McGuinty won't apologize for secret G20 law

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

Bump! You peaceniks seem to avoid my post.

We've discussed that in a few other threads. I am trying to focus on the timeline of the lies we've been told in regards to police special powers.

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

You aren't necessarily wrong; you just haven't proven yourself to be right.

Really? Actually I have. I think you just don't want me to be right. It's all right there for you to read.

There's no evidence of what you claim; namely that the government of Ontario stated, at any time and to anyone, that the area immediately beyond the G20 summit secure area perimeter fence had been designated as a public work according to the Public Works Protection Act, thereby granting police the ability to use in that area the powers accorded to them by said Act of Parliament.

Actually I have proved that. Pages ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/25/g20-new-powers.html

The new powers took effect Monday and apply along the border of the G20 security fence that encircles a portion of the downtown core. This area — the so-called red zone — includes the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where delegates will meet. The new regulations effectively expand the jurisdiction of the existing Public Works Act to apply to high-security areas of the summit site.

Want more?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/police-given-greater-arrest-powers-near-g20-security-zone/article1617664/

The Chief said police approached the province several months ago to have the security zone designated under an existing Ontario law that gives police expanded powers in places such as Union Station or police headquarters.
The government of Ontario quietly designated the entire G20 security zone as a “public work” nearly a month ago under a little-used act that vastly expands police arrest powers.

The move means anyone entering, or even approaching, a designated area can be searched without a warrant. All the streets inside the security fence in Toronto, where the summit is being hosted, have been temporarily designated under the Public Works Protection Act.

So, here we see new regulations in addition to the Public Works Act.

Here is the proof that there was a closed secret session of government in order to enable these special powers.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828974--dalton-mcguinty-bill-blair-defend-quiet-boost-in-arrest-powers

Premier Dalton McGuinty denies it was an abuse of power for his government to secretly approve sweeping new powers for police.
“I just think it’s in keeping with the values and standards of Ontarians,” McGuinty told the Toronto Star on Friday amid a battery of complaints from opposition parties, city councillors, civil libertarians and regular Torontonians that the new rules were kept secret and, some say, may go too far.

The rules allow police to arrest and potentially jail anyone refusing to produce identification or be searched within 5 metres of the G20 security zone.

“Most Ontarians understand that there’s something extraordinary happening inside our province,” the Premier said. “We’ve tried to limit the intrusiveness to a specific secure zone as much as we can by working together with our police.”

No matter what the specific laws are, we still have been lied to.

Either the lie is that they enabled the special powers.

Or the lie is that they never enabled the special powers.

And no one seems to want to clarify what the truth is.

Either way, there is a lie here. You can't even deny that.

g_bambino · June 7, 2011

Actually I have.

Only if you invent more than half of what you believe.

The new powers took effect Monday and apply along the border of the G20 security fence that encircles a portion of the downtown core. This area — the so-called red zone — includes the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where delegates will meet. The new regulations effectively expand the jurisdiction of the existing Public Works Act to apply to high-security areas of the summit site.

Police powers expanded for G20

This reveals nothing we didn't already know: the secure area was designated by Order-in-Council, as per the Public Works Protection Act, as a public work and the officers guarding it were thereby granted the ability to exercise the powers as prescribed in the aforementioned act. It says nothing about the 5 meters beyond the fence, where the police made at least one arrest they claimed was justified by that Order-in-Council.

The Chief said police approached the province several months ago to have the security zone designated under an existing Ontario law that gives police expanded powers in places such as Union Station or police headquarters.
The government of Ontario quietly designated the entire G20 security zone as a "public work" nearly a month ago under a little-used act that vastly expands police arrest powers.

The move means anyone entering, or even approaching, a designated area can be searched without a warrant. All the streets inside the security fence in Toronto, where the summit is being hosted, have been temporarily designated under the Public Works Protection Act.

Police given greater arrest powers near G20 security zone

Now, here, at least, we see the claim that people "even approaching" the secure area could be searched without warrant. However, it isn't clear whether it was the government that passed this information to the media, the government informed the police and the police passed it accurately to the media, the government informed the police and the police passed it inaccurately to the media, or the media itself misinterpreted and reported innaccuracies.

The rules allow police to arrest and potentially jail anyone refusing to produce identification or be searched within 5 metres of the G20 security zone.

Dalton McGuinty, Bill Blair defend quiet boost in arrest powers

See above. This is just the media disseminating an assertion that could very well be wrong. According to the Ontario government, it was.

There's only one sure way to solve this mystery, and that's to see the Order-in-Council itself. Only then would we know what order came out of the Cabinet and then whether or not the police gave to the public the right information about what they could and couldn't do five metres outside that fence.

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

Only if you invent more than half of what you believe.

This reveals nothing we didn't already know: the secure area was designated by Order-in-Council, as per the Public Works Protection Act, as a public work and the officers guarding it were thereby granted the ability to exercise the powers as prescribed in the aforementioned act. It says nothing about the 5 meters beyond the fence, where the police made at least one arrest they claimed was justified by that Order-in-Council.

Now, here, at least, we see the claim that people "even approaching" the secure area could be searched without warrant. However, it isn't clear whether it was the government that passed this information to the media, the government informed the police and the police passed it accurately to the media, the government informed the police and the police passed it inaccurately to the media, or the media itself misinterpreted and reported innaccuracies.

See above. This is just the media disseminating an assertion that could very well be wrong. According to the Ontario government, it was.

There's only one sure way to solve this mystery, and that's to see the Order-in-Council itself. Only then would we know what order came out of the Cabinet and then whether or not the police gave to the public the right information about what they could and couldn't do five metres outside that fence.

Sure, but it is kind of irrelevant talking about what was in the special powers, for the fact they were never actually granted to the police. We found that out after the summit was over. Get it yet?

g_bambino · June 7, 2011

Sure, but it is kind of irrelevant talking about what was in the special powers, for the fact they were never actually granted to the police. We found that out after the summit was over. Get it yet?

Special powers are granted to people guarding public works, according to the Public Works Protection Act; that's not in question:

3.A guard or peace officer,
a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;

may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and

c) may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 3

Public Works Protection Act

McGuinty rightly doesn't deny special powers were given to the police standing guard at the secure area fence; he states only that it wasn't illegal or an abuse of power to do so (since it was according to Act of Parliament) and that the government could have better communicated to the police the provisions of the Order-in-Council ("McGuinty admitted only that his government should have better communicated the provisions of the secret G20 law").

What remains unclear is what the extent of the area was that police could use these special powers within; was it five meters outside the secure area fence? Was it only inside the perimeter? It most certainly wan't the whole of downtown Toronto, though. Whatever happened beyond five metres from the secure area fence had nothing to do with the Public Works Protection Act or the Order-in-Council enforcing it in that area.

[+]

Edited June 7, 2011 by g_bambino

Shwa · June 7, 2011

What remains unclear is what the extent of the area was that police could use these special powers within; was it five meters outside the secure area fence? Was it only inside the perimeter? It most certainly wan't the whole of downtown Toronto, though. Whatever happened beyond five metres from the secure area fence had nothing to do with the Public Works Protection Act or the Order-in-Council enforcing it in that area.

I dunno. The Public Works Protection Act seems clear enough (emphasis is mine:

Definitions
1.In this Act,

“guard” means a guard appointed under this Act; (“gardien”)

“highway” means a common or public highway or a part thereof, and includes any street, bridge and any other structure incidental thereto and any part thereof; (“voie publique”)

“public work” includes,

(a) any railway, canal, highway, bridge, power works including all property used for the generation, transformation, transmission, distribution or supply of hydraulic or electrical power, gas works, water works, public utility or other work, owned, operated or carried on by the Government of Ontario or by any board or commission thereof, or by any municipal corporation, public utility commission or by private enterprises,

It seems to me that the police were granted special powers on roads and streets and anything attached to them, like parks.

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

The special powers were never given to them Bambi. You still are not getting it.

We can spend days with the details of the powers. In the end it's irrelevant. The powers were never given to the police.

So again, the lie is that the powers were given, or the powers were not given. Only one of these things can be true.

Shwa · June 7, 2011

The special powers were never given to them Bambi. You still are not getting it.

We can spend days with the details of the powers. In the end it's irrelevant. The powers were never given to the police.

So again, the lie is that the powers were given, or the powers were not given. Only one of these things can be true.

It seems to me that the special powers of the Public Works Protection Act were given to the police and there were several sources that can grant the duties of the "guard"

Guards, appointment
2.(1)For the purpose of protecting a public work, guards may be appointed by,

(a) the Solicitor General;

( the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Force;

© any inspector of the Ontario Provincial Police Force;

(d) the head or deputy head of the municipal council or the chief of police of the municipality in which the public work is located, or the person acting in the place or stead of the head or deputy head;

(e) the chair or other person who is the head of a board, commission or other body owning or having charge of the public work, or the person acting in the place or stead of the chair or other person.

g_bambino · June 7, 2011

The special powers were never given to them Bambi.

How do you know? Before the summit, we were told that the government designated the secure area as a public work and thus those guarding that area/structure were accorded powers granted by the Public Works Protection Act. The government hasn't denied that was the case; it now says only that "police were never granted special powers to detain and arrest people who came within five metres of the G20 security perimeter" [emphasis mine].

This is a pretty complex matter, but I'm still really becoming convinced you have serious comprehension problems. Your childish name-calling won't distract from that.

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

How do you know? Before the summit, we were told that the government designated the secure area as a public work and thus those guarding that area/structure were accorded powers granted by the Public Works Protection Act.The government hasn't denied that was the case; it now says only that "police were never granted special powers to detain and arrest people who came within five metres of the G20 security perimeter" [emphasis mine].

This is a pretty complex matter....

It's not that complex. One of the following is true.

Special powers were given to the police.

OR

No special powers were given to the police.

If no special powers were given, why would Mcguinty make a statement not apologizing for the special powers granted to police?

If special powers were given, why would the police and government say that after the summit that no special powers were given?

One of these things is true, and the other is false. If both are true, you are more than welcome to try and address it.

g_bambino · June 7, 2011

Special powers were given to the police.
OR

No special powers were given to the police.

We were told they were. Nobody has said they weren't.

If no special powers were given, why would Mcguinty make a statement not apologizing for the special powers granted to police?

Because people were asking him to make an apology and he has nothing to apologise for other than, maybe, according to him, a failure to communicate properly with the police.

If special powers were given, why would the police and government say that after the summit that no special powers were given?

Again, nobody has said such a thing.

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

We were told they were. Nobody has said they weren't.

So again, go read the OP ... let me recap for you, yet again.

http://www.globalnews.ca/Police+given+special+powers+during+province/3216475/story.html

TORONTO - With mounting calls for an independent review of police actions during the weekend G20 summit in Toronto, the Ontario government said Tuesday that police were never granted widely reported special powers to detain and arrest people who came within five metres of the G20 security fence.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/29/police-given-no-special-powers-during-g20-province/

“The Ontario government did not pass a secret law that gave police additional power to arrest people during the G20 Summit in Toronto,” said Laura Blondeau, a spokeswoman for Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci.

So which one of the following is true.

Special powers were given to police.

OR

No special powers were given to police.

guyser · June 7, 2011

Actually it is the law for people to carry identification with them when they are in public.

Not in ONtario it isnt. And I doubt it is anywhere in this country.

However any public citizen does have to show anyone there identification.Ironic.

I imagine you meant 'doesn't" have to show it.....thats because they dont, nor carry it.

I also believe that there are laws in regards to covering your face in public but I am unsure of specific details.

WWWTT

If that were the truth, halloween , winter season, snowmobilers, motrcyclists would all be in violation of the law.

No law to keep face exposed.

cybercoma · June 7, 2011

I dunno. The Public Works Protection Act seems clear enough (emphasis is mine:

It seems to me that the police were granted special powers on roads and streets and anything attached to them, like parks.

Huh? :huh:

cybercoma · June 7, 2011

GH, I don't think special powers were given to the police per se. The powers given to the police had already existed through the Public Works dealy that has already been noted. What I think was "special" about the situation is that they expanded the definition of Public Works to include areas that most certainly were not in that category prior to the G20. It seems the police took it upon themselves to consider anywhere people could congregate would be a Public Works and went to business busting skulls. The actions of the government during that week makes it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate dissenting opinions or public protest. They want nothing to do with the public's opinion and, in fact, they are going to do whatever it takes to make sure that you do not voice your opinions publicly.

guyser · June 7, 2011

So which one of the following is true.

Special powers were given to police.

OR

No special powers were given to police.

Can we reply both?

The spokeswoman for Community Saftey said they were granted special powers to arrest within 5 meters of the fence.

TORONTO - Critics are comparing a secret law passed by the Ontario government to give police special powers during the G8 and G20 summits to Canada's War Measures Act.

The regulation gives police the power to arrest anyone coming within five metres of the security fences around the summit sites in Toronto and Huntsville.

Police can also demand identification from people near the security fences, and anyone who refuses to provide it can face up to two months in jail and a $500 fine.

The province's Liberal cabinet secretly passed the new regulation June 2 without any debate in the legislature, which was still in session at the time.

A Facebook group created today condemns the Ontario Public Works Protection Act, which it says "seriously curtails our rights and freedoms."

The law went into effect on Monday and will expire next Monday, after the G20 wraps up in Toronto.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Community Safety says the cabinet passed the law after a request from Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.

Does that help clarify things?

g_bambino · June 7, 2011

let me recap for you, yet again.

No, let me recap for you again:

[T]he Ontario government said Tuesday that police were never granted widely reported special powers to detain and arrest people who came within five metres of the G20 security fence [emphasis mine].

Police given no special powers during G20: province

I've no idea why you think that means the govenment said it never granted anyone, anywhere, any special powers as per the Public Works Protection Act.

The Ontario government says police were never granted special powers to detain and arrest people who came within five metres of the G20 security perimeter.
The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services insists a change to the Public Works Protection Act, legislation that governs most public space in Ontario, that was made behind closed doors by Premier Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet on June 2, applied only to the inside of the security fence.

"The Ontario government did not pass a secret law that gave police additional power to arrest people during the G20 Summit in Toronto," said Laura Blondeau, a spokeswoman for Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci.

"What the Ontario government did do, in the same way we process all regulations, is to create a regulation to ensure all areas within the security perimeter, were equally considered public lands under the Public Works Protection Act [emphasis mine]."

Police given no special powers during G20: province

Well, duh. The Public Works Protection Act was put to the legislature by another government and it has never been secret. An Order-in-Council isn't a change to a law, either, as the author of the piece seems to believe.

All we have here is the ministry spokesperson clarifying that the Public Works Protection Act was made, by Order-in-Council, to apply only to the area within the security fence, meaning the Cabinet's position is that the police and media were incorrect to believe the police would be able to exercise five metres beyond the security fence those powers granted by the Public Works Protection Act. Of course, only the Order-in-Council itself will confirm who's right and who's wrong.

[c/e]

Edited June 7, 2011 by g_bambino

GostHacked · June 7, 2011

GH, I don't think special powers were given to the police per se. The powers given to the police had already existed through the Public Works dealy that has already been noted. What I think was "special" about the situation is that they expanded the definition of Public Works to include areas that most certainly were not in that category prior to the G20. It seems the police took it upon themselves to consider anywhere people could congregate would be a Public Works and went to business busting skulls. The actions of the government during that week makes it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate dissenting opinions or public protest. They want nothing to do with the public's opinion and, in fact, they are going to do whatever it takes to make sure that you do not voice your opinions publicly.

That clears things up a little for me.

Shwa · June 8, 2011

Huh?

Definitions
1.In this Act,

“guard” means a guard appointed under this Act; (“gardien”)

“highway” means a common or public highway or a part thereof, and includes any street, bridge and any other structure incidental thereto and any part thereof; (“voie publique”)

“public work” includes,

(a) any railway, canal, highway, bridge, power works including all property used for the generation, transformation, transmission, distribution or supply of hydraulic or electrical power, gas works, water works, public utility or other work, owned, operated or carried on by the Government of Ontario or by any board or commission thereof, or by any municipal corporation, public utility commission or by private enterprises,

( any provincial and any municipal public building, and

© any other building, place or work designated a public work by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. (“ouvrage public”) R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 1.

I say "special powers" in the sense that the various police officers were designated as "guards" as defined in the Act.

g_bambino · June 8, 2011

What I think was "special" about the situation is that they expanded the definition of Public Works to include areas that most certainly were not in that category prior to the G20. It seems the police took it upon themselves to consider anywhere people could congregate would be a Public Works and went to business busting skulls. The actions of the government during that week makes it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate dissenting opinions or public protest.

Do you have one iota of proof that the Cabinet temporarily designated anywhere other that the secure area a public work and did so because the ministers do not tolerate dissenting opinions and wished to give the police free clearance to "bust skulls"? Anything?

Shwa · June 8, 2011

GH, I don't think special powers were given to the police per se. The powers given to the police had already existed through the Public Works dealy that has already been noted. What I think was "special" about the situation is that they expanded the definition of Public Works to include areas that most certainly were not in that category prior to the G20. It seems the police took it upon themselves to consider anywhere people could congregate would be a Public Works and went to business busting skulls. The actions of the government during that week makes it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate dissenting opinions or public protest. They want nothing to do with the public's opinion and, in fact, they are going to do whatever it takes to make sure that you do not voice your opinions publicly.

Which is really the question isn't it and likely the gist of the whole argument. Clearly the Act gives the government the right to designate pretty much any public area as a "public work." So did they or was it assumed that they did by those in charge of the police?

cybercoma · June 8, 2011

I say "special powers" in the sense that the various police officers were designated as "guards" as defined in the Act.

I'm confused about the parks part. I don't see parks anywhere in there.

cybercoma · June 8, 2011

Do you have one iota of proof that the Cabinet temporarily designated anywhere other that the secure area a public work and did so because the ministers do not tolerate dissenting opinions and wished to give the police free clearance to "bust skulls"? Anything?

Which is really the question isn't it and likely the gist of the whole argument. Clearly the Act gives the government the right to designate pretty much any public area as a "public work." So did they or was it assumed that they did by those in charge of the police?

That is the question gentlemen. Did the police take it upon themselves or were the powers granted? Either way, citizens were wronged by the State, since the police, of course, are agents of the State. By some legal theories, a law is not right or justifiable, simply because it is written. Take the Nuremberg Defense as an example if you need one.

g_bambino · June 8, 2011

That is the question gentlemen. Did the police take it upon themselves or were the powers granted?

Well, that is what I pointed out just a little while ago. As I've said: only the Order-in-Council itself will answer the question. I see little reason to believe, though, that the government is lying when it says the Public Works Protection Act was made to apply only within the secure area.

Either way, citizens were wronged by the State, since the police, of course, are agents of the State.

The police are Her Majesty's officers, yes. However, they are not above the law. Hence the legal action we see against wrong-doers.

[+]

Edited June 8, 2011 by g_bambino

Shwa · June 9, 2011

The police are Her Majesty's officers, yes. However, they are not above the law. Hence the legal action we see against wrong-doers.

Action against the wrong-doers for excessive force, yes, but has the issue been settled as to whether the arrests or detentions were illegal? I think the question as to whether the order in council was given to expand the protected areas will be sorted out with any illegal arrest cases.