Finally, a law none can possibly object to!

[cybercoma]

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.'

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[jacee]

Thursday, May 10, 2012 OTTAWA — Conservative MPs have agreed to impose a maximum 10-year prison term on protesters who wear masks during a riot.

Get it?

This is not punishment for doing anything wrong, nothing illegal AT ALL,

Except being at (or near?) a protest, wearing a dust mask.

This is nuts.

This is not going to go well.

Edited May 11, 2012 by jacee

[Bonam]

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'.

I'm just gonna go on a bit of a tangent here... why do people even protest at all in the traditional sense? Does anyone really believe that making a nuisance in the streets is the most effective way to send a message? The reality is that any cause or message that might underlie the protests is almost always lost, people instead focus on the protest itself, the methods of the protestors or of the police, etc. If someone really wants to affect change in society, the best way to spread their message is online, through websites, blogs, social media, advertising, etc. That is how you convince people of your point, not by roving around the streets impeding traffic.

[jacee]

I'm just gonna go on a bit of a tangent here... why do people even protest at all in the traditional sense?

Because it's a free country.

It's one of a diversity of tactics.

And it really bugs Harper.

Edited May 11, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

Former RCMP officer Patrick Webb says he likes Bill C-309 because it will let police arrest someone simply for wearing a mask or disguise at a riot,

pre-empting possible assaults and property damage."Enforcement does not then have to wait until they do a further criminal act and only then try to identify the suspect," Webb told the justice committee on Tuesday.

http://m.torontosun.com/2012/05/08/former-mountie-backs-riot-mask-ban

People who have done no criminal act and have no intent to do so will be arrested because they are wearing a mask, and are subject to a possible 10 years in jail.

What country is this?

NDP MP Charmaine Borg said that the bill "takes away an individual's right to demonstrate anonymously. An individual is not necessarily going to commit a crime just because he or she is wearing a mask at a riot. It is reasonable to think that the person just wants to remain anonymous and protect his or her identity."

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/canadian-anti-masking-bill-imminent/10849

Edited May 11, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

BR: Sure. So if someone’s participating in the illega assembly, or participating in the riot, obviously there’s some discretion in terms of determining who’s participating. But that already exists in the criminal code the police already have to make that call based on their discretion as to who’s participating and who’s not to apply the existing provisions. This is an aggravating factor of having a mask, essentially. So they already have to make that discretionary call to determine who’s participating and this is in addition with the mask. So that one would be pretty obvious – they’re disguised or not. So it’s really not adding anything in terms of a discretionary call on the police’s part. They already have to make that call as to who is participating and who’s not. And let’s face it, in these situations when you have thousands of people, even hundreds of them, whatever it might be, police are looking to deal with the people causing the problems. They’re not looking to deal with the guy who’s there peacefully and is looking to get away from the violence.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/05/08/blake-richards-talks-face-concealment-bill/

That's not what the police are saying.

They're saying they want to be able to arrest people wearing masks to stop them from committing crimes.

And they will.

The G20 showed just how well police exercise their "discretion".

This is not going to go well.

[jacee]

How to turn a dust mask into an illegal weapon ...

Ottawa’s anti-riot law needs a mask to hide its flaws

The plan is contained in a private members bill to which the government has given its support. The holes in it are easily spotted. It is already against the law to wear a mask while committing a crime, so the Tory plan effectively doubles up on a law that already exists. By tacking on a draconian penalty, the law risks imposing a harsher penance than applies to more serious criminal offences, meaning someone could potentially spend more time in jail for wearing a mask than for carrying an illegal weapon.

For wearing a dust mask while committing NO CRIME, I will be treated as if I was carrying an illegal weapon.

Blake Richards, the Conservative MP who proposed the new bill, says he views the law as preventative, enabling police to arrest masked protesters before a demonstration gets out of hand. What, then, is the crime? It is not against the law to wear a mask before a crime, nor should it be. And how are police to judge, or prove, that an accused would have taken part in a riot, if the riot had broken out?

Police don't care.

If they can arrest you, they will.

They arrested a thousand innocent people at the G20 just for spite.

Their goal is to get protesters off the street - ie, TO PREVENT PROTESTS.

And that is a police state without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

So ... if we can't protest peacefully in the streets, that only leaves one choice.

Protest violently.

If we're going to be punished as if we had committed a crime of violence ... then we may as well ...

Criminalizing peaceful protest incites violent protest.

The mean length of sentence for sexua assaults over the 9 years studied, was 1,522 days

The mean sentence for Robbery averaged 1,439 days.

The mean sentence for Major Assaults ... averaged 1,201 days

The mean sentence for other violent offences averaged 1,132 days

The overall mean sentence length for Break & Enter averaged 1,025 days

Proposed max sentence for wearing a dust mask at a protest deemed an "illegal assembly": 3,650 days

A free country isn't something you 'have': It's something you fight for every day.

Edited May 12, 2012 by jacee

[Scotty]

Observations of those punks in Quebec roaming the streets, many with masks and bandanas over their faces - every single one should have been arrested, expelled from school, put on a bus, and driven out to pick apples or wees in the country for a few weeks. There is no reason to cover your face in this country unless it's forty below and you're riding a snowmobile. The only reason to be wearing a mask is if you're going to be doing something shameful or illegal so you can't be identified. I think that's reason enough to arrest you then and there.

As to the side issue of police. I see no reason why 'riot police' ought to be covering their faces. I don't think they need those helmets and masks unless things get violent which they never did during the G20, and rarely do at any other time. If gangs of people are throwing things at police, okay. Otherwise, take the freaking helmet off. And in either event there needs to be a great big number painted on front and back of their outfit everyone can easily identify.

[Signals.Cpl]

Observations of those punks in Quebec roaming the streets, many with masks and bandanas over their faces - every single one should have been arrested, expelled from school, put on a bus, and driven out to pick apples or wees in the country for a few weeks. There is no reason to cover your face in this country unless it's forty below and you're riding a snowmobile. The only reason to be wearing a mask is if you're going to be doing something shameful or illegal so you can't be identified. I think that's reason enough to arrest you then and there.

As to the side issue of police. I see no reason why 'riot police' ought to be covering their faces. I don't think they need those helmets and masks unless things get violent which they never did during the G20, and rarely do at any other time. If gangs of people are throwing things at police, okay. Otherwise, take the freaking helmet off. And in either event there needs to be a great big number painted on front and back of their outfit everyone can easily identify.

If there is a risk for violence police should be ready that means helmets on. When it comes to police officers there should be easy way to identify in order to prevent abuse of authority.

[TheNewTeddy]

Only if the cops wear identification

In Toronto they have to

[jacee]

Observations of those punks in Quebec roaming the streets, many with masks and bandanas over their faces - every single one should have been arrested, expelled from school, put on a bus, and driven out to pick apples or wees in the country for a few weeks. There is no reason to cover your face in this country unless it's forty below and you're riding a snowmobile. The only reason to be wearing a mask is if you're going to be doing something shameful or illegal so you can't be identified. I think that's reason enough to arrest you then and there.

Really?

Some people wear masks so their employers can't identify them and fire them.

Some wear masks because of skin conditions or respiratory issues.

Some people wear masks so violent exes won't find them.

Some people wear masks so violent anti-protesters won't identify and harass them.

Some people wear masks because they have a cold and don't want to spread germs. (This is common in some countries, and increasingly so in Canada too.)

Some people wear masks because they are in costume to make their protest point.

Once police declare an "illegal assembly" (because of the actions of a few), all of these people will be subject to max. 10 years in the pen.

As to the side issue of police. I see no reason why 'riot police' ought to be covering their faces. I don't think they need those helmets and masks unless things get violent which they never did during the G20, and rarely do at any other time. If gangs of people are throwing things at police, okay. Otherwise, take the freaking helmet off. And in either event there needs to be a great big number painted on front and back of their outfit everyone can easily identify.

They need their gas masks if they shoot the tear gas upwind.

Agreed about the badge numbers.

Do you think over 100 Toronto police officers 'spontaneously' (and illegally) hid their badge numbers at the G20, or do you think they were (illegally) authorized to do so?

Edited May 13, 2012 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

Agreed about the badge numbers.

Do you think over 100 Toronto police officers 'spontaneously' (and illegally) hid their badge numbers at the G20, or do you think they were (illegally) authorized to do so?

1)90 officers not over 100

2)There is an investigation and they will be punished

3)They will find a solution to avoid such problems in the future

4)Yes I think they were acting individually seeing as there were over 90 is a small number compared to the overall strength of the police so I do think it was individual decision or at least at the smallest unit level.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Signals.Cpl]

Some people wear masks so their employers can't identify them and fire them.

They are doing something wrong if they have to cover their face in order to avoid getting fired

Some wear masks because of skin conditions or respiratory issues.

Doubt that

Some people wear masks so violent exes won't find them.

at a protest?

Some people wear masks so violent anti-protesters won't identify and harass them.

Seriously what kind of drugs do you take?

Some people wear masks because they have a cold and don't want to spread germs. (This is common in some countries, and increasingly so in Canada too.)

Never knew rioters could be so courteous.

Some people wear masks because they are in costume to make their protest point.

Well don't wear the costume.

Once police declare an "illegal assembly" (because of the actions of a few), all of these people will be subject to max. 10 years in the pen.

We are all responsible for our actions

Edited May 13, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[jacee]

1)90 officers not over 100

2)There is an investigation and they will be punished

A 'police' investigation of police?

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/torontog20summit/article/885563--90-officers-facing-disciplinary-action-for-hiding-their-identity-at-g20

When asked what discipline the officers are facing, Blair said, “It’s still to be determined but the discussion, I believe, is the loss of a day’s pay.”

3)They will find a solution to avoid such problems in the future

You think losing a day's pay is going to do that?

And how do we know that even that occurred?

4)Yes I think they were acting individually seeing as there were over 90 is a small number compared to the overall strength of the police so I do think it was individual decision or at least at the smallest unit level.

What do you think should be the penalty for unit commanders who authorized officers to remove their ID?

I'm afraid the police have lost all credibility with protesters.

Clearly they will stoop to any illegal level to clear the streets of protesters, and cover up for each other's illegal acts.

[Signals.Cpl]

A 'police' investigation of police?

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/torontog20summit/article/885563--90-officers-facing-disciplinary-action-for-hiding-their-identity-at-g20

When asked what discipline the officers are facing, Blair said, “It’s still to be determined but the discussion, I believe, is the loss of a day’s pay.”

You think losing a day's pay is going to do that?

And how do we know that even that occurred?

What do you think should be the penalty for unit commanders who authorized officers to remove their ID?

I'm afraid the police have lost all credibility with protesters.

Clearly they will stoop to any illegal level to clear the streets of protesters, and cover up for each other's illegal acts.

What would you suggest as punishment?

I don't know what the penalty should be, to me that is failing as a leader and should be cut in rank at the very least.

I'm afraid protestors have lost all credibility with Canadians. Clearly they will do anything to avoid being brought to justice for their crimes.

[jacee]

They are doing something wrong if they have to cover their face in order to avoid getting fired

Doubt that

at a protest?

Seriously what kind of drugs do you take?

Never knew rioters could be so courteous.

Well don't wear the costume.

We are all responsible for our actions.

Taxpayers pay police and soldiers to protect, defend and uphold our freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Your posts indicate that you clearly don't comprehend that.

Your personal insults violate forum rules.

I'm putting you on ignore.

[Signals.Cpl]

Your personal insults violate forum rules.

I'm putting you on ignore.

Ouch you just broke my heart!

[madmax]

1)90 officers not over 100

2)There is an investigation and they will be punished

3)They will find a solution to avoid such problems in the future

4)Yes I think they were acting individually seeing as there were over 90 is a small number compared to the overall strength of the police so I do think it was individual decision or at least at the smallest unit level.

90 is not insignificant considering that 900 citizens were arbitrarily arrested out of 10s of thousands of citizens vs 90 of a couple thousand police officers. And of those 900 many were innocent victims, others were charged with silly infractions and a few dozen actually violated and partook in violent criminal activity.

that said Officers are to uphold the law and are viewed by the publics eyes€ higher level of scrutiny and respect for the law, and their jobs.

So the numbers of Police diregarding the law is both significant and disturbingly high.

Add to this their use of impersonation and covert operations to incite is a practice that should not be condoned.

We need to trust our police force not look for or create the next Stasi

Edited May 13, 2012 by madmax

[Signals.Cpl]

90 is not insignificant considering that 900 citizens were arbitrarily arrested out of 10s of thousands of citizens vs 90 of a couple thousand police officers.

that said Officers are to uphold the law and are viewed by the publics eyes€ higher level of scrutiny and respect for the law, and their jobs.

So the numbers of Police diregarding the law is both significant and disturbingly high.

Add to this their use of impersonation and covert operations to incite is a practice that should not be condoned.

We need to trust our police force not look for or create the next Stasi

1)Protestors don't wear masks

2)Police officers wear protective gear but still wear Identification

problem solved

Add to this their use of impersonation and covert operations to incite is a practice that should not be condoned.

My personal belief is that police can bait protestors in order to remove the violent once before they can commit crimes.Protestors should be applauding the police for removing the rioters from the main body so that the message they are trying to put forth is not in any way diminished by the violent rioters.

We need to trust our police force not look for or create the next Stasi

Seems to me that police officers are still pretty high on the list of trusted professionals. My feeling is that average joe still trusts the police while the people who distrust the police in many cases have a very good reason as they are criminals and the police is throwing their asses in jail.

[bleeding heart]

90 is not insignificant considering that 900 citizens were arbitrarily arrested out of 10s of thousands of citizens vs 90 of a couple thousand police officers. And of those 900 many were innocent victims, others were charged with silly infractions and a few dozen actually violated and partook in violent criminal activity.

Yeah....interestingly, the few dozen criminals are considered far more serious than the equal or greater number (90) of police behaving illegally.

At bottom, this discrepancy in perception (authorities good, protesters bad) perhaps comes down to too-much credulity to authority...if not outright worship of Power, one of humanity's major moral and intellectual failings.

Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

My personal belief is that police can bait protestors in order to remove the violent once before they can commit crimes.

Yeah, it's not your belief, but a fact. However, there are strict guidelines covering this behaviour, because of the problem of entrapment (genuine entrapment can only be conducted by dictatorial police states, because it invents criminalty where none existed, the precise opposite of the police's job in a society such as ours).

Protestors should be applauding the police for removing the rioters from the main body so that the message they are trying to put forth is not in any way diminished by the violent rioters.

Protesters probably would be more appreciative, except the police are kicking and detaining innocent butt, too.

"Thanks for hurting me officer, I appreciate your efforts."

Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[madmax]

Your personal insults violate forum rules.

I'm putting you on ignore.

You may not like what Signals Cpl is saying but I don't see a violation of forum rules. Its one thing to ignore points of an argument and repeat your bias its another thing to just toss out insults.

Putting someone on ignore who disagrees with you is wrongheaded.

Others read these posts and form opinions based on them besides just showing up at the tea party with a position.

I suggest you continue the discussion, as everyone will benefit.

The weakness of Signals cpl position is very apparent.

This is a law for laws sake.

I don't believe its a crime to show up at a protest with a Harper mask.

I also think its ironic that the those supporting this law don't realize that protests occur daily at on all sides of the political spectrum and the "rights base" often are hard core protestors.

So, what this law potential could be is one towards Tyrrany.

I also don't believe in the apoligist for police vandalism and incitement of a riot, in order to weed out bad apples.

If not riot is happening, why incite one?

Also I think its obvious that when one has 90 offending officers vs a few dozen trouble makers violating the law at a peaceful protest then there is a serious doublestandard in this legislation.

Obviously the people thinking of this are ashamed and embarrassed by the last G20 where Hundreds of Millions (or was it some 20Billion) wasted in 3 short days.

Tony Clements Boder Security Gazebo, the Fake Lake... and of course....

When a Security Firms entire detail was swept up during the 2nd day of policing.... as the police choose NOT to respond to actual criminal activity on day one... you can see that this bill is mainly aimed at changing the subject from poor professional police work and ethics to one of

Halloween Masks.....

We have laws to deal with the trouble makers..now, just as we have laws to deal with police who remove their badges.

Seems Sigs is happy if those police just keep on their badges...and all will be well.

Thats because we don't need a 2nd law to restate the same activity.

Same goes for protests...

This is more of a government in hiding because of its massive waste during the G20 and is not about protecting the public from criminal activity or government waste.

[bleeding heart]

Also I think its obvious that when one has 90 offending officers vs a few dozen trouble makers violating the law at a peaceful protest then there is a serious doublestandard in this legislation.

Whew, you're not kidding. But what amazes me isn't the government behaviour on this, but that much of the public is indoctrinated into simply not seeing what a backwards way of thinking this is; the deference to authority is so reflexive that it requires no consideration; thought itself is considered hostile and "radical."

[Argus]

What do you think should be the penalty for unit commanders who authorized officers to remove their ID?

I'm afraid the police have lost all credibility with protesters.

Clearly they will stoop to any illegal level to clear the streets of protesters, and cover up for each other's illegal acts.

There's no evidence any unit commanders authorized anyone to remove Ids, but if there is, those commanders should be fired.

For that matter, the punishment for the police who removed their ID numbers ought to be far more severe than a day's pay. I'm thinking more along the lines of being demoted a grade and being on probation for a year. And if caught doing it again, instantly fired.

Most of the unit commanders during the G-20 should have been fired, along with the senior officers who, and I use the terms loosely 'planned' and 'organized' the police response. The police were poorly trained, poorly led, poorly disciplined, and evidently had the belief that laws did not apply to them while in their stormtrooper outfits.

[Tilter]

I don't mind the fact that people (especially students) protest. That's what democracy is all about. BUT

with the breaking of the first window or the damage to the first piece of property the "protest" becomes a RIOT & the protesters (all of them) should know that they will ALL be treated like criminals.