Critics angered by new law making it illegal to wear a mask at unlawful protests

[damngrumpy]

First of all I am not a person who goes out into the street to protest something or
celebrate anything. I don't agree with this law for a number of reasons.
I think the law is responding to a paranoid government. Now this government is
afraid of that people no longer care about law and order, or they are becoming
more and more anti this government. We are watching different visions of the
nation playing out here. There are many who are want the same traditional way
of life and those who want change.
Change can mean anything. Some want to live off the land some want to use the
wealth of the land to live off everyone else and others who want to combine their
religion with their politics.
There are environmentalist, the occupy movement, skin heads and a host of other
disruptive organizations on the left and right. The problem is the government sees
this and decides they need law and order. they need to protect the people from all
these groups and others in the general public. Governments forget these people
are their boss and divided as they are, they decide who will be government.
As for masks being a punitive measure with a ten year sentence, this is just silly.
It will never stand up because the public won't stand for it. Years ago, people were
arrested and sent to work camps because they were without a minimum amount of
money, during the Great Depression. In the end the work camps were disbanded
and it is now a part of our history. this too shall pass.
When a government of any stripe begins to adopt these measure the writing is on the
wall for their tenure to pass

 

[Cannuck]

When a crowd is beginning to reach the point of beyond control - there are safety factors involved as well- That is a legitimate action on the part of the Police.

I should be arrested because I'm in a large crowd?

No

You should make up your mind.

 

[Goober]

You should make up your mind.

Use the full posts- not that selective cut and paste.

 

[Cannuck]

Use the full posts- not that selective cut and paste.

I'm not required to. I've kept the meaning of your comments in context. Look, I understand you spouted off before you really put much thought into the issue. This is a common ocurrence with you....or perhaps you really can't make up your mind.

 

[Goober]

I'm not required to. I've kept the meaning of your comments in context. Look, I understand you spouted off before you really put much thought into the issue. This is a common ocurrence with you....or perhaps you really can't make up your mind.

How about we both have a civil discussion?

 

[Zipperfish]

Uh-huh! Why would the police want to arrest protesters before they have done anything wrong?

They like to round up the organizers before the rally, then let them out after witha mea culpa.

When a crowd is beginning to reach the point of beyond control - there are safety factors involved as well- That is a legitimate action on the part of the Police.

The only "legitimate" job for police is to enforce the law. They can't just intervene because of "safety issues."

The police have enough laws to arrest lawbreakers. They don't need to start pasing law on what folks can wear.

 

[Goober]

They like to round up the organizers before the rally, then let them out after witha mea culpa.



The only "legitimate" job for police is to enforce the law. They can't just intervene because of "safety issues."

The police have enough laws to arrest lawbreakers. They don't need to start pasing law on what folks can wear.

They can when safety of others is threatened. Basic Law 01.Not 101, that course is much later.

 

[Zipperfish]

They can when safety of others is threatened. Basic Law 01.Not 101, that course is much later.

No they can't. They can enforce the law. People do things that aren't safe all the time. Cops have jobs that aren't safe. Should they arrest themselves?

The law is there to prevent arbitrary detention and arrest. It lays out the specifc conditions under which the state can use force to interfere wityh you.

 

[gerryh]

It's very simple. Do not attend illegal protests and the law doesn't effect you.

 

[Cliffy]

It's very simple. Do not attend illegal protests and the law doesn't effect you.

Unfortunately, all legitimate protests will soon become a thing of the past. And attending legitimate protests does not protect you from police brutality.

 

[gopher]

Face recognition software identifies EVERYBODY....cops too.

Yup. Evidently some on this forum did not bother to look at the links posted about agent provacateurs during OWS.

It's very simple. Do not attend illegal protests and the law doesn't effect you.

OWS protests were legal but that did not keep away government agents.

 

[Cannuck]

How about we both have a civil discussion?

Quit talking nonsense at that becomes a possibility.

It's very simple. Do not attend illegal protests and the law doesn't effect you.

Not according to the article in the link. Besides, why is any protest illegal?

 

[petros]

Embarrassment?

Persecution is more like it but that never happens does it?

It's very simple. Do not attend illegal protests and the law doesn't effect you.

Would those be the ones outside of "free speech zones" or protests that weren't given permits?

I always thought our free speech zone was from the Pacific to the Arctic to the Atlantic and didn't require the acquisition of a permission slip allowing your to speak you mind in public on public grounds.

Bob Dylan must be rolling in his grave.

 

[Cliffy]

Persecution is more like it but that never happens does it?


Would those be the ones outside of "free speech zones" or protests that weren't given permits?

I always thought our free speech zone was from the Pacific to the Arctic to the Atlantic and didn't require the acquisition of a permission slip allowing your to speak you mind in public on public grounds.

Bob Dylan must be rolling in his grave.

Although he doesn't look like it, Bob is still alive and touring.

 

[petros]

That is just a Disney robot. They did a good job on it.

 

[Cannuck]

“The police are not out there to break up peaceful demonstrations.

Really? Are there actually people out there that believe this stuff?

Canada vs America (pepper spraying) - YouTube

 

[taxslave]

No they can't. They can enforce the law. People do things that aren't safe all the time. Cops have jobs that aren't safe. Should they arrest themselves?

The law is there to prevent arbitrary detention and arrest. It lays out the specifc conditions under which the state can use force to interfere wityh you.

Actually they can and do all the time. Simplest example is when they close a road because of weather conditions but there are many others.

 

[petros]

Actually they can and do all the time. Simplest example is when they close a road because of weather conditions but there are many others.

ministry of transportation does that.

Keep trying

 

[Zipperfish]

Actually they can and do all the time. Simplest example is when they close a road because of weather conditions but there are many others.

And when they close a road, they are doing so under powers specifically conferred to them under the Motor Vehicle Act (in BC). Thye can't just intervene on point of general safety unless given that power by law. They often are given that power, but that's because we are becoming more of a nanny state. For example, there was the lady in Vancouver who was arrested and charged for failing to have one hand on the railing while going down an escalator.

What I'm trying to get is this notion--held by nanny state types--that the police get to choose when to intervene and how to exercise force at their pleasure.

 

[petros]

Closing a road due to weather isn't a decision made by cops and they aren't given the power to do it. Closing a road can have an economic impact into the millions per hour. They just sit at the barricade with their rollers on to ensure nobody tries to go through anyway.