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

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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

Sure it does.
If a peaceful protest turns violent you do a couple things
1) Take off your mask
2) Get the hell out of dodge, if you're still hanging around, then you are contributing to the problem

If you do either one of those things then you're fine.
If you choose to stick around and partkae in a violent protest, then you are now breaking the law. If you want to wear a mask so you can't be identified, then you're subject to this new law, as you should be. I don't see why we should be allowing those who want to cause violence to conceal their identity.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Sure it does.
If a peaceful protest turns violent you do a couple things
1) Take off your mask
2) Get the hell out of dodge, if you're still hanging around, then you are contributing to the problem

What if you are do nothing wrong but don't want you face associated with a riot? Then you are going to want to keep your mask on.

What if you can't get out of dodge? It's not always easy to that.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

What if you are do nothing wrong but don't want you face associated with a riot? Then you are going to want to keep your mask on.

What if you can't get out of dodge? It's not always easy to that.

What if a hand comes down out of the sky and crushes you?

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

[valo403]

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.

It's not for protests, but protests can easily turn into 'unlawful assemblies' and the point at which that happens is incredibly vague, meaning someone standing around drinking a slurpee through a mask at a protest can go from a law abiding citizen engaged in protest to someone in violation of this law between sips.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jar_e

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.

Mostly the latter.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

What if you are do nothing wrong but don't want you face associated with a riot? Then you are going to want to keep your mask on.

What if you can't get out of dodge? It's not always easy to that.

Well that's a risk you are taking by partaking in a protest you don't want to be associated with.
This law is about reducing damages and violence caused by people's sense of annonymity. The fact that you might be inconvenienced by being associated with a protest that you freely went to, is a pretty minor concern.

Every right comes with it a responsibility.
You've got the right to annonymity, but you are responsible for making sure, that the group you are associating yourself with remains law abiding and non-violent. As soon as you fail at that responsibility, then you should no longer be protected by that right.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not for protests, but protests can easily turn into 'unlawful assemblies' and the point at which that happens is incredibly vague, meaning someone standing around drinking a slurpee through a mask at a protest can go from a law abiding citizen engaged in protest to someone in violation of this law between sips.

Unlawful assemblies are quite clearly defined as per the Criminal Code (which I posted earlier in the thread) as well with adequate case law behind it. If someone wants to protest, they need to know the legal difference between the two. Ignorance to the law isn't an excuse. They still need to be able to recognize it and know the differences.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Mostly the latter.

Well you've done a fine job in that sir. I tip my hat to you.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Every right comes with it a responsibility.
You've got the right to annonymity, but you are responsible for making sure, that the group you are associating yourself with remains law abiding and non-violent. As soon as you fail at that responsibility, then you should no longer be protected by that right.

Exactly. Let's bring back guilt by association. It had a bad rep, but it can change!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not for protests, but protests can easily turn into 'unlawful assemblies' and the point at which that happens is incredibly vague, meaning someone standing around drinking a slurpee through a mask at a protest can go from a law abiding citizen engaged in protest to someone in violation of this law between sips.

Do people really think that's how this law is going to be applied?
Do people really think that cops will just show up at a protest, and if things get violent, they'll just not deal with the people flipping cars, and start grabbing guys that are wearing a mask standing on the sidelines and throw him in jail?
Do people really think that'll reslult in a conviction and 10 years?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jar_e

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.

And in that time that you're milling about trying to figure out what all the ruckus is up front because your mask wasn't really made for seeing out of you are in violation of this law simply by virtue of your presence, regardless of whether or not you engaged in any behavior that contributed to the assembly being declared unlawful. That's the issue I have with it, it doesn't require you to engage in any illegal behavior beyond simple presence.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by NuclearPizzaMan

Exactly. Let's bring back guilt by association. It had a bad rep, but it can change!

It's not guilty by association if you've freely chosen to go join a group, join in their activities, and when things go bad, not do anything to remove yourself from the situation.

That's guilt by action.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

And in that time that you're milling about trying to figure out what all the ruckus is up front because your mask wasn't really made for seeing out of you are in violation of this law simply by virtue of your presence, regardless of whether or not you engaged in any behavior that contributed to the assembly being declared unlawful. That's the issue I have with it, it doesn't require you to engage in any illegal behavior beyond simple presence.

But you are engaged in illegal behavior at that point because your arrestable for a) being part of an unlawful assembly or b)being part of a riot.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

It's not guilty by association if you've freely chosen to go join a group, join in their activities, and when things go bad, not do anything to remove yourself from the situation.

That's guilt by action.

That assumes that everyone engaged in a protest is made up a solitary, unified group. It's largely small fragments that cause the problems, should the rest of the peacful protesters be lumped in with them just because they're masked?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Do people really think that's how this law is going to be applied?
Do people really think that cops will just show up at a protest, and if things get violent, they'll just not deal with the people flipping cars, and start grabbing guys that are wearing a mask standing on the sidelines and throw him in jail?
Do people really think that'll reslult in a conviction and 10 years?

To all 3 questions my answer is I don't know. It's unlikely that cops will grab people hanging out on the edges with a rubber Harper mask on, and I doubt anyone will ever see 10 years, but this law makes that possible. The most likely way this is applied is through video surveillance after the fact, which means those people hanging out on the edges who say 'F this is not what we signed up for' and walk out of the crowd and pull their masks off are going to be the easiest to catch. I hope that the law isn't applied in this manner, and instead is used to hand out additional punishment to people identified engaging in criminal activity, but again, if those are the people it's for then why not use the existing legislation that does just that?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

And in that time that you're milling about trying to figure out what all the ruckus is up front because your mask wasn't really made for seeing out of you are in violation of this law simply by virtue of your presence, regardless of whether or not you engaged in any behavior that contributed to the assembly being declared unlawful. That's the issue I have with it, it doesn't require you to engage in any illegal behavior beyond simple presence.

We'll I'd argue it does.
The law doesn't say can be convicted for proximity to an unlawful assembly or riot, it says you can be convicted for participating in one.
And the definition of an anlawful assembly specifically mentions acting together. Standing around watching, insn't participating, and thus isnt' illegal.
You might get arrested for standing around durring a riot, but that happens with any riot, people in the area get rounded up. How many of them actually get convicted? In Vancouver, it was only the people who were seen burning cars, and smashing windows.

If you aren't being violent, are making an effort to remove yourself from the situation, and remove your mask, then you aren't in violation of the law.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Sure it does.
If a peaceful protest turns violent you do a couple things
1) Take off your mask
2) Get the hell out of dodge, if you're still hanging around, then you are contributing to the problem

If you do either one of those things then you're fine.
If you choose to stick around and partkae in a violent protest, then you are now breaking the law. If you want to wear a mask so you can't be identified, then you're subject to this new law, as you should be. I don't see why we should be allowing those who want to cause violence to conceal their identity.

What if you want to wear a mask as a form of political protest?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

We'll I'd argue it does.
The law doesn't say can be convicted for proximity to an unlawful assembly or riot, it says you can be convicted for participating in one.
And the definition of an anlawful assembly specifically mentions acting together. Standing around watching, insn't participating, and thus isnt' illegal.
You might get arrested for standing around durring a riot, but that happens with any riot, people in the area get rounded up. How many of them actually get convicted? In Vancouver, it was only the people who were seen burning cars, and smashing windows.

If you aren't being violent, are making an effort to remove yourself from the situation, and remove your mask, then you aren't in violation of the law.

Presence is participation

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Unlawful assemblies are quite clearly defined as per the Criminal Code (which I posted earlier in the thread) as well with adequate case law behind it. If someone wants to protest, they need to know the legal difference between the two. Ignorance to the law isn't an excuse. They still need to be able to recognize it and know the differences.

Ah yes, the declaration of an illegal assembly has a very clear black and white standard. C'mon, you know that isn't true.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

What if you want to wear a mask as a form of political protest?

You mean that thing that's specifically legal under this and any other legislation in Canada, and also protected under the Charter of Rights?
Sure man, go ahead.

If you want to wear a mask while you're flipping cars or throwing rocks at riot cops, then you should probably get a good lawyer.