Know your rights: teen arrested for photographing mall takedown

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

The Constitution doesn't apply to private parties. It applies to how the government treats people. Private parties have no obligation to protect your freedom of expression, unless it's in a provincial human rights code.

This is called switch and bait!

I never said that a private party has the obligation to protect any ones rights.

You are the one that has,not I!

Unless the charter of rights and freedom changes,it applies to all in Canada.

The mall staff/security and the RCMP are in contravention of the charter.

It's right there in black and white for all to see!

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

If you witness a crime, it's in everyone's best interest to have the incident documented on video.

Well said!!!

When the citizens of Canada stop defending their rights at every opportunity and accept what they are told without a whisper of protest,you will know the beginning of the end has arrived!

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

The Constitution doesn't apply to private parties.

Man that's a freekin whacked out thing to write!

Man whats happened to you,you would never write something like this before???

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

When the citizens of Canada stop defending their rights at every opportunity and accept what they are told without a whisper of protest,you will know the beginning of the end has arrived!

WWWTT

From many of the comments I have read in this thread,maybe the beginning of the end has arrived!

WWWTT

Edited November 17, 2012 by WWWTT

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

True enough,

No,MG comment,as I have pointed out is not true.

WWWTT

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

Man that's a freekin whacked out thing to write!

Man whats happened to you,you would never write something like this before???

WWWTT

He's correct though....

The constitution isn't what you think it is.

The Canadian Constitution is an example of a particular type of constitution, usually referred to as a governmental or national constitution. In this context, the Canadian Constitution establishes the rules and principles that govern the operation of government and political life in Canada. It represents, in essence, the basic “rulebook” of Canadian politics, setting out the nation’s fundamental political principles, the powers and duties of government, and the rights and privileges of citizens.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework

All the articles of The Charter apply to the state. Mobility rights, freedom of expression, Rights to run for political office, equality rights, etc are rights of the people that the state may not infringe. It does not govern how citizens are treated by other citizens. There are criminal and civil statutes to deal with that.

Moonlight Graham · November 17, 2012

Wrong again!

Holy man how many people here are just taking guesses at what is written in the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms???

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms

b. freedom of thought,belief,opinion and expression,including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

It is clearly written in black and white!

Hot damn, apologies for my ignorance, yes you may be entirely right then. However, are there any limits to "freedom of the press"? Obviously a reporter can't come into your house uninvited and start taking pictures. Also, define "press", can anyone claim to be an "investigative reporter" and start snapping pictures just about anywhere.

It's also a question of whose rights trump whose: at a concert/movie theatre you are on private property but the venue can tell you that no photography is allowed. So do the rules of the owner of the private property trump the right to "freedom of the press"?

Honestly we need an expert in constitutional law and precedents to figure out this thread.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

Moonlight Graham · November 17, 2012

Wrong! They don't have to tell you their name as it already appears all over court documents in proceedings.

You have to give your name if you are operating a vehicle or they are in the middle of an investigation.

Don't they have to display ID? I believe in the US they have to tell you their name.

Moonlight Graham · November 17, 2012

Answer: http://www.mbwlaw.ca/Civil%20Disobedience%20Guide.pdf

Do the police have to identify themselves?

In BC, according to the Police (Uniforms) Regulations of the Police Act (B.C. Regulation

564/76, section 8) all uniformed officers have to wear a “badge, metal, plastic or cloth,

bearing an identification number or name” above their right breast pocket of the uniform.

The only exception is for executive and senior officers who are not required to wear such

identification.

Undercover police, of course, are not referred to in this regulation.

If the identification is not clear, you should ask the officer to identify him/herself.

dre · November 17, 2012

Your car is considered personal private property and you have all the same rights as you were in your home.

Actually thats not quite correct. When you are in a vehicle the probable cause standard applies and the police can search it without a warrant. Smelling or seeing booze or drugs for example would give the cop such cause.

He is not however allowed to "unsecure" anything during that search. So for example if you have a locked box in your vehicle or a locked compartment they would need a warrant to compell you to open it, or to cut the lock off themselves.

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

He's correct though....

The constitution isn't what you think it is.

http://www.mapleleaf...ional-framework

All the articles of The Charter apply to the state. Mobility rights, freedom of expression, Rights to run for political office, equality rights, etc are rights of the people that the state may not infringe. It does not govern how citizens are treated by other citizens. There are criminal and civil statutes to deal with that.

No he's not correct,and neither are you.

The constitution and charter apply to all!

It sounds like you have an issue with how it may be enforced?

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

Hot damn, apologies for my ignorance, yes you may be entirely right then. However, are there any limits to "freedom of the press"? Obviously a reporter can't come into your house uninvited and start taking pictures. Also, define "press", can anyone claim to be an "investigative reporter" and start snapping pictures just about anywhere.

It's also a question of whose rights trump whose: at a concert/movie theatre you are on private property but the venue can tell you that no photography is allowed. So do the rules of the owner of the private property trump the right to "freedom of the press"?

Honestly we need an expert in constitutional law and precedents to figure out this thread.

Apology accepted.

And yes you are right,a constitutional expert would clear things up,or make things worse?

WWWTT

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

No he's not correct,and neither are you.

The constitution and charter apply to all!

It sounds like you have an issue with how it may be enforced?

WWWTT

No, it is clear. I cannot be charged or sued for taking away your charter rights. Laws must be consistent with the charter and gov't may not act or make laws that violate the charter, but it does not apply from individual to individual citizen. Police cannot charge someone for violating someone else's charter rights.

"32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(B ) to the legislatures and governments of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province."

The application is clear. Here is a good explanation:

It does not apply to private individuals or corporations. If Mr. Smith discriminates against Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones cannot go to court and sue Mr. Smith for violating his Charter rights (although Mr. Jones would probably be protected against discrimination by other legislation).

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Constitutional_Law/Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms Edited November 17, 2012 by The_Squid

dre · November 17, 2012

Man that's a freekin whacked out thing to write!

Man whats happened to you,you would never write something like this before???

WWWTT

CC just gave you his understanding of the law, he didnt say he likes it. And hes more or less correct except that the line in public spaces is not quite that clear because the government sanctions and licenses that activity. In other words while its true private actors are not directly bound by the constitution the government in most cases cannot enact laws that will allow private parties to violate your rights in a public space.

Also a lot of our constitutional rights are written into the criminal code, which is tested against the consitution. So even if you are on private property most of your legal protections are still intact. You cant be beaten, have your posessions stolen, or be incarcerated for more than a given ammount of time.

In this case the photographer violated a private "terms of use" contract that he entered into when he walked onto mall property (provided the rules were clearly and prominently posted). But the only penalty that can be levied against him for that is to deny him use (kick him off the property).

If however they either siezed his camera, or his film, then the security guards/mall owners committed a serious civil and criminal offense, and should be subject to both criminal charges by the crown, and civil action by this individual.

dre · November 17, 2012

It does not apply to private individuals or corporations. If Mr. Smith discriminates against Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones cannot go to court and sue Mr. Smith for violating his Charter rights (although Mr. Jones would probably be protected against discrimination by other legislation).

Mr Smith can still bring a charter case against the government in that case though for allowing Mr Smith to violate his rights.

A direct charter challenge is not required because theres about a zillion different laws all guided and tested against the charter that DO apply to Mr Smith on private property.

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

Mr Smith can still bring a charter case against the government in that case though for allowing Mr Smith to violate his rights.

A direct charter challenge is not required because theres about a zillion different laws all guided and tested against the charter that DO apply to Mr Smith on private property.

Yes, but that's not what I was refuting with that post. I was refuting:

Once again I will reiterate that no individual can waive away any ones rights!

If someone tells you to shut up and does not allow you to speak, you cannot sue them or have them charged with a breach of your charter rights.

dre · November 17, 2012

Yes, but that's not what I was refuting with that post. I was refuting:

If someone tells you to shut up and does not allow you to speak, you cannot sue them or have them charged with a breach of your charter rights.

LIke I said youre right that the charter cant be directly applied against a private individual. But its important to note that charter DOES still apply.

If someone tells you to shut up and does not allow you to speak, you cannot sue them

That depends in what manner they acted to prevent you from speaking. If they just told you to shut up thats fine, but if they did anything beyond that you can sue the living shit ouf of them. About the ONLY thing a person can do to you on private property is remove you from it, or incarcerate you for as long as it takes the police to arrive. If they do ANYTHING else then they are going to open themselves to criminal/civil action.

Edited November 17, 2012 by dre

The_Squid · November 17, 2012

LIke I said youre right that the charter cant be directly applied against a private individual. But its important to note that charter DOES still apply.

That depends in what manner they acted to prevent you from speaking. If they just told you to shut up thats fine, but if they did anything beyond that you can sue the living shit ouf of them. About the ONLY thing a person can do to you on private property is remove you from it, or incarcerate you for as long as it takes the police to arrive. If they do ANYTHING else then they are going to open themselves to criminal/civil action.

Yes, but not for violating your rights.... Kidnapping, assault, etc....

login · November 17, 2012

No, it is clear. I cannot be charged or sued for taking away your charter rights. Laws must be consistent with the charter and gov't may not act or make laws that violate the charter, but it does not apply from individual to individual citizen. Police cannot charge someone for violating someone else's charter rights.

"32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(B ) to the legislatures and governments of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province."

The application is clear. Here is a good explanation: http://en.wikibooks....ts_and_Freedoms

If you are violating someones charter rights, you are probably breaking the law, plain and simple. The charter sets the bar at what is acceptable conduct and what is not.

So yes if you are violating their charter rights you are breaking the law.

Example an infringment of life --- is criminal, infringment of liberty is criminal infringment of security of person - criminal

violating individuals right to beleif, religion thought, etc.. are hate crimes are forms of harassment, etc.. and potentially hate crimes...

impeding other objects of the charter likewise fullfill those grounds.

The charter is designed to be a basis of which lawful action exists and what constitutes unlawful action. This basis is mean to perpetuate into society because the legislatures are the means at which law comes into existence in case of statute.

Other aspects such as "rights of arrest" etc.. apply to anyone who is arrested. regardless of who makes the arrest.

Where there are violations such as cruel and unusual punishment.. those are criminal offences. The idea is that immunities often enjoyed by government are not meant to extend to the areas protected in the charter and that any law or sections which violates those fundamentals is void.

The concept also forgotten is that government includes the people because all citizens are subject of the government, buttheir rights as government are limited in as much as the law limits them and as privleged as those priveleges exist. Since government sets the bounds to which individuals fall within the government. Individuals have specific "governmental" rights and duties, for instance a requirement to aid police, or to not act in certain ways, or to act in certan ways, in that aspect their freedoms are limited by the law, which makes them agents of government.

The charter is bs though for instance the blue wall bs

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

charter of the police state.

luckily the bill of rights still holds power

http://laws-lois.jus...2.3/page-1.html

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.

So where the charter fails the bill of rights still holds power.

In that way there is a reciporal action between the bill and charter to that held within government and "the law of Canada" being held by the bill of rights where not held by the charter.

"and any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada."

example no law of canada may (a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention,

as well

the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

Edited November 17, 2012 by login

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

The application is clear. Here is a good explanation: http://en.wikibooks....ts_and_Freedoms

You are referring to "the application of" (section 32)

I never said and or implied or made any intent to imply that any individual,group or corporation is responsible for the application, enactment and/or enforcement of the charter.

WWWTT

WWWTT · November 17, 2012

CC just gave you his understanding of the law, he didnt say he likes it. And hes more or less correct except that the line in public spaces is not quite that clear because the government sanctions and licenses that activity. In other words while its true private actors are not directly bound by the constitution the government in most cases cannot enact laws that will allow private parties to violate your rights in a public space.

No he is not correct,he is confused with the words "application of" and "apply"

WWWTT

blueblood · November 18, 2012

Don't they have to display ID? I believe in the US they have to tell you their name.

In bc the law there states they have to display their name. If the name is displayed, then they're identified as a peace officer. Then there's the uniform etc.

The law itself you posted a cloth bearing the name is to be displayed. It's obvious enough to read, and if the matter goes to trial, the officers name goes in the file. Asking for a name and badge # IMO is a waste as it's provided in trial if charges are laid.

Merlin · November 18, 2012

Teens need to respect their elders. When an adult speaks to a child the child needs to listen. What are parents teaching children these days?

blueblood · November 18, 2012

Mischief? I don't see how standing still in one spot and refusing to leave constitutes mischief.

If your in private property and requested to leave and fail to do so constitutes as mischief. You are obstructing lawful enjoyment of the property. It's dirty but its how it is. If someone stood in your house and you asked them to leave and they didn't, that would be mischief as well.

blueblood · November 18, 2012

All of that refers to arresting people who have committed indictable offenses. Refusing to stop taking pictures is not an indictable offense. Breaking a mall rule is not a crime. Nor was he asked to leave, which, if he refused, would constitute trespass. He was grabbed and brought to the floor for refusing to stop taking pictures. Ie, he was assaulted.

Section 494 stating committing a criminal offense, that includes summary as well as indictable. The article doesn't say if the kid was asked to leave or not. It's also mischief. If he was asked to leave and placed under arrest and resisted, he criminal code clearly states that any one can use appropriate force to prevent the continuation of an offense.

Do you guys not read the criminal code sections I post?