More challenges to the charter rights of assembly

[shortlived]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/nearly-300-people-handed-637-tickets-at-montreal-protest-1.1226924

300 tickets at $637

279 Arrests.

Protestors challenging municipal bylaw.

They even seized a panda mascot head... (face mask...) (worn by a philosophy professor)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/04/06/montreal-anarchopanda-head-seized-protest.html

This pay for right of assembly stuff is BS.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/04/05/montreal-anti-police-brutality-protest.html

Edited April 6, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest]

I sympathize with both sides here. There should always be a right to peaceful assembly, but in a large city I can see why the police would want to know ahead of time.

I guess the problem is that much of the assembly these days isn't peaceful, with many taking the opportunity to just break a few corporate windows.

[Bryan]

I sympathize with both sides here. There should always be a right to peaceful assembly, but in a large city I can see why the police would want to know ahead of time.

I guess the problem is that much of the assembly these days isn't peaceful, with many taking the opportunity to just break a few corporate windows.

That is the sticky wicket. In many ways, they protesters brought this on themselves. Not only are too many of these "peaceful assemblies" anything but peaceful, but they are increasingly being carried out by the same group of professional protesters. The cries of curtailed liberties become a self-fullfilling prophesy: If we didn't have these "rent-a-riots", we wouldn't need to call in the riot squad.

[The_Squid]

I sympathize with both sides here. There should always be a right to peaceful assembly, but in a large city I can see why the police would want to know ahead of time.

I guess the problem is that much of the assembly these days isn't peaceful, with many taking the opportunity to just break a few corporate windows.

So, it's not a right... It's a privilege, and a costly one.

[Guest]

I guess it's a right. Just not an unconditional one.

I guess it comes with responsibilities.

[shortlived]

The city's requirements violate freedom of association. Everyone who has something to express needn't get a permit from the city to express it.

How about thousands and thousands of protesters all give their travel paths around the city on a daily basis, lets see how well they can track 5000 protests each day. Its a stupid by-law.

#FILE38339 NOTICE OF PROTEST 383882892819

Dear Mr. Policeperson,

today I am getting together with 5 of my friends. We will bI#I# and moan about how police are harassing us as we walk to and from school on st. x y z, perhaps we will wear a F#*( the police shirt, and carry Anarchopanda the Baptist buttons. After which we will go to classes, and mention how we had to write this note to you to avoid paying you $600 every day. Then we will go home we will be taking st x, then getting on the subway, perhaps we will meet some of our other friends and complain how we need to write a note like this to you every day.

Also how is it fair that illiterate and/or mute people are denied freedom of expression. Criminalizing protest is not legitimate whatsoever. Now if they need the streets closed down for their protest it may make sense to notify the police to arrange for that, but if the protest does not involve disruption of public access the bylaw is overstepping.

Protest and dissent cannot be criminalized it is unconstitutional.

There is a difference between peaceful assembly, and riot. Cops shouldn't be attacking people who are peacefully assembling like they are rioters. It is not appropriate. You cannot criminalize a constitutional right because anything contrary to the constitution has no force or effect.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• (d) freedom of association.

This bylaw specifically targets protest in an unreasonable way. I should not have to report to the police if I want to protest aka peacefully assemble. The police do not supersede my allowance of protest, that is not something you find in a free society, it is called a police state.

Edited April 7, 2013 by shortlived

[AngusThermopyle]

They even seized a panda mascot head... (face mask...) (worn by a philosophy professor)

And so they should. He could have used it to cause Panda monium if they hadn't. Clearly he lost his head over this.

[Guest]

Bear in mind he was only using it to bamboozle the authorities.

[Accountability Now]

Protest and dissent cannot be criminalized it is unconstitutional.

Ok...give me your home address. Me and 50 of my buddies are planning on having a peaceful process between 1am and 4am this Tuesday night. I trust you won't mind.

IOW....There are rules to protesting whether you like it or not. If you choose to ignore those rules then face the consequences...the same way I would face the consequences of having one in your house without asking.

[AngusThermopyle]

Bear in mind he was only using it to bamboozle the authorities.

Given time it may not be as black and white as it appears though.

[jacee]

Ok...give me your home address. Me and 50 of my buddies are planning on having a peaceful process between 1am and 4am this Tuesday night. I trust you won't mind.

IOW....There are rules to protesting whether you like it or not. If you choose to ignore those rules then face the consequences...the same way I would face the consequences of having one in your house without asking.

The rules in Montreal are ridiculous, and will no doubt soon be subject to a class action suit all the way to the Supreme Court.

Many of those kettled, arrested and fined were media and bystanders, not protesters: Apparently in Montreal it's illegal to go about your usual business during a protest.

[shortlived]

Ok...give me your home address. Me and 50 of my buddies are planning on having a peaceful process between 1am and 4am this Tuesday night. I trust you won't mind.

IOW....There are rules to protesting whether you like it or not. If you choose to ignore those rules then face the consequences...the same way I would face the consequences of having one in your house without asking.

Private message, it is subzero in these parts. Its happened to me before I have a roommate at the moment addicted to League of Legends in what seems like Turrets, your protest will be second rate. Dude man I have had a swath of room mates that keep me up at all hours. I've lived with it.

Dude, I've said repeatedly, protest is not a get out of charge free card, if you break the law while protesting you are still breaking the law. BUT protest cannot be criminalized. Criminal acts can, protest however cannot be criminal because it is protected by the charter.

(hopefully you do realize I could give you anyones address including someone I don't like)

Although the activism method would have you first contact me and explain your issues and your demands, as opposed to just making a ruckus at day 1.

I think it is fairly obvious that notifying the police of your whereabout while exercising a constitutional freedom is nonsensical and not a reasonable requirement at law. If intending to breach legitimate bylaws during these actions it would make sense to get a special resolution or method from the city. But in absence of that the ability to protest should not be infringed, however people would still be subject to legitimate bylaws which did not violate the constitution. P6 does violate constitutional rights though, so charges under it have no force or effect.

If people were being charged for jaywalking this would be an entirely different discussion, disturbing the peace, nuisance or mischief under the criminal code this would be a different issue, instead it is some dinky unconstitutional city bylaw that fines for money instead of charges for criminality.It serves to monetize protest and nothing more, and is not related to fundamental justice. It is a snide monetary attack.

Hopefully you can see how people are being thrown around physically and ziptied and handcuffed to enforce a bylaw fine...

I can only say under enforcement of a bylaw tackling people to the ground headfirst is a little overkill.

When people are standing around. It is not legitimate when fines are the only thing that result under this bylaw and the whole book of Canadian criminal law is not sufficient to press charges. I find that problematic, that a bylaw is used to assualt people otherwise completely within the rule of law anywhere else in the country.

You should not need to apply assaulting force to give a ticket.

Edited April 7, 2013 by shortlived

[The_Squid]

Ok...give me your home address. Me and 50 of my buddies are planning on having a peaceful process between 1am and 4am this Tuesday night. I trust you won't mind.

What you are talking about is harassment, not a protest. There are already laws regarding harassment. Nice try, but it's a silly analogy.

[Accountability Now]

What you are talking about is harassment, not a protest. There are already laws regarding harassment. Nice try, but it's a silly analogy.

No...I said mine would be peaceful. I'm just using his place and would not be harrasssing him. Ok...if you don't want it at his house then lets do it at his place of work, or his kids school or how about at the hospital. My point is that protests don't have an all encompassing free pass. They need to abide by certain laws which are in place to ensure people aren't being harrassed while the protesters are getting their point across. If you can't get that then no analogy will work.

Its funny though....for the most part you need to inconvience people (or harrass them) so they will actually take notice. For example, the native blockades on the highways. If they went to the parks and did these protests, it wouldn't of made the sixth page. Block a road for an hour and whamo....you are front page. So...its a price versus reward thing. You know that blocking a road is illegal but you are willing to pay that price to get the reward that it may bring. My point is that you know its not legal so don't whine about it when you get caught. Its a price you need to pay to get noticed.

[g_bambino]

The city's requirements violate freedom of association.

I told you in the other thread you started in which you whinged about the suppression of your imagined right to do whatever you want, whenever you want: mount a Charter challenge in court. Or, are you actually not as sure of your argument as you indicate you are?

[g_bambino]

What you are talking about is harassment, not a protest.

What's the real difference between that and, without any prior warning, stopping you from using the bridge that's supposed to be there as a means of your transportation? Or preventing the train for which you paid the price of a train ticket to ride from moving along its track? Or blocking your entrance to the place of education you paid tuition to attend and want to get your money's worth?

[ed.: c/e]

Edited April 8, 2013 by g_bambino

[Moonbox]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms

Ahh...Section 1, my favorite part of the whole document. It's a godsend for shutting down the intellectually vacant arguments of losers. The interesting part about it is that it says, "It guarantees rights and freedoms ONLY TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS...etc."

It was deliberately written that way for our common law society. It's hilarious that you interpret its meaning and use in the following way:

This bylaw specifically targets protest in an unreasonable way. I should not have to report to the police if I want to protest aka peacefully assemble. The police do not supersede my allowance of protest, that is not something you find in a free society, it is called a police state.

I mean, that's really cute that you think this is a question of which right supersedes what. Unfortunately for your argument, what Section 1 of the Charter actually does is declare that your right to protest only extends so far as is REASONABLE. The protests in Montreal became way too common, had way too little public support (ie. next do none) and were way too disruptive to continue unimpeded. The people and the City of Montreal determined it was no longer reasonable to allow these loser malcontents to continue disrupting regular city life as they please.

Nobody is preventing peaceful assembly. Legislators simply determined that it was unreasonable to allow the same disenfranchized morons to shut down parts of the city over and over again as they pleased, especially when they had so little popular support. It doesn't take much to shut down a major road or city centre, and there is no lack of causes for protesters. Would it be REASONABLE to have shut Bay or Yonge St shut down in Toronto every time an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, anti-GMO, anti-Free Trade, Idle No More...etc. group decided they wanted to march? Absolutely not is the answer you're looking for, and that's exactly how the Legislature, the Courts and Law Enforcement interpret things.

[Accountability Now]

Ahh...Section 1, my favorite part of the whole document. It's a godsend for shutting down the intellectually vacant arguments of losers. The interesting part about it is that it says, "It guarantees rights and freedoms ONLY TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS...etc."

It was deliberately written that way for our common law society. It's hilarious that you interpret its meaning and use in the following way:I mean, that's really cute that you think this is a question of which right supersedes what. Unfortunately for your argument, what Section 1 of the Charter actually does is declare that your right to protest only extends so far as is REASONABLE. The protests in Montreal became way too common, had way too little public support (ie. next do none) and were way too disruptive to continue unimpeded. The people and the City of Montreal determined it was no longer reasonable to allow these loser malcontents to continue disrupting regular city life as they please.

Nobody is preventing peaceful assembly. Legislators simply determined that it was unreasonable to allow the same disenfranchized morons to shut down parts of the city over and over again as they pleased, especially when they had so little popular support. It doesn't take much to shut down a major road or city centre, and there is no lack of causes for protesters. Would it be REASONABLE to have shut Bay or Yonge St shut down in Toronto every time an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, anti-GMO, anti-Free Trade, Idle No More...etc. group decided they wanted to march? Absolutely not is the answer you're looking for, and that's exactly how the Legislature, the Courts and Law Enforcement interpret things.

Well said.

[g_bambino]

[T]hat's really cute that you think this is a question of which right supersedes what. .

The cutest part of all is that he thinks his expectation to hijack any place he wants in the name of protest is more reasonable than the non-protesting majority's expectation to use the same places--infrastructure and public and private spaces that they too pay for--in their intended manner. Courts have repeatedly said to similar thinking people that they're wrong. But, that's all part of the "police state" for shortlived, I guess.

[shortlived]

I told you in the other thread you started in which you whinged about the suppression of your imagined right to do whatever you want, whenever you want: mount a Charter challenge in court. Or, are you actually not as sure of your argument as you indicate you are?

I don't agree with your methods. Act first go to court later if required. Just make sure you have the right principles in your actions.

None the less that is a little off topic from this discussion.

While I did say I can do whatever I want because I am guided by reason and morality, I did indicate individuals who commit indictable offences are open to arrest, and people who commit summary charges may very well if they are not compliant with an agreement for follow up.

I am in right though so yes I can do what I would like.

This discussion is not about me though.

You telling me has next to no weight in my reason if what you tell isn't the truth. You have a false position on the difference between exercising a freedom, and exercising a freedom while committing a crime. Exercising the freedom is not the crime. The crime is the crime, the two are seperate.

You don't support the principles of a free society so you have no influence on my determination in doing what is right, as I support a free society. You support oppression. I don't agree with your position. My general feeling about your telling is "go to hell, its where you belong"

Edited April 10, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonbox]

He doesn't support suppression. His sense of freedom and justice, however, are supported by the principles of logic, reason, and fact. The problem you have, shortlived, along with your juvenile little protester friends, is that your sense of justice is based on literally nothing more than how you feel. Logic and reason don't even enter into the equation. You can whine and wet your pants about everything all you want, but until you can actually gain some perspective (ie view your infantile and braind-dead arguments from any point of view other than your own), you're never going to get anywhere.

The 'protests' in Montreal are the equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum. There's next to no coherency. Your points are vapid, and you're crying loudly hoping that someone will eventually give you some attention. Montreal, however, along with the rest of the province and the country itself, is dealing with you the wayyou're supposed to deal with a childish tantrum -- ignoring it. Nobody's listening. Nobody cares.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Moonbox

[shortlived]

He doesn't support suppression. His sense of freedom and justice, however, are supported by the principles of logic, reason, and fact. The problem you have, shortlived, along with your juvenile little protester friends, is that your sense of justice is based on literally nothing more than how you feel. Logic and reason don't even enter into the equation. You can whine and wet your pants about everything all you want, but until you can actually gain some perspective (ie view your infantile and braind-dead arguments from any point of view other than your own), you're never going to get anywhere.

The 'protests' in Montreal are the equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum. There's next to no coherency. Your points are vapid, and you're crying loudly hoping that someone will eventually give you some attention. Montreal, however, along with the rest of the province and the country itself, is dealing with you the wayyou're supposed to deal with a childish tantrum -- ignoring it. Nobody's listening. Nobody cares.

Moonbox return to reality and perhaps I will actually give you a reply.

Edited April 10, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonbox]

Don't bother. You'll get laughed at less if you don't. The more you natter the more clear it becomes that you have nothing intelligent to say.

[guyser]

...as I support a free society.

No you dont, you said as much earlier today when only the sound financial folks should be allowed to gamble.

You seem fuddled with conflicting thoughts.

[Moonbox]

lol good one. Unfortunately, we're trying to reason with an unreasonable person. He's not going to understand the contradiction.