Posted on 06/23/2013 10:45:17 PM PDT by Nachum
TThe rise of the people is an undeniable happening across the globe as hundreds of millions have taken to the streets over the past few years to stand up for what they are not happy with throughout the world. With these protests comes bullhorns, signs, masks, costumes and more creative ways that protesters use to make their point.
But a new Canadian law (Bill C-309) now forbids people from wearing any mask or face-covering during a riot or so-called “unlawful assembly.” While it is difficult to determine how the law defines this type of protest exactly, it is clear on the fact that non abiders can receive a maximum of 10 years in prison if they are convicted of concealing their identity.
(Excerpt) Read more at activistpost.com ...
Um...the stage being prepped for ‘V for Vendetta’..??
Few anonymous Internet posters are breaking your windows, setting police cars on fire, throwing rocks, beating bystanders, looting, or raping. The self-styled anarchists (especially the so-called “Black Bloc”) aren’t interested in peaceful demonstrations — quite the opposite.
Does it include the black shrouded ones...
Yep, I would make like it more as a sentence enhancer to any wearing a mask and committing another crime. But certainly, wearing a mask and going to a riot is a sign of being up to no good.
Apparently many government agencies aren’t interested in lawful behaviors either...NSA, IRS, so on and so forth and they are, for the most part, covered by ‘masks of government transparency’.
The problem is that the mask makes it difficult to get convictions. That’s the main reason for wearing a mask. If you can’t get a conviction, you don’t have a sentence to enhance.
Funny thing is, as long as I remember, there was a proscription on wearing ANY kind of masking device except while Halloween was going on. Wearing ANY sort of mask was considered criminal activity, and the local constabulary would immediately stop you and inquire about your intentions.
T’was a far simpler time, alas. Not that long ago, either...
I understand it makes it harder to convict. Thus the reason for a sentence enhancement. I am uneasy with making an otherwise legal behavior a crime in this case.
Canada spend over a billion dollars for security for the G8 & G20 summits in 2010 — mostly to protect against the Black Bloc and their ilk. These demonstrations follow a set script. The Black Bloc, and other masked anarchists keep escalating (from threats, to property damage, to violence), until they get a police response. Then, afterward, it’s the police that are persecuted, with lengthy and costly inquiries.
Canada (amongst other Commonwealth countries) has the “Riot Act”. Once the Riot Act is read (i.e. an official proclamation is made publicly), it is a major offense to remain in the area. The Riot Act is used very rarely; but, it was read during the Vancouver Stanly Cup riot in 2010. In theory, everyone who remained after the reading could have been arrested. In practice — this is simply not possible. Focusing on the masked anarchist wannabes (the most likely trouble-makers) would be more doable. Once the Riot Act has been read, they are engaged in illegal behaviour, if they continue to linger in the area. Also, when a demonstration turns to a riot, there is illegal behaviour of all sorts.
spent
Of course, this law only applies to the non-government, little people.
Here’s a riot control tip. The rioters wearing masks are the planners and perpetrator. Use the mask as a target.
Canada Ping!
But a new Canadian law (Bill C-309) now forbids people from wearing any mask or face-covering during a riot or so-called “unlawful assembly.” While it is difficult to determine how the law defines this type of protest exactly, it is clear on the fact that non abiders can receive a maximum of 10 years in prison if they are convicted of concealing their identity.Reply 10 by USFRIENDINVICTORIA answers the caveat in the above quoted paragraph. The riot Act, as modified by the Canadian Criminal Code, sets the conditions for declaring an assembly to be an unlawful assembly. Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code.
65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
67. A person who is
(a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor or sheriff,who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:(b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
(c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person’s deputy,
Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;69. A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
(3) Persons are not unlawfully assembled by reason only that they are assembled to protect the dwelling-house of any one of them against persons who are threatening to break and enter it for the purpose of committing an indictable offence therein.
64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.
Nice to see you FRiend!
You’ve been missed!
so am I - I figure that folks have RIGHT to protest, OTOH they don’t have a right to cause destruction. Such a conundrum! CO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.