Finally, a law none can possibly object to!

[Signals.Cpl]

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).

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."

In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

I know its wikipedia but if you want I can go find a different source.

If I was a police officer in the middle of a protest and I suggest violence whoever acts upon my mere suggestion most likely already was willing to commit violence acts or is the most suggestible person in the world.

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."

This has an easy solution, police wear proper identification and protestors do not wear masks. Whoever wears a mask is detained/arrested as it is likely someone planning or doing illegal activities.

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

What points did I ignore?

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.

Please enlighten me on the weakness of my position.

Are you for protestors wearing masks?

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

it is now

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.

I have no problems with legitimate protestors, I have a problem with rioters and specifically those who do damage and cover their identity to avoid the consequences. Protests are not the once a year lets stick it to the man and blow shit up. Protests have legitimate purposes and when the issue that is being protested is ignored because people are focusing on the rioters.

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

Please elaborate how this brings about tyranny.

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?

If a riot is likely to happen why not force the hand of the rioters in order to arrest them and prevent it from happening on your terms rather then reacting to the violence.

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.

Yeah the G-20 was definitely peacefull

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.

20 billion? it was at most 1 billion.

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.....

The subject here is to make people accountable for their actions. Some people see massive protest as an opportunity to commit violence because of large crowds, if they are forced to remove their masks and are held responsible for their actions some might think twice while other will for their actions.

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

Yeah and the law can't do anything if you cannot identify either party now can it?

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

What would make YOU happy? I thought the problem that people had was that 90 police officers hid their identification. Police Identify themselves protestors don't wear masks

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

We need a second law to make the first law relevant.Rioting is illegal, but me wearing a mask kind of makes it hard to punish me doesn't it?

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.

I think what the G20 proved was that it was not a massive waste but that it wasn't enough.

[GostHacked]

I have no problems with legitimate protestors, I have a problem with rioters and specifically those who do damage and cover their identity to avoid the consequences.

And many of us here have a problem with rioters as well.

Protests are not the once a year lets stick it to the man and blow shit up. Protests have legitimate purposes and when the issue that is being protested is ignored because people are focusing on the rioters.

Sounds like the purpose of this thread!

Please elaborate how this brings about tyranny.

You have explained it quite well in your next part of your last reply.

If a riot is likely to happen why not force the hand of the rioters in order to arrest them and prevent it from happening on your terms rather then reacting to the violence.

That's tyranny.

Yeah the G-20 was definitely peacefull

The Montebello ones were as well. Regardless of the cops trying to 'force the hand' for the 'ends to justify the means'.

The subject here is to make people accountable for their actions. Some people see massive protest as an opportunity to commit violence because of large crowds, if they are forced to remove their masks and are held responsible for their actions some might think twice while other will for their actions.

Yeah and the law can't do anything if you cannot identify either party now can it?

Cops by law are to have their identity visible at all times WHEN ON DUTY.

What would make YOU happy? I thought the problem that people had was that 90 police officers hid their identification. Police Identify themselves protestors don't wear masks

Riot cops for the most part are not identifiable. The badge or number is small and probably in a place where it is not easily seen.

So what would be your solution to undercover cops wearing masks in order to bait the ones you want to arrest?

We need a second law to make the first law relevant.Rioting is illegal, but me wearing a mask kind of makes it hard to punish me doesn't it?

The laws against that sort of this already exist. Rioting IS illegal. Breaking windows of businesses, IS illegal. Trashing businesses IS illegal. Smashing police vehicles IS illegal, trashing public property IS illegal. What more do you think another law will do to help with this 'problem'.

I think what the G20 proved was that it was not a massive waste but that it wasn't enough.

Is your mental state, of one who is still in war zone?

[bleeding heart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

I know its wikipedia but if you want I can go find a different source.

No, I think it sounds about right, and is in line with the document that poster g_bambino posted on this topic.

[Signals.Cpl]

And many of us here have a problem with rioters as well.

Then we should do something about that

Sounds like the purpose of this thread!

You have explained it quite well in your next part of your last reply.

That's tyranny.

How is that tyranny?

The Montebello ones were as well. Regardless of the cops trying to 'force the hand' for the 'ends to justify the means'.

That proves my point, the Montebello protestors were peaceful and did not want to commit violent acts therefore the suggestion to commit violence was not followed through.

Undercover Police provide opportunity for violence and protestors eject violence then that means the protestors did not go to commit violence in the first place.

Undercover Police provide opportunity for violence and protestors proceed with violence then that means the protestors did go to commit violence in the first place.

Cops by law are to have their identity visible at all times WHEN ON DUTY.

And now rioters by law have to show their face.

Riot cops for the most part are not identifiable. The badge or number is small and probably in a place where it is not easily seen.

There are ways for police to provide identification of riot police without badge numbers and we should look in to that in order to make identification easier.

So what would be your solution to undercover cops wearing masks in order to bait the ones you want to arrest?

Do not wear masks?

The laws against that sort of this already exist. Rioting IS illegal. Breaking windows of businesses, IS illegal. Trashing businesses IS illegal. Smashing police vehicles IS illegal, trashing public property IS illegal. What more do you think another law will do to help with this 'problem'.

It could be illegal, but if the people who commit those actions are wearing masks that makes all those laws useless as they cannot be enforced. By making it illegal to wear masks it would then make it possible to enforce all the other laws.

Is your mental state, of one who is still in war zone?

Why?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[eyeball]

I have never been in a war zone.

Thank's for clearing that up, I've been a little concerned that you were.

[Signals.Cpl]

Thank's for clearing that up, I've been a little concerned that you were.

just answering a question little man.

[eyeball]

...little man.

Not according to your Momma.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not according to your Momma.

I don't think you understood her sarcasm.

[jacee]

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.

I suggest you continue the discussion.

I don't wish to discuss anything further with someone who says:

Signals.Cpl said:

Seriously what kind of drugs do you take?

It's an insult, a slam, a drive-by smear, rhetorical not discussive.

I have no further interest.

[Signals.Cpl]

I suggest you continue the discussion.

I don't wish to discuss anything further with someone who says:

It's an insult, a slam, a drive-by smear, rhetorical not discussive.

I have no further interest.

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.

Because your examples seem so incredibly poorly thought out that I had to ask where you get your "ideas".

[Signals.Cpl]

I suggest you continue the discussion.

I don't wish to discuss anything further with someone who says:

It's an insult, a slam, a drive-by smear, rhetorical not discussive.

I have no further interest.

And by the way awwww muufffffiiiiinnnn

[Guest Peeves]

From the Private Member C-309 bill for clarification.

Now, how can one fault that!

Cracking down on masked rioters

Re: Fear Of A Black Mask, editorial, May 14.

I believe there have been some misunderstandings about the content of my Private Member’s Bill, C-309, The Concealment of Identity Act. It would criminalize the wearing of a mask or other disguise while committing the offences of participating in an unlawful assembly or participating in a riot. It does not seek to limit freedom of expression or freedom of speech. This new legislation enhances the rights of lawful demonstrators by preventing the disruption of their events by masked criminals.

C-309 was conceived last year, in response to increasing incidents in our cities involving concealed rioters. While it is already an offence to wear a mask to commit an offence under section 351 of the Criminal Code, police dealing with public disturbances have found this section is incredibly difficult to apply to the riots and unlawful assemblies. In fact, despite identifying over 15,000 separate criminal acts during the Vancouver riots, Vancouver police have only been able to lay two charges under section 351.

Canada’s justice system must not put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens. The Concealment of Identity Act would give police the tools they need to identify offenders who vandalize this country’s communities.

Blake Richards, MP for Wild Rose, Alta.

[Michael Hardner]

And by the way awwww muufffffiiiiinnnn

Not helpful, SC...

[Michael Hardner]

Is your mental state, of one who is still in war zone?

GH - your post was good until this point...

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Thank you, madmax.

I have pointed out to Signals Cpl on this thread that some comments aren't helpful.

I encourage people to dialogue with those with whom they disagree. Those with untenable points of view will get frustrated and leave rather than either changing their views, or agreeing to disagree (when that makes sense).

Please continue to avoid insults and report any posts where insults are happening.

[Michael Hardner]

Not according to your Momma.

Please. Stop.

[Tilter]

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.

If you knew anything about the G20 riot you would know that the police were far too lenient with the rioters. if this had happened 20 years ago--- (impossible because no one was that stupid then) tyhe police would have arrested the leaders of the provocation at the start and the riot would have been cut off immediately. Because the police must now satisfy a bunch of politically correct criteria they had to wait till the idiots rioting got to causing massive amounts of damage to property. If it happens again---- it won't---- because the police will stop it in the bud & the idiots rioting will be arrested and those same idiots will be charged & convicted of felonys, do jail time, and carry their stupidity on their resumes fro the rest of their life. Good luck finding a job whit crimes relating to destruction of property, rioting & a stretch in the pokey--- not too many banks or businesses are anxious to haev these people on the payroll. if a job, even while working for your daddy, requires a bond, forgety it.

[Argus]

If you knew anything about the G20 riot you would know that the police were far too lenient with the rioters.

Uh, no. It wasn't leniency. It was incompetence. The police acted like they were totally flabbergasted at the thought some people might break windows, and had no idea what to do about it. The one thing they did know was they certainly didn't want to confront the vandals. They had to withdraw and get massive reinforcements before daring to go near some skinny teenagers in black shirts. And of course, by the time they got together their army the 'black shirts' had dispersed and were back home eating fries and drinking pops.

Undeterred, our brave police set about arresting everyone in sight the next day: young and old, reporters, the lame, bystanders, anyone who didn't look like they might be 'dangerous'. They arrested a thousand odd people, apparently for no reason, for most were soon let go without charge, and most that were charged were released by judges for lack of anything approaching evidence.

And the few vandals who broke windows were vastly outnumbered by the rioters the next day, the ones in helmets, wearing badges (hiding them, though) and attacking people in the streets for no reason.

[guyser]

if a job, even while working for your daddy, requires a bond, forgety it.

Pretty much only a 3D bond will be subject to a criminal check. Almost all others are financial.

[Tilter]

Uh, no. It wasn't leniency. It was incompetence. The police acted like they were totally flabbergasted at the thought some people might break windows, and had no idea what to do about it. The one thing they did know was they certainly didn't want to confront the vandals. They had to withdraw and get massive reinforcements before daring to go near some skinny teenagers in black shirts. And of course, by the time they got together their army the 'black shirts' had dispersed and were back home eating fries and drinking pops.

Undeterred, our brave police set about arresting everyone in sight the next day: young and old, reporters, the lame, bystanders, anyone who didn't look like they might be 'dangerous'. They arrested a thousand odd people, apparently for no reason, for most were soon let go without charge, and most that were charged were released by judges for lack of anything approaching evidence.

And the few vandals who broke windows were vastly outnumbered by the rioters the next day, the ones in helmets, wearing badges (hiding them, though) and attacking people in the streets for no reason.

Apparently we are discussing different riots.

And of course, by the time they got together their army the 'black shirts' had dispersed and were back home eating fries and drinking pops.

Wrong--- most of them were still in the crowd, pretending to be innocent.

Undeterred, our brave police set about arresting everyone in sight the next day: young and old, reporters, the lame, bystanders, anyone who didn't look like they might be 'dangerous'. They arrested a thousand odd people, apparently for no reason, for most were soon let go without charge, and most that were charged were released by judges for lack of anything approaching evidence.

Would the ignored order to disband & leave an unlawful assembly (read: RIOT) be considered

apparently for no reason

--- in a situation like that anyone who is still around after an order to disperse can be considered part of the riot on one hand and idiots on the other (if you were one of those idiots I have committed a sin of ignorance and must apologize for not knowing that) Perhaps the next rioters will be known as "crackedheads" because I'm sure the Toronto & Vancouver Police will display more ardour in the next riot, using their batons to better advantage.--- Hope you are there to enjoy the fruits of your passion.