In Germany wearing masks (and protective gear) to even legal protests is outlawed, too. Though you get 'only' max 1 year and not 10 years for doing so. For the riot police it's inverse: They don't have to be uniquely identifiable [2].
I personally don't think that such laws should exist in democratic systems.
I agree. Sometimes there are real consequences to showing up at a protest and a mask is necessary. At any time the protest could turn violent and you've gone from being a legal protester to a 10 year prison sentence in a second through no fault of your own.
Welcome to the real world, Neo. Shall they arrest kids during the carnival in Montreal? Or this ruling applies only to those who struggle against corruption, oppression and tyranny?
I assume there is the same system as in the US and it's a way for the prosecutor to twist the arm of the accused into a guilty plea in exchange for a reduced sentence?
Anyone with relevant knowledge care to comment on what constitutes an "unlawful assembly" in Canada? Are assemblies of people lawful or unlawful by default?
An unlawful assembly is any gathering that incites fear in a neighbourhood. According to the Criminal Code, it’s “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 will disturb the peace tumultuously.”
A riot is simply defined as, “an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.”
I think it should be obvious, but it is up to state prosecutors to decide who they want to prosecute, they're not legally required to do so.
But some people think that there's the same law for everyone.
The real state shareholders are multinationals and military-industrial complex.
The board's (government) responsibility is to the real shareholders and not to the product (people).
The state creates environment (just enough freedom, plenty of entertainment) for the product so it will not spoil (revolt).
Some people think that the there are democratically elected representatives and president. It is semantically valid, but does not serve the purpose implied by most people.
1. It is very easy to be white and fluffy before the elections, and turn around right after (and what are you going to do about it?)
Maybe there's an argument for making masks illegal at protests (even though it doesn't feel right) - but 10 years in prison just for showing up at a protest with a mask?! What's the penalty for actually vandalizing a store with a mask during a protest then? 30 years?
This penalty makes me think that it's just the government really not wanting people to protest, and trying to restrict protests as much as possible. The "western" governments are seeing what's happening in other countries and how easily revolutions could start now, so they are working on ways to limit protests and drastically punish protesters as soon as they show up for one, to try and prevent future such protests in their countries, too.
Too bad they don't realize that this will only make people increasingly angrier with their governments over time, and they're just asking for a violent revolution if they do that. The more they deny their citizens peaceful protests, and the more they back them into a corner, the more the citizens will feel like they have no choice but respond with violence at a mass protest (especially if there's police brutality). They're asking for it. Good democracies allow protests for a reason, but I think when certain politicians get to power, they forget why.
Too bad they don't realize that this will only make people increasingly angrier...
I'm pretty sure that people who propose and enact laws like this genuinely believe they'll cause people to change their behavior, and that the people whose behavior it won't change should be locked up, anyway.
It's the same kind of fantasy as believing that DRM actually has a meaningful impact on piracy.
If everyone driving down a highway is going above the speed limit, are they all doing the wrong thing? Do they all risk being singled out by the highway patrol?
If everyone wears a mask, or at least the majority, can those being singled out for wearing one use some sort of argument that everyone was wearing one? At what point does a "lawful protest" become an "illegal riot" because if the former turns into the latter all of a sudden, can you argue your way out of it?
In any event, seems as ridiculous as charging illegal downloaders hundreds of thousands, rather than something reasonable, for downloading an album, or what-have-you.
24 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 62.5 ms ] threadI personally don't think that such laws should exist in democratic systems.
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermummungsverbot (in german) [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennzeichnungspflicht_für_Poliz... (german)
Fun fact: Canada has two oil pipeline spills a day, minimum. Just don't protest it.
Sometimes I wonder if we are exporting our legal and political insanity up there.
Does Canada have a "right to assembly" like we supposedly (but not actually) do in the US ?
Source?
http://globalnews.ca/news/571494/introduction-37-years-of-oi...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Groucho+glasses&prmdo=1&gbv=...
http://cvdazzle.com/
An unlawful assembly is any gathering that incites fear in a neighbourhood. According to the Criminal Code, it’s “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 will disturb the peace tumultuously.”
A riot is simply defined as, “an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.”
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2012/05/14/f-mask-riot-law.html
But some people think that there's the same law for everyone.
The real state shareholders are multinationals and military-industrial complex.
The board's (government) responsibility is to the real shareholders and not to the product (people).
The state creates environment (just enough freedom, plenty of entertainment) for the product so it will not spoil (revolt).
Some people think that the there are democratically elected representatives and president. It is semantically valid, but does not serve the purpose implied by most people.
1. It is very easy to be white and fluffy before the elections, and turn around right after (and what are you going to do about it?)
2. There's no real choice anyway.
This penalty makes me think that it's just the government really not wanting people to protest, and trying to restrict protests as much as possible. The "western" governments are seeing what's happening in other countries and how easily revolutions could start now, so they are working on ways to limit protests and drastically punish protesters as soon as they show up for one, to try and prevent future such protests in their countries, too.
Too bad they don't realize that this will only make people increasingly angrier with their governments over time, and they're just asking for a violent revolution if they do that. The more they deny their citizens peaceful protests, and the more they back them into a corner, the more the citizens will feel like they have no choice but respond with violence at a mass protest (especially if there's police brutality). They're asking for it. Good democracies allow protests for a reason, but I think when certain politicians get to power, they forget why.
I'm pretty sure that people who propose and enact laws like this genuinely believe they'll cause people to change their behavior, and that the people whose behavior it won't change should be locked up, anyway.
It's the same kind of fantasy as believing that DRM actually has a meaningful impact on piracy.
If everyone wears a mask, or at least the majority, can those being singled out for wearing one use some sort of argument that everyone was wearing one? At what point does a "lawful protest" become an "illegal riot" because if the former turns into the latter all of a sudden, can you argue your way out of it?
In any event, seems as ridiculous as charging illegal downloaders hundreds of thousands, rather than something reasonable, for downloading an album, or what-have-you.