Cons spied on Canadian communities years before G20

[g_bambino]

First of all, we're talking about the G20 protests specifically and the fact that the cops didn't arrest anybody the day that people actually were breaching the peace...

Actually, we're actually talking about false arrest, specifically, and arresting someone for breach of the peace is not a false arrest.

You're trying to argue that hundreds of people arrested were not breaching the peace and therefore the "mass arrests" were illegal both as false arrests and as contrary to S.1 of the Charter, the "reasonable in a free and democratic society" part, in particular. However, the relevant sections of the Criminal Code of Canada (S.30, 31, 32, 63, and 64), the Ontario Police Services Act, other statutes, and common law give a very broad definition of breach of the peace, not to mention what constitutes an unlawful assembly, and both give police officers much leeway in determining what is and isn't a breach of the peace, as well as empowering them to arrest people whom the officers think have breached the peace or are going to do so. These clauses have not been found to be unconstitutional, meaning, any officer who has made an arrest that accords with those laws, as broadly worded as they are, has not, despite what you say, made an illegal, or false, arrest: "[T]he Supreme Court held that as long as police discretion comes from law, it meets the s. 1 standard of 'prescribed by law,' even if the discretion is unfettered."¹

Even if you want to consider the kettling as arrest, and you might think the protesters and bystanders who were kettled were innocent, innocence is irrelevant to the legality of the arrest: The police can still justify their actions with, amongst other laws, S.32 of the Criminal Code, which allows them to employ reasonable force to prevent a riot.

When the police boxed citizens in at Queen and Spadina for hours, they could invoke any of three sources of authority to break up protests disturbing the peace: s. 63 of the Criminal Code, breach of the peace provisions of the Criminal Code, or common law ancillary powers to preserve the peace. All three would require the police to make a judgement that the protest was not peaceful. Since the statute delegates this judgement to the police or recognizes its common-law authority to make that judgement, the courts would likely defer to the police expertise to decide what is peaceful and what is not.²

Now, whether or not kettling is a "reasonable" use of force can be up for debate; but, if considered an arrest, it still wasn't false.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

The problem here is that the protesters they arrested were indeed peaceful. There was no demonstrable breach of peace that would have warranted arrest.

And secondly, the legislated sections of the CCC, OPSA, and other statues are only applicable insofar as they create limits that are justifiable in a "free and democratic society".

It would be up to the police to prove that the protesters they arrested were breaching the peace. Without a doubt, the people on the first day did. They smashed windows and torched cars among other things.

However, the videos that we've all seen from the second day, when cops began kettling random people and arresting them, completely undermine the argument that these arrests were for a breach of peace. Very few if any of the protesters who were arrested were actually breaching peace.

What you are doing is working backwards. You're saying that because the law exists, it is justifiable. It is the Charter, even as explained in the source you provided, that determines whether or not the law is justifiable: "legislative acts or judge-made common law in Canada can limit even peaceful assembly, but they must have very good reasons." The idea that they need very good reasons comes from the Charter.

Now, in the case of the protesters that were arrested, breach of the peace is absolutely a good reason for arresting people. However, calling a peaceful protest that is non-violent, causing no damage to property, and not causing noise violations through all hours of the night a breach of peace is absolutely an abuse of power. It's false arrest because the results of those arrests, as well as the copious amount of video evidence we have, makes it absolutely clear that there was never any breach of peace. Yet, these protesters and residents were arrested under those pretenses.

For some reason, you seem to think that I'm claiming the police can't arrest protesters for breach of peace. I'm not denying that they can. I'm denying that there was ever a breach of peace in the first place or any justifiable reason to believe that there would be a breach of peace beyond simple protesting that second day.

Sections 30 and 31 do not explain what constitutes a breach of peace. These are moot anyway, since I'm not denying that protesters can be arrested for breach of peace. I reject the claim that section 32 applies to what occurred on day 2, as there was no riot or unlawful assembly. We must carefully distinguish between what constitutes a protest and what constitutes a riot under these circumstances. Police and politicians have played loose and fast with the definition of "riot" in recent years to incorporate any peaceful gathering of protesters. You say the police have much leeway in determining what is a breach of peace and I'm suggesting that their fabricated definitions are not good enough. A protest is not a riot nor does a protest mean a riot will break out. The police have no right to demand that a peaceful demonstration disperse, since the code is clearly designed to allow them to do so only in order to suppress a riot. That was not the case the day the cops kettled, assaulted, and detained protesters. Sections 63 and 64 likewise do not apply because there was nothing "tumultuous" about the actions of the protesters on the day that the cops began cracking down on them and arresting them en masse. Peaceful and orderly protest is not tumultuous. Violence, disorder and chaos are tumultuous. Violence and chaos only ensued after the police began randomly arresting the protesters. While the police may have leeway in determining what is a breach of peace, they can't just pick people up off the street at random and claim that they were disturbing the peace.

[g_bambino]

The problem here is that the protesters they arrested were indeed peaceful. There was no demonstrable breach of peace that would have warranted arrest.

Peaceful in your opinion. But the law gives the police a wide berth in forming their own opinion on whether or not an assembly is lawful or peaceful; an assembly taking over a street without permit is by itself an unlawful act. Then, consider the vague definition of an ulawful assembly: "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 will disturb the peace tumultuously; or will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously", which could easily be applied to almost any crowd gathered that weekend. And, don't ignore the fact that the police are empowered to make arrests in order to maintain the peace, if they feel it is being threatened and about to be breached: An unlawful assembly "will disturb the peace"; officers can use whatever reasonable force "is necessary to suppress a riot" (all emphasis mine); each refers to the prevention of potential breaches of the peace, not simply making arrests after the peace has been breached.

[T]hey can't just pick people up off the street at random and claim that they were disturbing the peace

No, they can't; as I said, they must stick within the limits of the law. But, again, the law leaves the police a lot of leeway in determining what is a breach of the peace; it covers everything from noise violations, to public drunkenness, to rioting.

[ed.: punct.]

Edited November 26, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Again, I'm saying that we need to make careful distinctions between riots and protests and pay particular attention to the fact that a breach of peace implies tumultuousness. I have yet to see any examples that the police were justified in using breach of peace to arrest the protesters that they did. I'm not denying that the police have a lot of leeway, but that leeway does not and should not extend to calling peaceful protest a breach of peace. I find it very hard to call something that is peaceful disturbing the peace. In that sense, I don't believe the police were justified in making those arrests. It would be like arresting someone on narcotic charges when they're carrying drugs that are prescribed to them because who knows... they could be trafficking. This opens up anyone that's travelling to and from the pharmacy to arrest. This is not a reasonable limit as prescribed by law. In the same way, I don't believe it's reasonable to call just any protest tumultuous or a breach of the peace because this opens up any peaceful asssembly for the purpose of political dissent to arrest.

Edited November 26, 2011 by cybercoma

[olp1fan]

The Toronto police will never get their respect back or if they do it will be many years down the road

and this hurts them in the long run

[g_bambino]

I'm not denying that the police have a lot of leeway, but that leeway does not and should not extend to calling peaceful protest a breach of peace. I find it very hard to call something that is peaceful disturbing the peace.

Being peaceful isn't enough to justify an assembly's continuance. It isn't lawful for groups of people to take over thoroughfares at will, no matter how peaceful they are. It also isn't lawful to refuse an officer's instruction to get off a street that's been illegally commandeered by a protest group. Further, police are allowed by the Criminal Code to use reasonable force to prevent a riot (i.e. a breach of the peace) from breaking out, not just react after the peace has been breached; the law leaves it up to the police to determine when the potential for danger has reached the point when force becomes necessary. Whether they should or should not have such broad powers of determination is another debate. As the law stands, very few arrests made during the G20 weekend were unlawful (only one is known to have been).

[ed.: sp.]

Edited November 28, 2011 by g_bambino