Jump to content

More challenges to the charter rights of assembly


Recommended Posts

Act first go to court later if required.

Yes, that's what I suggested you do. It's the only way to prove to yourself how invalid your assertions are; you simply ignore the precedent that already exists.

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..

Wow; you still don't get it. Hijacking a road, a bridge, a park, a school, whatever, is, despite your "reason and morality", the indictable offence. That is according to many valid, proven to be constitutional laws. But, like I said, you just pick and choose what suits you and cry "oppression!" when suddenly faced with the truth you tried to disregard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Yes my opinion is that people should only be allowed to gamble at publicly operated gambling houses if they arn't spending funds that represent social funding meant to remove poverty. That is my opinion. I will not prevent someone from gambling as an individual. I'm not the government. Me as an individual is not me as the government. The government has a responsibility to act for the benefit of society and to protect societies rights, part of that is responsibility to remove poverty, and gambling away funds meant to remove poverty is not responsible for the government to do.

You are connecting me and my policy they are not the same. I do not live my life the way my policy dictates I should because it is policy opinion not the real world. I do not act for my benefit or as a reflection of my belief for myself. Understand that. I am not my policy.

I'm a very personally socially conservative individual, my social policy is very libertarian. my economic policy is very frugal and progressive infrastructure and capacity building as a direction for removing poverty of the state, while my personal finances are based around travel and essentials for daily living.

You seem to have made me and my beleif to be my social policy, they are two seperate thing, what is good for me is not necessarily good for society. I don't believe in policy that represents corruption and conflict of interest. My policy views are not a personal lobby.

That is partially why I don't support welfare placements and prefer material support such as social housing, food coops and direct food programs, and supplying basic goods as opposed to cash as part of the poverty reduction methods. Poverty is not about money it is about quality of life.

Personally I really don't care about money, to me it is just a ticket to time overseas. I really hate canada in how it operates. My social policy however is very populist based even super-nationalist, because at the core of any libertarian society needs to be a core of state principles which protect the individual and enable them a means of self sufficiency and self defence. With these two individuals can be equal in society. If the state holds too much power and the individual is deprived of access to land, resources and self defence, they become slaves of the state, peasants and subject to rule by the state. That is all what my social policy tries to mitigate, so as to enable the individual. As an individual I am already there but the state doesn't support that in its current form because it wants to strip away the individuals right to self existence and to control every aspect of their life from finances, to land use, to what they can eat and drink, to where they can travel, who they can do business with, what they can beleive, and so on. Those are all police state identities, a free society beleives in individual capacity and as long as individuals do not violate the rights of others they are free to do as they please, that is a free society, and I support a free society because I'm libertarian. I am not anarchist, I think there needs to be reasonble bounds which are non violation of others, but I think it is fully reasonable for the state to say where handouts can be spent, if they are intended for poverty reduction they shouldn't be fed into gambling because some people will go without. While it is reasonable to allocate a morale fund as part of poverty reduction programs and individuals should be free to use it, it would need to be at a reasonable level. I think people should be free to spend their own money but the government should be free to limit access to materials that represent a harm to society, if it is the services they are providing. This is my opinion on drug control also, in that drugs should be able to be bought, but only in levels that are non lethal and will not cause signifigant irreparable permanent damage in regard to balance of outcomes.

Personally I don't do drugs, even if I get exposed to them, personally I don't gamble, so these things arn't of personal concern. Do I think it should be illegal to gamble, no. Do I think the government should restrict access to gambling for people living in poverty, yes. Do I think people in poverty should not be able to gamble legally, no. Do I think the government should pay people in poverty to gamble, no. Do I think public funds should be available for poor people to gamble, not specifically. Do I think the government should allocate funds provided to poor people for specific uses, yes, and where possible they should go to material support, not cash.

Does this personally advantage me, no. Does it disadvantage me, quite possibly.

All I get from your angle of attack is that you think everyone has to be corrupt, selfish and a closet satanist. That's part of the reason I am often disturbed by some of the stuff you guys post, because it is just decay and degenerate in overall composition. Really the worst form of societal entropy of mores.

I very much know myself. I'm a moderate, not a fundamentalist, in terms of public policy. As an individual I have a fundamental beleif, none of which rests on social function, it is internal belief that doesn't rely on the world. I'm very much a person of virtues, essentially supporting the human cause, being true to oneself, being faithful in confidence, and doing right in good faith. Am I good person, not in the slightest, am I as evil as I could be, not at all. I'm as good as god allows me to be.

Now do I support a free society, certainly but we must be reasonable, and we can't let people victimize others. Gambling is a victimization for the poor who are without. That is why there must be reasonable limits on the poors access to gambling because it is a form of self destruction for them, desperation even. gambling games are fine, gambling for money is not, because society will not provide for them, and they will see hardship without.

Now if you do not think that is a case perhaps you can enlighten me on how people in poverty live a good enough quality of life that we needn't be concerned about their lack.

Victimization really isn't a healthy thing for society. That is my opinion.

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of Billy Madison. Everyone is a little bit stupider from having read that wall of text. Irrational doesn't even begin to describe it. Delusional is a better fit. Shortlived, you're a testament to our failed post-secondary education system, and a good example of the type of person who should never have been let in. Even the most pointless university degree is supposed to help you firm up basic logic skills. People who don't have them, however, are just going to waste everyone's time and money, and develop totally brain dead 'notions' like what we just saw from shortlived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support a free society, certainly but we must be reasonable.

Then most people disagree with what you consider reasonable. A group taking over a street without prior warning, so that the people who were expecting to use that street for its intended purpose of transportation, the people who own businesses on that street, and the police who protect all who use the street found themselves in a situation they weren't at all prepared for, is, to the vast majority, not reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then most people disagree with what you consider reasonable. A group taking over a street without prior warning, so that the people who were expecting to use that street for its intended purpose of transportation, the people who own businesses on that street, and the police who protect all who use the street found themselves in a situation they weren't at all prepared for, is, to the vast majority, not reasonable.

At no point did I advocate for taking over streets. As stated, a crime committed during a protest is still a crime, the point was that protest is not a crime in itself.

However, pedestrians do have right of way in crossing non highways. IMO protests which spill over onto roads should be organized, however saying the entire thing is illegal because some individuals take the road it is another matter.

Police should respond to the scene and direct people off the roads, not into a box followed by physical arrests for protesting, a bylaw infraction that holds an outrageous fine levy (like equivolent of driving 200km/h driving fine.

It is the systematics People should be first given a direction and if they refuse then a citation, if they refuse to leave the road then clearing the road makes sense. (there is a crime called refusing orders of a police officer, and if extreme if violence is associated the riot act provisions of the criminal code, but hell no not protesting a bylaw infraction)

but immediately using force, and protesters in the photos were not on roads they were being pushed and dragged out of a public park.

I think we both agree protesters should not be a nuisance, what we seem to disagree on is the status of protest as deserving or not deserving default status of being a criminal act.

My opinion is that protest is not a crime and it should not be singled out for criminalization because it is unconstitutional.

yours is that all protest is criminal and people should be able to be arrested and fined if they don't get permission from the authorities to protest.

MY GOD!!! that is socialist, g you are socialist .. you and gaddafi would love each other, are you arab?

Any law which criminalizes protest is unconstitutional in Canada, that is my point.

Until walkways are privatized the whole of the public should have access to them whether protesting or not protesting. Canadians should be able to enjoy all their freedoms in public space available to the public.

The practice of making government a private corporation where the public has no default access is disgusting and backwards and completely fascist.

9. Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer, (B) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or © resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 118; 1972, c. 13, s. 7.

That is not arrest for bylaw infraction with extreme prejudice and fined over $600 "for protesting"

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh...Section 1, ... The interesting part about it is that it says, "It guarantees rights and freedoms ONLY TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS...etc."

Nobody is preventing peaceful assembly.

In this case, as pointed out above, police shut down the protest and arrested people gathered in a public park. So, yes, the police did interfere with peaceful assembly, and no, it was not a "reasonable limit" on Charter rights.

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 ...

Apparently it is considered "reasonable" because it happens all the time: about twice a month on Yonge St we watched protests from office windows.

I think it's pretty clear the Montreal police are entirely out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, as pointed out above, police shut down the protest and arrested people gathered in a public park. So, yes, the police did interfere with peaceful assembly, and no, it was not a "reasonable limit" on Charter rights.

That's the best part of Section 1. What's reasonable isn't for you or the everyday moron and protestor to decide. It's up to the legislature and, more importantly, the courts!

In this case, Montreal enacted a bi-law to help deal with the chaos of the last year or so. The bi-law was reasonable and merely stated if there was going to be a large assembly, the police needed info on where they were going etc. This was a simple and reasonable requirement (easily accomodated), and the protestors threw it back in the authorities' faces. They have nobody to blame but their own obstinance for any fines and arrests.

Apparently it is considered "reasonable" because it happens all the time: about twice a month on Yonge St we watched protests from office windows.

Neat 'testimonial'. How often does Yonge St get shut down for any length of time?

I think it's pretty clear the Montreal police are entirely out of control.

I think what's more clear is that the residents of Montreal are tired of the same loser protestors clogging up their streets and public spaces, hence how little public support they have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the best part of Section 1. What's reasonable isn't for you or the everyday moron and protestor to decide. It's up to the legislature and, more importantly, the courts!

The courts haven't spoken yet regarding this incident. When they do, I expect people's right to assemble peacefully in a public park will be upheld.

In this case, Montreal enacted a bi-law to help deal with the chaos of the last year or so. The bi-law was reasonable and merely stated if there was going to be a large assembly, the police needed info on where they were going etc. This was a simple and reasonable requirement (easily accomodated), and the protestors threw it back in the authorities' faces.

They were assembled in a public park. They were not going anywhere when police surrounded and arrested protesters, media and bystanders enmasse.

Neat 'testimonial'. How often does Yonge St get shut down for any length of time?

As I said, on average twice a month, once a week in better weather. I'm talking about Yonge St, Bloor-College-Dundas area, and often University Ave too.

You are absolutely wrong about Toronto. I participated in an unannounced street protest in that area once: Police asked us to stay on the sidewalk and we tried that but we were whacking pedestrians with our signs so we took to the street ... Yonge and Bloor. Police tried to direct us onto a sidestreet but we simply pointed to tell them where we were headed. Worked out fine! No tickets, no arrests, not even a negative comment from police. :D

I believe it was the feds involvement - US secret service, CSIS, RCMP - at the G20 that caused police mayhem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts haven't spoken yet regarding this incident. When they do, I expect people's right to assemble peacefully in a public park will be upheld.

That wasn't the case with the Occupy occupiers of a public park last year.

No tickets, no arrests, not even a negative comment from police.

The Criminal Code allows the police discretion in determining what's an unlawful assembly. They also regularly try to work with protesters before enforcing bylaws, as you experienced, since one of their main mandates is to maintain the Queen's peace, not needlessly create conflict. That doesn't, though, mean they're acting illegally when they do determine an assembly is unlawful and/or need to use laws--municipal, or provinicial, or federal--to disperse a crowd blocking roads, bridges, buildings, parks and whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jacee, on 12 Apr 2013 - 12:17, said:

The courts haven't spoken yet regarding this incident. When they do, I expect people's right to assemble peacefully in a public park will be upheld.

The courts haven't spoken because there's been pretty much nothing to say. I'd advise you not to hold your breathe on that one!

jacee, on 12 Apr 2013 - 12:17, said:

As I said, on average twice a month, once a week in better weather. I'm talking about Yonge St, Bloor-College-

Dundas area, and often University Ave too.

and how often, and for how long, do those streets get shut down???

jacee, on 12 Apr 2013 - 12:17, said:

I believe it was the feds involvement - US secret service, CSIS, RCMP - at the G20 that caused police mayhem.

That's one of the stupidest things I've read in awhile here, and kind of shows us how rational you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

guyser, on 12 Apr 2013 - 15:02, said:

It shouldn't be, it is well known the CDN govt gave directives that were not legal. As for the rest of the implied things, silly, but not far off.

What we know is that the police at the G20 protests overstepped their bounds and Chief Blair looked incompetent. The idea of a US/Canadian conspiracy of the CIA, CSIS, RCMP and Secret Service trying to cause mayhem is idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we know is that the police at the G20 protests overstepped their bounds and Chief Blair looked incompetent.

Agreed.

The idea of a US/Canadian conspiracy of the CIA, CSIS, RCMP and Secret Service trying to cause mayhem is idiotic.

Nothing so covert.

It was a joint planning committee, Obama's and other world leaders' security at issue. They didn't leave that all up to Blair.

But I think Blair's motley crew, with inflated sense of importance and 'spontaneously' missing badge numbers, overreacted on the street, where there was mischief but no real security threat.

The Montreal police incident is unique and deserves constitutional challenge of the grounds for declaring the protest illegal while still in the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You admonished the police for breaking up an unannounced group protest that took place in... the streets.

No I said the city and police are implementing and enforcing an unconstitutional bylaw and their crack down on the basis of that bylaw is unconstitutional.

Also "Breaking up" a protest needn't occur, as I said the police should first tell people to leave the streets, such as via loud speaker or bullhorn, if it is a large group, inform them of legitimate charges, such as ccc. nuisance code, and if that fails to read the riot act provision and charge them with rioting.. but direction by the police in ordering them to leave the streets and take the sidewalks is the step prior. Just beating them with riot gear and throwing them around on a bylaw infraction that isn't even constitutional is not acceptable.

Also the city and police were well aware it was going to happen but made it a BS process hindered by red tape and formality when the facts have been on the table about the protest for the last 17 year, although this is a seperate protest. In the case of anti police violence.

None the less use of this bylaw is not unique and in every instance it is a different situation.

For one of the protests it was a street protest (anti police violence), however this one was a different cause (against criminalizing protest) this one people were being moved out of public sidewalks and streets, in what was otherwise peaceful assembly.

Police should be using what is already in the criminal code to enforce reasonable and justified actions inventing bylaws to outlaw freedoms Canadians are suppose to enjoy is plainly unconstitutional.

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I said the city and police are implementing and enforcing an unconstitutional bylaw and their crack down on the basis of that bylaw is unconstitutional.

Uh, okay... So, the police aren't at fault, the law they're enforcing is. Well, even if we go with that, you're still advocating for the hijacking of streets by asserting (wrongly) that the law that disallows mobs from taking over streets is unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, okay... So, the police aren't at fault, the law they're enforcing is. Well, even if we go with that, you're still advocating for the hijacking of streets by asserting (wrongly) that the law that disallows mobs from taking over streets is unconstitutional.

I dunno was the SS responsible for killing jews, or was it just the law?

Perhaps you can go down to your local library and check out a copy of The Diary of Anne Frank, and read it in retrospect to what bravery these protestors actually have.

Edited by shortlived
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno was the SS responsible for killing jews, or was it just the law?

Perhaps you can go down to your local library and check out a copy of The Diary of Anne Frank, and read it in retrospect to what bravery these protestors actually have.

In other words, I am right. Thank you. In fact, we are right; I am correct that you have no clue about the constitution and your rights and Moonbox is correct that you're a crackpot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...