't participate in those crimes can wear masks?

Have you ever protested something that was actually contentious?

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, that doesn't answer the question of what happens when a peaceful protests turns violent.

First off, any peaceful protest turns violent I'd recommend you leave. Secondly, if you were wearing a mask....take the mask off and now its not an offense. Its pretty straight forward. If you want to continue to partake in a riot or an unlawfully assembly, I can't imagine many people thinking you should have much for legal rights at that point.

The simple fact the title of this thread is still "wearing a mask at a protest?" shows you are either uncertain of the difference or just doing it to get a rise.

[wookster]

This law would be great. Gives some consequences for some idiotic and unlawful behavior. Maybe some of these lowlifes will think twice about running out to break windows, loot and burn cars etc. under the guise of "protesting".

99% of people protesting things do it legally and lawfully, they would have nothing to worry about. There are a group of people that go to these things for the sole purpose of causing trouble, (G8 summits are a prime example) and these are the people this law would be great for...