William Ashley Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) I think that this whole thing stinks, judges shouldn't be removing constitutional rights period.. HOW THE HECK IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE? The constitution isn't suppose to be overruled by judges, it is suppose to be upheld? http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/28/g20-accused-fight-no-demo-bail How is exercising constitutional rights a breach of the peace? I can understand not to attend an unlawful assembly or riot, but demo is definately a no go. These are already illegal though, I find these conditions in bail orders to be so stupid... it could be keep the peace and good order.. and that would be more than sufficient. Why the heck are judges breaking the Constitution by infringing the charter? IT IS UNACCEPTABLE! Edited July 29, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Tilter Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Yes--- this homegrown terrorist MUST be free to destroy other people's buildings, businesses & police cars--- if she not allowed to participate there could be some non-violent demonstrations and thet would be against the charter rights for her freedom to be an idiot. Edited July 29, 2011 by Charles Anthony deleted re-copied Opening Post Quote
Remiel Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 Is there no legally accepted definition of " demonstration " by which we could judge the appropriateness of this by? Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 I have mixed feelings about this issue. On one hand, I do support rights under our Constitution. However, often protesters like those at the G20 seem to be taking advantage of such rights. It was reported that several times during the G20 demonstrations militant and violent protesters would be concealed behind a wall of peaceful protesters, in order to change their clothing to make it harder for the police to find and/or identify them. This was clearly "aiding and abetting". For those more peaceful protesters to claim they had nothing to do with the violence was obviously an out and out lie and the purest hypocrisy, at least for some. There are always those who will take advantage of the rules, particularly as to how their opponents abide by them. It's like if you know your opponent will always "turn the other cheek" then you can get away with repeatedly kicking him in the ass! There is a difference between respecting a protester's rights and allowing him to take Canada for a ride... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 A gunman uses your home to stage an assault, taking your family hostage. Does that mean you're aiding and abetting him? Quote
Bonam Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 There is no breech of the constitution here. When people commit crimes, or are accused of committing crimes, we very specifically and deliberately strip then of certain of their rights and freedoms, which otherwise are guaranteed by the constitution. It is unconstitutional to confine a person in a jail cell for a prolonged period of time, for example, unless there is a legal reason to do so, in which case it is perfectly constitutional. The people in the article are on bail, that is, they are awaiting trial for a crime. Hence, their freedoms can be constitutionally restricted. I see no inconsistency. Quote
Remiel Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 There is no breech of the constitution here. When people commit crimes, or are accused of committing crimes, we very specifically and deliberately strip then of certain of their rights and freedoms, which otherwise are guaranteed by the constitution. It is unconstitutional to confine a person in a jail cell for a prolonged period of time, for example, unless there is a legal reason to do so, in which case it is perfectly constitutional. The people in the article are on bail, that is, they are awaiting trial for a crime. Hence, their freedoms can be constitutionally restricted. I see no inconsistency. That is a nice argument for the bare fact of being denied constitutional rights. However, it is a very poor argument for how these particular constitutional rights may be denied in such instances as this. There is such a thing as the Oakes test. Quote
Bryan Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 That's all any sentence is: a restriction on certain rights for a specified period of time. No big deal. Quote
Shwa Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 I think that this whole thing stinks, judges shouldn't be removing constitutional rights period.. HOW THE HECK IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE? The constitution isn't suppose to be overruled by judges, it is suppose to be upheld? This is a ludicrous statement William, unless you are completely unaware of the our legal system. Judges restrict constitutional rights ever day with sentencing and the levying of bail conditions. Have you not read the Charter? Here is the first thing it says, Rights and freedoms in Canada1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I have bolded the key part for you. How is exercising constitutional rights a breach of the peace? When they are restricted by the reasonable limits prescribed by law. I can understand not to attend an unlawful assembly or riot, but demo is definately a no go. The charges against the two - conspiracy to organize riots and vandalism - determine the rationality of the restrictions. I think for people charged with conspiracy to organize riots and vandalism, restricting them from any public demonstrations is a reasonable limit. These are already illegal though, I find these conditions in bail orders to be so stupid... it could be keep the peace and good order.. and that would be more than sufficient. Why the heck are judges breaking the Constitution by infringing the charter? The judges aren't "breaking the Constitution by infringing the charter" rather you simply don't understand how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms works. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE! It is perfectly acceptable. The only contention - and the only reason the two are back in court about those bail conditions - is the definition of the word "demonstration." Since they are charged with conspiracy to incite, attending a meeting entitled, "Strengthening Our Resolve: Movement Building and Ongoing Resistance to the G20 Agenda" could be construed as a form of 'demonstration.' At any rate, their Constitutional rights are being upheld since they are being allowed to question the bail restriction. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 A gunman uses your home to stage an assault, taking your family hostage. Does that mean you're aiding and abetting him? You are twisting my example. Many newspaper and tv reports stated that the non-violent protesters ACTIVELY helped to screen a smaller group of violent protesters with their bodies! Sorry. It happened. It was witnessed by many and is an established fact. You'll have to come up with some other lame excuse. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bloodyminded Posted July 29, 2011 Report Posted July 29, 2011 This was clearly "aiding and abetting". For those more peaceful protesters to claim they had nothing to do with the violence was obviously an out and out lie and the purest hypocrisy, at least for some. Not "at least for some"; unquestionably only for some. Unless you wish to propose a pretty wanton conspiracy theory. Like those who were nowhere near any vandals, and had nothing to do with them; or those who actively opposed them, telling them to stop their behaviour...that they were all secretly in on it! Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
CitizenX Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I think the question is, if Canadian rights and freedoms are subject to limits prescribed by law, do Canadians really have any Rights and Freedoms? Lets look at Freedom from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.Freedom from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure are two of the most fundamental rights enjoyed by Canadians. To detain or arrest a person, police must have reasonable grounds to believe they are implicated in criminal activity and, unless an individual is being legally detained or arrested, the police must generally have a warrant, or other reasonable grounds, to search him or her. If all that is required to limit peoples rights is to enacted second world war legislation like the Public Works Protection Act. Ombudsman Andre Marin’s who published a report on acts use he can be quoted. “The Ontario government was opportunistic when it gave police wartime powers during the G20 summit in Toronto, resulting in a mass violation of civil rights in peacetime” "It was opportunistic and inappropriate to use a war measure that allows extravagant police authority to arrest and search people in the name of public works," "Apart from insiders in the government of Ontario, only members of the Toronto Police Service knew that the rules of the game had changed, and they were the ones holding the 'go directly to jail' cards," "Going into the weekend of the G20 summit, no one knew about the regulation - not the public, not the press, city administrators or even key members of the Integrated Security Unit in charge of summit security," he said. "Worse, the ministry's decision not to publicize the regulation entrapped citizens who took the trouble to inform themselves of their rights and wound up caught in the act's all but invisible web." “The act was used "to intimidate and arrest people who had done no harm," "was of dubious legality and no utility," "the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history" had occurred during the G20 weekend". ombudsman Andre Marin’s The "Breach of the Peace" report calls for a joint federal-provincial public inquiry to determine who was responsible for "serious violations of fundamental rights and freedoms." Besides the use of this act to illegally demanding ID, search and seizure, and arresting the innocent.Hundreds of police officers removed their badges and many lied telling protesters that martial law had been declared and that protesters had no longer any rights and they could be held as long as necessary. Overall what concerns me the most was the mass arrests with no criminal charges made. If all police have to do is illegally arrest protestors in mass, throw them in concentration camp like cells,in some cases beat them, humiliate them, and in general make them think twice before they think about questioning authority or protesting again. Because they don't have to follow the laws that they expect others respect. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
g_bambino Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) HOW THE HECK IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE? Read Section 1 of the Charter. [correction] Edited August 1, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted August 1, 2011 Report Posted August 1, 2011 "The Ontario government was opportunistic when it gave police wartime powers during the G20 summit in Toronto, resulting in a mass violation of civil rights in peacetime" There is no evidence of this ever happening. The Order-in-Council stipulating where the Public Works Protection Act would apply was produced in another thread on these boards; the area was limited to inside the perimeter of the secure area. There were thus no mass violations of civil rights perpetrated by the Cabinet. Quote
CitizenX Posted August 2, 2011 Report Posted August 2, 2011 There is no evidence of this ever happening. The Order-in-Council stipulating where the Public Works Protection Act would apply was produced in another thread on these boards; the area was limited to inside the perimeter of the secure area. There were thus no mass violations of civil rights perpetrated by the Cabinet. "Ontario's Liberal government passed a secret law governing police powers during last year's G20 summit in Toronto that could have led to even more abuses than were witnessed, concludes former chief justice Roy McMurtry in a report released." My link Without a public inquiry into not only the obvious police misconduct but also the Ontario governments and Harper's involvement. Federal, Ontario governments dodge call for G20 inquiry Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
g_bambino Posted August 2, 2011 Report Posted August 2, 2011 "Ontario's Liberal government passed a secret law governing police powers during last year's G20 summit in Toronto that could have led to even more abuses than were witnessed, concludes former chief justice Roy McMurtry in a report released." 1) The Cabinet cannot pass laws. 2) Laws cannot be passed in secret. 3) The Order-in-Council setting out where the long known to be extant Public Works Protection Act is online for everyone to read. Quote
CitizenX Posted August 2, 2011 Report Posted August 2, 2011 Not on the G20 topic but how many remember this side of the Vancouver Olympics? Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
William Ashley Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) This is a ludicrous statement William, unless you are completely unaware of the our legal system. Judges restrict constitutional rights ever day with sentencing and the levying of bail conditions. Have you not read the Charter? Here is the first thing it says, 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. As stated prior, I think that this whole thing stinks, the situation with the peaceful protestor having their rights to demonstrate removed, judges shouldn't be removing constitutional rights period.. HOW THE HECK IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE? The constitution isn't suppose to be overruled by judges, it is suppose to be upheld? Any ruling should attempt to limit the breach of constitutional rights, the concept of removal of rights should be disbarred, any rulings effecting activities should be to stem off illegal occurence, not reinforce political positioning. There is no basis to remove a single constitutional right where another indivdiuals rights are not effected, thus the measures should directly and proportionally, as per the Oakes test demonstrate the protections of other individuals rights, where there is a clear instance that the law is being violated, or others charters rights are being violated by the act that is being prohibited. In that respect. However an individuals charter rights should not be removed, the IDEA OF REMOVAL is absolutely unacceptable. While acts may be prohibited to defend others rights and safegaurd constitutionally correct law, individuals constitutional rights should never be denied or removed. When they are restricted by the reasonable limits prescribed by law. Ok and how does it apply to the protestor not being able to protest? There is a difference between a judge judging law, and a judge dictating personal unconstitutional rule. The ruling would be constitutionally invalid. The charges against the two - conspiracy to organize riots and vandalism - determine the rationality of the restrictions. The charges over a year ago? The case should be thrown out for delay of processing alone due to not being done within a reasonable amount of time. This is a passing of sentance befor conviction. I think for people charged with conspiracy to organize riots and vandalism, restricting them from any public demonstrations is a reasonable limit. You can think that it doesn't make your judgement saying that indivdiuals lawful activities should be restricted during an unlawful court process that extends court process beyong the 6 month reasonable limit for hearing a case. The judges aren't "breaking the Constitution by infringing the charter" rather you simply don't understand how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms works. I think they are. It is perfectly acceptable. For you. It clearly is a political move to limit peoples rights to organize (by organize I mean free association, and peaceful assembly). The reason it is stupid because conspiracy to comit an offence would be illegal regardless. Why would you need to include conditions that were illegal anyway? It is a redundancy unless it is to have effect beyond the law. IT IS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR THE EFFECT! The intent clearly is to limit peaceful and lawful activities as to damage the individual, as such is a penalization imposed BEFORE CONFICTION OR SENTENCING AND THUS IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY RIGHT! At the same time, the judge might be trying to protect peoples rights because the 'accused' are potentially being monitored and would expose anyone they come into contact likely to monitoring or other infringements of their rights such as warrantless wiretaps, and other forms of monitoring, but maybe not. Edited August 4, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
g_bambino Posted August 4, 2011 Report Posted August 4, 2011 HOW THE HECK IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE? Once again: Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quote
William Ashley Posted August 4, 2011 Author Report Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) Once again: Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You didn't answer the question, you just put out more baseless rhetoric for the purpose of appearance and voidless brunt. As stated your basis that judges can dictate and violate rights, is not lawful or justified, there is nothing being upheld that is good in nature by doing so. You should read my previous post, and get a better idea. Also while limiting acts, the idea of removal of rights is completely NOT allowed. That is my position, your position sees me pissing on you and laughing. Edited August 4, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
g_bambino Posted August 4, 2011 Report Posted August 4, 2011 You didn't answer the question. No, I didn't. But I did direct you to where the answer could be found. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 4, 2011 Report Posted August 4, 2011 Once again: Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It goes without saying that judges restrict rights. They put people in jail. I think what some people are arguing here is whether or not it is justifiable in a free and democratic society to revoke someone's right to protest or speak out against the government. I'm sure there are times when it is justifiable, but an argument is certainly required to prove it. It doesn't just go without saying. Quote
The_Squid Posted August 4, 2011 Report Posted August 4, 2011 It seems reasonable to me to restrict their rights to free assembly while they are tried for the crime of inciting a riot. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 4, 2011 Report Posted August 4, 2011 It goes without saying that judges restrict rights. They put people in jail. I think what some people are arguing here is whether or not it is justifiable in a free and democratic society to revoke someone's right to protest or speak out against the government. I'm sure there are times when it is justifiable, but an argument is certainly required to prove it. It doesn't just go without saying. Of course. But William was questioning how it was legally possible to limit or restrict a person's rights. I think too many people forget about Section 1 of the Charter, or don't even know it exists, and believe any imposition of the law upon them is an illegal infringement upon their rights as they see them. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 4, 2011 Report Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) William needs to read about the Social Contract, I suppose. I'm curious about people's arguments whether the courts were justified in revoking the right to protest or assemble, whatever. My first reaction is the same as The Squid. If you've been charged and convicted of inciting a riot, then yeah... it seems pretty reasonable that the public's safety comes before your right to protest (read: start riots). Edited August 4, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.