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

[rubecube]

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?

Are you saying that cops going after the low-hanging fruit doesn't happen?

[MelBridgeman]

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.

riots are democratic expression?
property destruction is democratic expression

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

Presence is participation

Yes, and you've specifically chosen to be present.
You remain peacful, you can keep your annonymity.
You want to get violent, then you've given up that right to annonymity.

If I commit any other crime, is it reasonable for me to assume that I can conceal my identity because I don't want people to know I stole something or beat someone up, or jaywalked?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are you saying that cops going after the low-hanging fruit doesn't happen?

Nice work bringing a bit of cop slaggin into this thread.

[blankall]

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.

I have my reservations about this law, but I definitely think people are being reactionary here.

To add to your points, when convicted of a criminal offence like this, there has to be a mens rea. Basically, you have to know what you are doing. If you were marching with a group of people and people in that crowd, unknowlingly to you, began smashing stuff, you should not be found guilty.

Basically, the law is set up in a way that you have to be actively part of the crowd somehow. If you were looking for a place to leave, then obviously you should not be convicted. So the argument about being unable to leave really fails.

This law is really to target those who threaten and attack other people and their property. It adds an extra penalty for wearing a mask. I'm not sure that's really necessary. It seems as though this should be an issue addressed in sentencing, as oppossed to a seperate offence.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

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

Well, I was more referring to the riot vs. protest side of things, though arguably the definition between the a riot and an unlawfully assembly is gray. I'd say its pretty clear, especially once the riot act is read. And even now, the criminal code affords you 30 MINUTES to leave before its officially a riot.

Punishment of rioter

65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Marginal note:Punishment for unlawful assembly

66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 67.

Marginal note:Reading proclamation

67. A person who is

• (a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor or sheriff,
• (b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
• (c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person’s deputy,

who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:

Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 67;
• 1994, c. 44, s. 5.

Marginal note:Offences related to proclamation

68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who

• (a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;
• (b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
• (c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Are you saying that cops going after the low-hanging fruit doesn't happen?

Absolutely not.
Are you saying that in a justice system where we routinely see people get far less severe punshment for much more severe crimes, that anyone will actually get this type of sentence for being the "Low hanging fruit".

Part of how common law works is that intent of the law is taken into account. The people standing around drinking their slurpees, are often rounded up now, and never actually get charged with anything, they are technically breaking the law, and routinely not charged. Does this law actually change that?
Will they suddenly get thrown in jail because they've broken an law that people are claiming is redundant, and thus already not being enforced?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

You keep pretending that you have to be "flipping cars or throwing rocks" for this law to be applicable to you. That's simply not the case.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by jar_e

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.

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.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yes, and you've specifically chosen to be present.
You remain peacful, you can keep your annonymity.
You want to get violent, then you've given up that right to annonymity.

If I commit any other crime, is it reasonable for me to assume that I can conceal my identity because I don't want people to know I stole something or beat someone up, or jaywalked?

Umm no, you're not getting what this law says. If you're there and other people get violent, thereby turning the situation into an unlawful protest or riot, and you have a mask on you are in violation of the law regardless of the fact that your only crime was being present at the moment other people engaged in actions that changed a lawful protest to an unlawful one.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

I have my reservations about this law, but I definitely think people are being reactionary here.

To add to your points, when convicted of a criminal offence like this, there has to be a mens rea. Basically, you have to know what you are doing. If you were marching with a group of people and people in that crowd, unknowlingly to you, began smashing stuff, you should not be found guilty.

Basically, the law is set up in a way that you have to be actively part of the crowd somehow. If you were looking for a place to leave, then obviously you should not be convicted. So the argument about being unable to leave really fails.

This law is really to target those who threaten and attack other people and their property. It adds an extra penalty for wearing a mask. I'm not sure that's really necessary. It seems as though this should be an issue addressed in sentencing, as oppossed to a seperate offence.

I'm not seeing a mens rea component. This strict liability, if you're wearing a mask you are violating the law. Maybe we're talking about different things.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Have you ever protested something that was actually contentious?

No sir

[MelBridgeman]

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.

since when is a riot a basic democratic right?

read the headline of the article

"Wearing a mask at a riot is now a crime"

Rube mislead you by changing riot to protest

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

No sir

Then how are you qualified to have a valid and informed opinion on the pros and cons of wearing masks at a protest?

This new law is yet another erosion of our rights veiled by appealing to the sensibilities of the weak and fearful.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not seeing a mens rea component. This strict liability, if you're wearing a mask you are violating the law. Maybe we're talking about different things.

Two mens rea portions I see:

1) "conceal their identity". You have to be wearing the mask for a specific purpose.

2) There would be a mens rea component to the unlawful assembly poritons of the offence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Then how are you qualified to have a valid and informed opinion on the pros and cons of wearing masks at a protest?

So to have an opinion on something you need to have had an involvement in that action/activity?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Then how are you qualified to have a valid and informed opinion on the pros and cons of wearing masks at a protest?

This new law is yet another erosion of our rights veiled by appealing to the sensibilities of the weak and fearful.

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?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So to have an opinion on something you need to have had an involvement in that action/activity?

An informed one, yes.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

No mens rea to wearing the mask. But there would be a mens rea component to taking part in the unlawful assembly. So for instance, if you were just standing there and a riot happened around you, theoretically you shouldn't be convicted If you assembled with a group of people and you continued with them while the riot occured, you'd then be convicted.

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.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

An informed one, yes.

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