More unrest in Montreal

[shortlived]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-protesters-arrested-during-march-against-police-brutality/article9840467/

................

I can't help but feel much of these issues are developed and not uncoordinated on both sides of the fence.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-police-anti-police-protesters-clash-in-annual-standoff-1.1197636

both the city and organizers have ingored advice to facilitate orgnaization of the protest (it is a total set up) (which I personally communicated to all parties previous years)

the arrests were avoidable but both sides have intentionally ignored advice to keep the peace. the police are also complicit in insuring breach of the peace, the city, and organizers.

A total stage show.

The partles are inciting riot (city of montreal, sq and "protest organizers" who I have inclinations are government agents in some cases)

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[August1991]

I had no problem taking the Metro this evening.

The key point, I reckon, is that the CSN/FTQ did not finance this particular mob protest.

----

Trudeau believed in creating "counterweights". Even Lévesque (after Duplessis) believed in unions. Well, nowadays, unions are largely in the public sector. They have access to other people's money - with no oversight.

The CSN/FTQ are Quebec's modern Roman Catholic Church. I suspect that (Commission Charbonneau à l'appui) just as Duplessis subverted the Church, modern Quebec politicians have compromised the FTQ/CSN. Ugh.

----

I admire Trudeau's curiousity about how to create a just (civilised) society. He followed the ideas of the US Constitution as an intellectual, without understanding its more basic roots.

Edited March 16, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-protesters-arrested-during-march-against-police-brutality/article9840467/

A total stage show.

But shortlived, the "demonstrators" wanted to do the same. They wanted to change perceptions, a teaching moment.

Like Hollywood, leftist demonstrators want to make a show - as if that changes reality. (Leftist Activists: All flash, no cash.)

Edited March 16, 2013 by August1991

[shortlived]

But shortlived, the "demonstrators" wanted to do the same. They wanted to change perceptions, a teaching moment.

Like Hollywood, leftist demonstrators want to make a show - as if that changes reality. (Leftist Activists: All flash, no cash.)

No as I said I contacted all sides involved police, city, and protest organizers in last year on the issue of barriers to legal protest and all sides were unwilling to address the issues

as a result

More than 250 people were arrested yesterday

That is aiding crime in occuring.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/03/15/montreal-anti-police-brutality-march.html?autoplay=true

250 is A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, both from provincial and federal tax payers. Also 250 people is 1/4 of the size of the town I live, that is like 1/4 of an entire town being carted off to jail, potentially for life, as participating in something deemed a riot can carry a life sentence. This was due to the city and police, and protest organizers, facilitating this too occur, they are all staging it.

It was entrapment by the city and police.

Edited March 16, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

But shortlived, the "demonstrators" wanted to do the same. They wanted to change perceptions, a teaching moment.

Like Hollywood, leftist demonstrators want to make a show - as if that changes reality. (Leftist Activists: All flash, no cash.)

Dude, protest is legal in Canada. Quebec has been notorious for cracking down on what are suppose to be constitutional rights.

Protesting against police brutality is a moral thing to protest on.

The fact the city and police are engineering what should be a legal protest, into 250 arrests and fines is absurd. They knew 16 years in advance this protest was going to happen but even on advice to coordinate to prevent unlawful activities failed to do anything but prepare for arrests as opposed to intervention to bring order to the event without need for police intervention.

It is disgusting that the government is engineering these sorts of situations where it sets up its own citizens to be arrested and be put into the criminal justice system, given criminal records, and causing even more antagonism against the system, it is debilitating.

Edited March 16, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonbox]

Don't be dense. Protesting is legal. Disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and making a nuisance is not. The protestors refused to cooperate at all with police from the get-go. If you want to protest, do it legally. Share you itenirary, tell the police where you're going and they'll usually let you be. Refusing to do even that, however, was ridiculous and shows that the protestors wanted a confrontation. This wasn't entrapment by the government. This was a bunch of loser 'professional' protestors trying to engineer an incident. It's a protest against police brutality, so whatever negative PR they can get on the police is going to be deemed a success. The police called their bluff and ended things before they really began.

The protestors have nothing but their own stupidity to blame for it. It looks good on them too. I always find it funny looking at pictures of these sorts of things. It's like they all shop at the same consignment stores or something...

Edited March 21, 2013 by Moonbox

[g_bambino]

Don't be dense. Protesting is legal. Disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and making a nuisance is not. The protestors refused to cooperate at all with police from the get-go. If you want to protest, do it legally. Share you itenirary, tell the police where you're going and they'll usually let you be.

Why bother with all that when self-righteousness is all that's necessary to elevate yourself above both the law and anyone who doesn't hold your opinion?

[Moonbox]

Right on dude! Fight the good fight and down with the 'man'! Let's grow shaggy beards and make a difference!

Edited March 21, 2013 by Moonbox

[shortlived]

Don't be dense. Protesting is legal. Disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and making a nuisance is not. The protestors refused to cooperate at all with police from the get-go. If you want to protest, do it legally. Share you itenirary, tell the police where you're going and they'll usually let you be. Refusing to do even that, however, was ridiculous and shows that the protestors wanted a confrontation. This wasn't entrapment by the government. This was a bunch of loser 'professional' protestors trying to engineer an incident. It's a protest against police brutality, so whatever negative PR they can get on the police is going to be deemed a success. The police called their bluff and ended things before they really began.

The protestors have nothing but their own stupidity to blame for it. It looks good on them too. I always find it funny looking at pictures of these sorts of things. It's like they all shop at the same consignment stores or something...

Oh and how is blocked traffic in an organized protest any different, they arn't. You don't be dense. the police shut down the area of the protest, because they knew where it was happening. The city knew where it was happening, but they wanted to formalize the process with fees and controlling it on their grounds rather than allow free protest.

You have to understand Quebec and the city of Montreal has been adding layers of red tape and the requirement for approval to protest, that is a violation of the constitutional right of protest. They can't say what is legal and what is not, all protest is legal.

If it becomes a riot that is another matter, but no I don't need to apply to some guy to protest. It is a constitutional right, why don't you stop depriving constitutional rights with your banter.

Municipalities don't have the vires to infringe the constitution. They are sub vires the constitution, your comments are nonsense.

Also understand the city has taken no measures to make the protest actions orderly, they have created barriers to orderly protest by putting up red tape walls. There is no lack of knowledge of these protests which have occurred for nearly two decades now. The city has actively along with the police concertedly tried to block the ability for this protest to happen because it makes police and the administration of justice look bad.

|

There are government squads that monitor and infiltrate these protest organizations. some of the protesters are government agents, including police. Not only Canadian either. Groups like the FBI profile protesters internationally, and there are foreign government agents involved in protest circles.

The city has been part of the process of engineering the protests, along with the police, agents, and actual 'facilitators'.

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

the police shut down the area of the protest, because they knew where it was happening. The city knew where it was happening, but they wanted to formalize the process with fees and controlling it on their grounds rather than allow free protest.

The requirement is for the organisers to notify the city and the police prior to the event so all parties can be prepared. The organisers of this protest did not do that. The police don't operate on the presumption a protest will take place.

Municipalities don't have the vires to infringe the constitution.

The constitution does not permit people to amass groups to take over public places whenever they please.

[shortlived]

The requirement is for the organisers to notify the city and the police prior to the event so all parties can be prepared. The organisers of this protest did not do that. The police don't operate on the presumption a protest will take place.

The constitution does not permit people to amass groups to take over public places whenever they please.

The city does not overrule the constitution get this into your head it is unconstitutional.

Yes it does.

Lawful protest is LAWFUL, cities cannot make unconstitutional law. It is unconstitutional. What don't you get about that?

While people can be ticketed or treated under tresspass law, they cannot be prevented from protesting for protesting. There is a clear difference.

Also as far as public place goes, yes they can assemble and protest lawfully. (ASSEMBLY FOR SOME NON PROTECTED PURPOSE IS UNLAWFUL THOUGH....)

If they commit indictable offences while protesting they can be arrested.

A peace officer also has the option of detaining them for summary charges or breach of peace. But generally summary charges are not arrested for unless there is a public safety risk in allowing them to remain free, usually this would involve providing their address and potentially the requirement for a promise to appear at a given court date or other undertakings.

The right of protest however is inviolable as a constitutionally protected right. Government cannot pass any law which violates the constitution. Any law which does is void and holds no force.

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

The city does not overrule the constitution get this into your head it is unconstitutional.

Yes it does.

Lawful protest is LAWFUL, cities cannot make unconstitutional law. It is unconstitutional. What don't you get about that?

While people can be ticketed or treated under tresspass law, they cannot be prevented from protesting for protesting. There is a clear difference.

Also as far as public place goes, yes they can assemble and protest lawfully.

If they commit indictable offences while protesting they can be arrested.

A peace officer also has the option of detaining them for summary charges or breach of peace. But generally summary charges are not arrested for unless there is a public safety risk in allowing them to remain free.

The right of protest however is inviolable as a constitutionally protected right. Government cannot pass any law which violates the constitution. Any law which does is void and holds no force.

another dime store lawyer.....with a five cent client, youre only getting half value...be outraged !

Read this and get shot down on the above quote of yours.

It will explain how you are so very wrong in that....

1)People can be stopped from protesting

2) the right is not inviolable

3) laws against protesting are legal and enshrined in law for specific and absolute reasons.

Read this and weep!

http://lawiscool.com/2010/07/04/the-law-of-street-protest-in-canada/

Edited March 21, 2013 by guyser

[g_bambino]

The city does not overrule the constitution get this into your head it is unconstitutional.

The constitution does not permit people to amass groups to take over public places whenever they please. See section 1 of the Charter.

[shortlived]

another dime store lawyer.....with a five cent client, youre only getting half value...be outraged !

Read this and get shot down on the above quote of yours.

It will explain how you are so very wrong in that....

1)People can be stopped from protesting

2) the right is not inviolable

3) laws against protesting are legal and enshrined in law for specific and absolute reasons.

Read this and weep!

http://lawiscool.com/2010/07/04/the-law-of-street-protest-in-canada/

Oh thanks for your post from LAWIS COOL why don't you try justice.gc.ca the government website for laws in Canada.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/05.html

troll.

[shortlived]

The constitution does not permit people to amass groups to take over public places whenever they please. See section 1 of the Charter.

It allows them to protest. You are the people assigning "take over" to equate protest.

That is just part of the painting to limit lawful protest by turning it into something else.

Are people depriving your right to be there? If individuals are allowed to be there like you, why are individuals like them not allowed to be there?

Protest ISN'T ILLEGAL.

" We are free to speak our minds, to gather peacefully into groups and to associate with whomever we wish, as long as we do not infringe the legal and constitutional rights of others."

I think the problem is, perhaps they were there first.

What if you were in a phone booth before me, can I throw you out of the phone booth to use the phone?

You are suggesting I grab you and throw you out of a phone booth, that doesn't seem like something you would suggest.

Edited March 21, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

Oh thanks for your post from LAWIS COOL why don't you try justice.gc.ca the government website for laws in Canada.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/05.html

troll.

Nice try.

Dont become a lawyer, you'll starve.

[shortlived]

Nice try.

Dont become a lawyer, you'll starve.

I hate court.

[Moonbox]

We are free to speak our minds, to gather peacefully into groups and to associate with whomever we wish, as long as we do not infringe the legal and constitutional rights of others."

You can gather peacefully in groups and associate with whomever you wish, but Section 1 of the Charter (the most important part of the entire Charter), extends those rights to only reasonable limits. When you interfere in the peaceful lives of non-protesters (ie. blocking traffic, preventing access to buildings and places, keeping people awake at night etc.), your rights to assemble and protest are limited to the discretion of local authorities. Sorry bud, but that's a fact, and it's 100% Constitutional.

I always find it funny how the loser professional protestor will wet their pants screaming "CONSTITUUUTION! CHARTER!" and never bother to read it or have any real understanding of it. The fact is that the people who wrote the Charter made sure that Section 1 (right at the beginning) explains that the Charter rights extend only so far as is reasonable. They did that so that spastic bed-wetting idiots can't just wave the Charter around and think that means they can do whatever they want.

[g_bambino]

It allows them to protest. You are the people assigning "take over" to equate protest.

You are the person arguing the parts of the Criminal Code and any municipal bylaws relating to gatherings in public places are rendered invalid by the constitution, thereby permitting protesters to protest wherever and whenever they want. That is untrue; protest is allowed "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The laws limiting gatherings are reasonable and justified in a free and democraitc society; they ensure public safety and accomodate those people who occupy the same public places but aren't interested in protesting. The protesters are required to work with the police and city officials before mounting their protest.

[ed.: +]

Edited March 22, 2013 by g_bambino

[shortlived]

You are the person arguing the parts of the Criminal Code and any municipal bylaws relating to gatherings in public places are rendered invalid by the constitution, thereby permitting protesters to protest wherever and whenever they want. That is untrue; protest is allowed "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The laws limiting gatherings are reasonable and justified in a free and democraitc society; they ensure public safety and accomodate those people who occupy the same public places but aren't interested in protesting. The protesters are required to work with the police and city officials before mounting their protest.

[ed.: +]

cite a specific obligation.

Protestors have no obligation to organize, they have the right to free peaceful assembly for the purpose of protest.

I did not say they have a get out of jail card for indictable offences.

Site the section of the criminal code you are referring to.

If it violates the right of protest without invoking non withstanding caluses it is invalid and holds no force (but the justice act itself is a constitutional violation so it is somewhat redundant - the argument would be fundamental justice) prefenting large gathers for criminal undertaking can be seen as preventative arrest. i.e. breach of peace arrests

however the cities bylaws if targetting limiting free protest are not valid so arrests under that bylaw would be invalid.

Now I am not saying it is unreasonable to think that the protest could facilitate crime but the protest itself is valid. agent provocateurs and thugs should be detained. Legitimate protesters should not..

This is why police should have been active at the protest and within the protest if required to make preventative arrest, or if the gathering was large enough the military called out into Montreal, if police resources were not available, it was in fact a bit of a conflict of interest for police to be active on the protest, and it should have been military keeping the peace or other peace offiers

However without a breach of the peace that is riot and the riot act read police shouldn't have started to make mass arrests or infringe the right of protest.

Lots of illegal activities happening at justin beiber concerts, doesn't mean police are going to shut it down, same as out at the bar or club.

If blocking streets as an issue then they should have been ticketed and directed to leave the street, and if they did it could be a form of obstruction, or grounds to make a detention under a breach of peace or public safety issues.

Roads are right of ways, they are not public spaces.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[guyser]

Protestors have no obligation to organize, they have the right to free peaceful assembly for the purpose of protest.

I did not say they have a get out of jail card for indictable offences.

Site the section of the criminal code you are referring to.

Some thing is suggesting once provided you will refute. Afterall I gave a you a good link but you responded with a link that says 'what kind of justice system " we have in Canada

Anyhow, this should help....for the second time.

The starting point for any analysis is the guaranteed freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly in sections 2( and © of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We start here because these freedoms are secure from any government body, including the federal parliament and provincial legislatures.

There is no absolute freedom of assembly in Canada. First, the Charter itself limits it by guaranteeing only “peaceful” assembly. That’s why the government can restrict certain kinds of assembly that it considers not peaceful. Such restrictions do not infringe on the Charter freedom of assembly unless the courts disagree with the government’s interpretation of what’s “peaceful.”

Second, the Charter freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed only “to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (s. 1 of the Charter). It means legislative acts or judge-made common law in Canada can limit even peaceful assembly, but they must have very good reasons. Legislative acts include federal and provincial laws and regulations as well as municipal by-laws.

Only law can limit a Charter right. A police officer cannot limit a Charter right on his or her own initiative without any authority in law. When the police break up a street protest, they can do it either because the protest is not peaceful or because law prohibits the protest for a good reason acceptable in a free and democratic society. Police officers may not break up a protest in any other circumstances. If they do, these officers will be breaking the law. But in Canada, it’s hard to tell when officers break the law for the following reason

[g_bambino]

Site [sic] the section of the criminal code you are referring to.

Sections 31 and 63 to 70.

site [sic] a specific obligation

City of Toronto > Planning Guide - Demonstrations and Rallies.

Lots of illegal activities happening at justin beiber concerts, doesn't mean police are going to shut it down, same as out at the bar or club

Private venues; irrelevant to this discussion.

[Moonbox]

site a specific obligation.

Protestors have no obligation to organize, they have the right to free peaceful assembly for the purpose of protest.

You're not listening. We're saying the 'right' to protest and assemble is limited, in the Charter, to tests of reasonability. Protestor's do not have carte blanche to assemble whenever and wherever they want. The VERY FIRST section of the Charter addresses this. This clause overrides every single other part of the Charter and it was put there specifically to prevent morons from trying to use wide interpretations of the Charter to defend idiotic behaviour. In a Common Law system, essentially a judge (following precedent) can say, "No, that's completely stupid." and a moronic Charter-based defence crumbles.

If protestors insist on assembling in busy public spaces and make themselves a general nuisance, they need to cooperate with local authorities. If they're not doing that, then they DO NOT have the right to disrupt the day to day lives of the rest of Canadians. Blocking traffic isn't reasonable, for example. You can protest without blocking traffic. If you have such a big crowd that you're going to be blocking traffic, you need to be reasonable and allow local authorities to make plans around that (ie. making sure alternate routes are clear). When the protestors are being unreasonable and not being at all cooperative, their right to assemble, effectively, vanishes in a puff of smoke.

[shortlived]

You can gather peacefully in groups and associate with whomever you wish, but Section 1 of the Charter (the most important part of the entire Charter), extends those rights to only reasonable limits. When you interfere in the peaceful lives of non-protesters (ie. blocking traffic, preventing access to buildings and places, keeping people awake at night etc.), your rights to assemble and protest are limited to the discretion of local authorities. Sorry bud, but that's a fact, and it's 100% Constitutional.

I always find it funny how the loser professional protestor will wet their pants screaming "CONSTITUUUTION! CHARTER!" and never bother to read it or have any real understanding of it. The fact is that the people who wrote the Charter made sure that Section 1 (right at the beginning) explains that the Charter rights extend only so far as is reasonable. They did that so that spastic bed-wetting idiots can't just wave the Charter around and think that means they can do whatever they want.

Oh I agree you cannot criminally harass people that is an indictable offence. As far as interferance in the peaceful lives, that is another matter, if it is not criminal by all means you can, if its not a crime, it is perfectly legal. It doesn't become illegal because it is a lawful act and a protest.

That is where you are wrong.

People don't need to move for you but you can also not be abducted.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

You're not listening. We're saying the 'right' to protest and assemble is limited, in the Charter, to tests of reasonability. Protestor's do not have carte blanche to assemble whenever and wherever they want. The VERY FIRST section of the Charter addresses this. This clause overrides every single other part of the Charter and it was put there specifically to prevent morons from trying to use wide interpretations of the Charter to defend idiotic behaviour. In a Common Law system, essentially a judge (following precedent) can say, "No, that's completely stupid." and a moronic Charter-based defence crumbles.

If protestors insist on assembling in busy public spaces and make themselves a general nuisance, they need to cooperate with local authorities. If they're not doing that, then they DO NOT have the right to disrupt the day to day lives of the rest of Canadians. Blocking traffic isn't reasonable, for example. You can protest without blocking traffic. If you have such a big crowd that you're going to be blocking traffic, you need to be reasonable and allow local authorities to make plans around that (ie. making sure alternate routes are clear). When the protestors are being unreasonable and not being at all cooperative, their right to assemble, effectively, vanishes in a puff of smoke.

I already stated that causing a nuisance is not acceptable which is a law that is in the criminal code.

• 180. (1) Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby

  • (a) endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or

  • (b) causes physical injury to any person,

  is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

• Marginal note:Definition

  (2) For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby

  • (a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public; or

  • (b) obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 176.

I already said cops can arrest for indictable offences. (actually anyone can - using a reasonable amount of force and turning them over to police at the earliest time reasonable.)

I think its you who is not reading or understanding what I've been saying.

Protest is not illegal, but if people commit indictable offences cops can arrest them. (anyone can)

All protests needn't be unruly or harass people and cause a public nuisance.

But no the city doesn't designate those things it is the law. Cops shouldn't be taking instructions on how to enforce the law from political staff.

If they think it is an indictable offence by all means, but the cops and city sat on this without attempting to organize it, instead they made the thing unruly by creating an opposition for it to occur fueling the unrest and anarchy of the movement.

Bylaws tend to be arbitrary and arbitrary bylaws should not invalidate constitutional protections. If the fundamentals were universal then it wouldn't be a bylaw it would be federal law or common law.

Frankly I would be suprised if protestors boxed in some random person, that doesn't sound like any protest I've been to.

Sure orderly protests are important, bringing in the private land issue though validates idle no more. Because without the treaties upheld all the land is private indian land.

Edited March 22, 2013 by shortlived