Finally, a law none can possibly object to!

[guyser]

I think you're probably deranged, and in need of some help, and in a nutshell an example of whats wrong with a sector of our society, but aside from that, you need a mask for 'asphalt dust'? Sure you do, anyway, how about you peaceful protestors not damage property while protesting, but like the leader of the quebec student union who admitted on camera that he see's nothing wrong with smashing windows, because windows aren't people, you don't seem to understand that this law is in response to the acts of those people you desperately support.

While I wont quibble with your assessment, as MH has done that , there is a shred of truth to hat post in reference.

There already is a law for mask while commiting a crime. Why add one for mask wherever a riot takes place?

Because innocent people can get caught up in sorts of things such as this. It may seem silly, but people have to get back and forth from business's and homes, and if they happen upon what may be constituted a riot, and have to cover up due to air borne irritants, you think its cool to arrest them too?

I don't.

If nothing else, the G20 proved to us that the police can and do round up people they had no business rounding up.

[Guest Peeves]

While I wont quibble with your assessment, as MH has done that , there is a shred of truth to hat post in reference.

There already is a law for mask while commiting a crime. Why add one for mask wherever a riot takes place?

Because innocent people can get caught up in sorts of things such as this. It may seem silly, but people have to get back and forth from business's and homes, and if they happen upon what may be constituted a riot, and have to cover up due to air borne irritants, you think its cool to arrest them too?

I don't.

If nothing else, the G20 proved to us that the police can and do round up people they had no business rounding up.

Some comments in this thread have been just plain stupid, and others, well they don't rise to that level.

If you wear a mask in a riot situ..you should be tasered, cuffed and booked. Uh...period

[guyser]

Some comments in this thread have been just plain stupid,

I imagine thats true, here is one right now.....

If you wear a mask in a riot situ..you should be tasered, cuffed and booked. Uh...period

And some people can read a proposed law , and have the foresight to see the unintended consequences going forward , you know......like an innocent person trying to get from house or business away from the melee and get rounded up because they used a scarf to prevent air borne irritants from bothering them.

Of course some can't rise to that level of foresight.

[Guest Peeves]

I imagine thats true, here is one right now.....

And some people can read a proposed law , and have the foresight to see the unintended consequences going forward , you know......like an innocent person trying to get from house or business away from the melee and get rounded up because they used a scarf to prevent air borne irritants from bothering them.

Of course some can't rise to that level of foresight.

Sorta over the top supposin. No one not in the riot wearing a scarf would have any need to worry. Obviously some dolt might come up with a scenario where a blind person not knowing they were in a riot was wearing dark glasses and a cop with a bad 'tude that day mistook them for a black bloc participant with a rabid dog.

Yup, it could happen. Or, a nun in her habit and vestments was innocently on her way to a threesome, and got arrested for wearing a disguise. Could it happen ? Sure will it..odds are unlikely.

Going to extremes to attempt to make a case is surely cause for cachinnating. I hope your sky is not too unusual.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

No one not in the riot wearing a scarf would have any need to worry. ...

Could it happen ? Sure will it..odds are unlikely.

Going to extremes to attempt to make a case is surely cause for cachinnating. I hope your sky is not too unusual.

Not extremes. You are aware of the details of the G20 protests, and past protests where police disguised as provocateurs caused trouble ? Normally, I dismiss fears of authority as conspiracy minded but bad behaviour in the recent past warrants attention.

[Guest Peeves]

Not extremes. You are aware of the details of the G20 protests, and past protests where police disguised as provocateurs caused trouble ? Normally, I dismiss fears of authority as conspiracy minded but bad behaviour in the recent past warrants attention.

I am verry much aware of the behavior of our blue line, but, that is in no way a contrary argument against insisting any ^RIOTERS!not be allowed masks.

I would not(were I so inclined) be concerned about personally wearing a Guy Fawkes mask as an occupier in a lawful demonstration.

There are cameras available now everywhere and law enforcement knows that and is pretty much kept in reign. That a law breaker smashing plate windows can wear a mask while so doing is unacceptable to most.

Unless of course they want another brick to toss at Harper, or Ford Or Americans, or Israelis or Conservatives.

[PIK]

I think the point of the law is to make it easier to identify the "black bloc" protesters and others who turn non-violent events into orgies of destruction. These individuals need to be able to be caught and punished, without having to blanket arrest everyone at a demonstration.

That being said, I expect the proposed law will have very limited effectiveness.

What it will do ,is weed out the cowards, which is 99% of them. Great law, time to take our streets back. I wonder if any on this board that is unhappy with it ,is one of the mask evil doers.

[guyser]

I am verry much aware of the behavior of our blue line, but, that is in no way a contrary argument against insisting any ^RIOTERS!not be allowed masks.

Actually you couldnt be more wrong or ignorant/misgiving of our police. Giving police powers to arrest anyone with a mask of any sort near or by any demonstration or riot is exactly a concern anyone who values freedom should worry about.

Why do you want to suppress freedom of movement?

Why do you want to restrict a free person?

Why dont you value your rights?. Thankfully, others are while you whistle at the wind as your powers are being or attempted to be restricted.

Police can arrest anyone they want with cause, either by their actions or there intent.

Its a stretch for those without any sense of forethought to not see that the wearing of a mask/scarf/fake nose and glasses is not enough for an arrest near or at a riot.

There are cameras available now everywhere and law enforcement knows that and is pretty much kept in reign. That a law breaker smashing plate windows can wear a mask while so doing is unacceptable to most.

Lot of good those cameras did huh? The Police were only 20 feet away and played chicken little until the following Sunday when they could be tough around the families having a quiet protest at an approved protest spot.

Go ahead and have your tea, other are loooking out for the freedoms you choose not to uphold.

[GostHacked]

Not extremes. You are aware of the details of the G20 protests, and past protests where police disguised as provocateurs caused trouble ? Normally, I dismiss fears of authority as conspiracy minded but bad behaviour in the recent past warrants attention.

Thing is, if we are just really finding out about those kinds of tactics, how long do you think it has been taking place? It's not a conspiracy when they really are out to get you!

[guyser]

Laws of unitended consequences are something our politicos never seem to get right.

We could remind some of the pot laws vs pedophile laws just passed. Recall which one gets you a longer sentence?

How about a child porn charge to a 14 yr old girl because she took a picture of herself topless?

Shall I go on?

There already is a law on the books re commision of a crime while wearing a mask is another charge.

Now they want a charge for weraing a mask, even though one could be standing at or near a protest/riot.

Edited May 9, 2012 by guyser

[Michael Hardner]

I am verry much aware of the behavior of our blue line, but, that is in no way a contrary argument against insisting any ^RIOTERS!not be allowed masks.

Lots of negatives in that last sentence, but I think I follow... and I concur.

I'm just saying it's not an extreme case, or a stretch.

There are cameras available now everywhere and law enforcement knows that and is pretty much kept in reign. That a law breaker smashing plate windows can wear a mask while so doing is unacceptable to most.

Uh. Really ? I don't accept that anything has changed significantly since 2010. The state arrested people without charge, the police behaved badly. What has changed since then ?

Nothing, I would say. I still am on your side with regards to conclusions, but I don't agree with your reasoning at all.

[guyser]

Thing is, if we are just really finding out about those kinds of tactics, how long do you think it has been taking place? It's not a conspiracy when they really are out to get you!

You are correct to think about it this way.

If you are anywhere near my age, (born'60) then you will recall the protests of many people , normally upstanding citizens (and some shady ones) screaming about mis-handling from the Police.

We both know not a single one caused any cop a thing since no one could prove otherwise. Most citizens shrugged and said it probably didnt happen or happened differently from their story.

With the advent of camera phones/video, and the stupidity of cops who have dash cameras, we now know that many of those past claims of brutality were in all likelihood to be true.

[guyser]

Finally, a law none everyonecan possibly should object to! (well, rationally or reasonably if you do value your freedoms!)

Hey I figure if one can make the supposition and conclusion in one sentence, why not correct it the opposite way.

Edited May 9, 2012 by guyser

[GostHacked]

You are correct to think about it this way.

If you are anywhere near my age, (born'60) then you will recall the protests of many people , normally upstanding citizens (and some shady ones) screaming about mis-handling from the Police.

We both know not a single one caused any cop a thing since no one could prove otherwise. Most citizens shrugged and said it probably didnt happen or happened differently from their story.

With the advent of camera phones/video, and the stupidity of cops who have dash cameras, we now know that many of those past claims of brutality were in all likelihood to be true.

Cameras are starting to cause the police issues indeed. It is forcing them to be accountable for their actions. I said before, the government wants the citizens to be more open.. while the government gets more closed. And people don't think there is a problem

When the government is scared of it's citizens, you get freedom.

When the citizens are scared of it's government, you get tyranny.

The government works for us, at least that is how it should be.

[Michael Hardner]

Thing is, if we are just really finding out about those kinds of tactics, how long do you think it has been taking place? It's not a conspiracy when they really are out to get you!

It's been taking place since forever, and was probably much worse in the past IMO. Things tend to get better, you see, not worse.

[jacee]

There already is a law for mask while commiting a crime. Why add one for mask wherever a riot takes place?

...

If nothing else, the G20 proved to us that the police can and do round up people they had no business rounding up.

Quite true. And the court cases and lawsuits from the G20 are working their way through the courts still, and will have much to say on this topic of what the police can and cannot do to peaceful protesters and bystanders.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/crime/article/1122189--lawyer-wants-police-chief-bill-blair-investigated-over-g20-arrest

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/crime/article/1132150--lawyer-sues-police-for-unlawful-g20-arrest

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/article/1093920--man-settles-g20-lawsuit-claims-police-brass-ordered-false-arrests

Police already abuse the laws we have.

We have a law about wearing a disguise with intent (to commit a crime).

That existing law was illegaly used to arrest people wearing a bandana around their neck because they 'might' be intending to participate in a legal peaceful protest ... or not. (There was no 'riot' at that time.)

On his way to church, wearing a bandana around his neck ...

...he was swarmed by as many as 20 Toronto police officers and taken into custody ... spent approximately 28 hours in custody ... He was forced to wear handcuffs for more than 20 hours, slept on the floor, and had to submit to a degrading strip search after which he was released without charge.

And we're expected to believe that police will distinguish between peaceful protesters and 'rioters' wearing masks?

No. The new law isn't about 'rioters' as they are already covered under the old law.

The new law is intended to scare people and prevent them from protesting at all.

Peaceful protesters are not protected by the new law: They are the targets of the new law.

Here's how it goes again:

Somebody (police disguised as protesters?) throws a stone, smashes a window, whatever.

Police declare the protest an illegal assembly.

Police arrest protesters enmasse for participating in an "illegal assembly".

Protesters with bandanas around their necks get five years in jail.

THAT's what Harper wants.

He's criminalizing protest in a slimy backdoor move, trying to scare everybody off the streets.

And it's going to backfire on him bigtime.

Edited May 9, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

huh, on 08 May 2012 - 08:24 PM, said: I think you're probably deranged, and in need of some help, and in a nutshell an example of whats wrong with a sector of our society ...

I was looking forward to a retort to jacee's post, and I STOPPED READING AFTER I SAW THIS INSULT. Do you understand why insults are against the Rules and Guidelines ? They are street litter on an otherwise enjoyable avenue to enlightenment.

Stop it, won't you ?

Thanks Michael.

I never find that 'huh' has anything of value to say, so his posts aren't worth responding to ... but thanks anyway.

[cybercoma]

I am verry much aware of the behavior of our blue line, but, that is in no way a contrary argument against insisting any ^RIOTERS!not be allowed masks.

It's already against the law for rioters to wear masks.

[eyeball]

Public has to be open, while the government and police are getting more closed.

Pssst...sousveillance...pass it on.

How could anyone possibly object to it?

[Guest Peeves]

It's already against the law for rioters to wear masks.

Please post same.

Still, they do, then they commit a crime on camera, but cannot be identified as they run away. Run away so proud of their participation in violence and riot that they wear a mask. That defines a coward, not someone standing up for 'rights.'

[Guest Peeves]

What it will do ,is weed out the cowards, which is 99% of them. Great law, time to take our streets back. I wonder if any on this board that is unhappy with it ,is one of the mask evil doers.

As any can see if they care to read, the law will "criminalize the use of masks". Apparently though there are those 'Harper Haters" that would bitch about his walking on water, claiming he couldn't swim. Whining wimps that lost an election and can't stand anything coming from OUR government. They're soooo sad...

OTTAWA — The federal government has decided to throw its weight behind a private member’s bill that would make it a crime to wear a disguise while taking part in a riot.

The bill, tabled by Alberta Conservative MP Blake Richards, was endorsed by the government Sunday, according to a news release from Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Related

Picture Post: Dozens arrested as May Day Occupy protests turn violent

Montreal police and protesters rage through the night as tuition march turns violent

Richards’ bill would amend two sections of the Criminal Code that cover the penalties for taking part in a riot or unlawful assembly, criminalizing the use of masks. As the law stands now, Sections 65 and 66 state that participating in a riot could lead to two years behind bars.

If the bill — titled the Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act — passes, wearing a disguise while participating in a riot would increase that jail term to five years.

The proposed legislation is an attempt to cut down on violence in the streets.

According to the code, an unlawful assembly is defined as a gathering of three or more people with a common purpose out to cause a disturbance, or incite others to do so.

The government’s support comes in the wake of a massive “strike” by Quebec students protesting tuition increases — demonstrations that have frequently descended into violence.

[fellowtraveller]

This is really going to throw a wet blanket on rowdy Halloween parties

[wyly]

Quite true. And the court cases and lawsuits from the G20 are working their way through the courts still, and will have much to say on this topic of what the police can and cannot do to peaceful protesters and bystanders.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/crime/article/1122189--lawyer-wants-police-chief-bill-blair-investigated-over-g20-arrest

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/crime/article/1132150--lawyer-sues-police-for-unlawful-g20-arrest

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/article/1093920--man-settles-g20-lawsuit-claims-police-brass-ordered-false-arrests

Police already abuse the laws we have.

We have a law about wearing a disguise with intent (to commit a crime).

That existing law was illegaly used to arrest people wearing a bandana around their neck because they 'might' be intending to participate in a legal peaceful protest ... or not. (There was no 'riot' at that time.)

On his way to church, wearing a bandana around his neck ...

...he was swarmed by as many as 20 Toronto police officers and taken into custody ... spent approximately 28 hours in custody ... He was forced to wear handcuffs for more than 20 hours, slept on the floor, and had to submit to a degrading strip search after which he was released without charge.

And we're expected to believe that police will distinguish between peaceful protesters and 'rioters' wearing masks?

No. The new law isn't about 'rioters' as they are already covered under the old law.

The new law is intended to scare people and prevent them from protesting at all.

Peaceful protesters are not protected by the new law: They are the targets of the new law.

Here's how it goes again:

Somebody (police disguised as protesters?) throws a stone, smashes a window, whatever.

Police declare the protest an illegal assembly.

Police arrest protesters enmasse for participating in an "illegal assembly".

Protesters with bandanas around their necks get five years in jail.

THAT's what Harper wants.

He's criminalizing protest in a slimy backdoor move, trying to scare everybody off the streets.

And it's going to backfire on him bigtime.

very good post I suspect you are correct...and riot police should have large ID number painted on their armor chest, back, helmet, shield...the majority of rioters are legitimate and peaceful and most police act with restraint but both have elements that can get out of control they need to identified....

[jacee]

If the bill — titled the Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act — passes, wearing a disguise while participating in a riot would increase that jail term to five years.

The proposed legislation is an attempt to cut down on violence in the streets.

According to the code, an unlawful assembly is defined as a gathering of three or more people with a common purpose out to cause a disturbance, or incite others to do so.

First of all, I want to clarify that I am not attempting to protect people who commit illegal acts during protests, with or without masks. They choose to do so, and they take their chances with the law.

I do participate in protests.

I do have a bandana around my neck.

I sometimes pull it up over my face because of dust, sun, or media photographers.

What concerns me is ... I am a peaceful protester BEFORE AND AFTER the police declare the protest to be an 'Unlawful Assembly'.

However, after the declaration, I am now 'participating in a riot wearing a disguise' and liable for 5 years in jail. I didn't hear the 'declaration', don't know when it became illegal, wasn't doing anything wrong.

At the G20, police rounded up over 1000 people but were able to lay charges against only a handful. Police looked stupid and lawsuits are plentiful.

Next time, so they don't look so stupid, they will lay as many charges as they possibly can ... and peaceful protesters protecting their faces for whatever reason will be charged with 'participating in a riot wearing a disguise' and spend up to 5 years in jail ... for doing nothing wrong.

This law is not about the people committing illegal acts while wearing masks.

This law is about all of the peaceful protesters who are present when the police decide to declare the protest 'unlawful'.

And of course some are thinking/saying 'Well then stay away from protests ya loonie lefty'.

And therein lies my point:

If we are harassed and intimidated into giving up our freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly ... then Canada is no longer a free country, but a politically-controlled police state.

The fact that blacbloc'rs are outwitting and humiliating police is not a reason for suppression of the human rights of others who are doing nothing wrong.

The politically motivated 'government' is intentionally suppressing our right to protest.

And if you're a Harper supporter maybe you think that's ok.

But you might want to rethink that when Mulcair wins.

When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent... is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern. Stephen Harper 2005

I guess he changed his mind.

Edited May 10, 2012 by jacee

[WWWTT]

First of all, I want to clarify that I am not attempting to protect people who commit illegal acts during protests

You don't have to clarify anything!

Some people don't like the fact that others have rights and different opinion.

Especially the freedom to express their opinion!

The real ironic thing here is that some people will be severely punished for trying to bring light to an injustice.Meanwhile the government has committed countless injustices in the past and possibly presently,but always walks away with clean hands!

WWWTT