Mask Wearing Ban for Canadians may result in up to 6 months to 10 years in prison!

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by anon4m05

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by anon4m05

 

From my point of view if someone instigates a riot and I lose property or means of living I damn well want those responsible to answer for it. I didn't bring these problems about.

Well clearly, and I do not disagree!

But If some gun-ho riot cop smashes my kid in the face when he was clearly just standing around, NOT doing anything, I want those responsible to answer for it as well!

Hmm. So a cop roughs up your kid you want action. That I can agree with. My store or my car is trashed and I'm out of luck? Bs.

I deffinetly see that; and you would rightly seek action to remedy that (as would I). I mean, I realize the potential in this bill for curbing destruction to peoples property, but I also see much more potential for widespread abuse of the law itself. The thing is, whether this law is there or not, if someone is wearing a mask or not, if they are intent on trashing a vehicle, it's probably going to happen anyway. This law only legitmizes what I think can be seen as an expansion of power and an increaed ability to target key organizers of any said protest.

Consider this example; A Protest against monsanto occurs, and is lawful and peaceful. It has multiple key organizers from other groups, and perhaps it is a fairly large protest. At some point in the protest, a person throws a rock through a window, or sets a car on fire. This event snowballs into a full blown riot. Both the organizers of the event, as well as those who set the car on fire or had thrown a rock through the window, are wearing masks.

Who is targeted as the one which "Incited the riot"? I could certainly imagine a scenario in which the main organizers are arrested instead, even when an event was organized as a peaceful one.

Anyway, this is just an example, but I hope you see where I'm comming from.

reply to post by anon4m05

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

Do not take part in a riots that warrant the use of tear gas, infact do not riot.

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

Do not take part in a riots that warrant the use of tear gas, infact do not riot.

edit on 6-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: .

For the record, I've never been to a riot lol. It is a reality that peaceful and lawful protests can turn into riots, it has happened before. But, just as an example; Would a pregnant women in the crowd be arrested for covering her face from tear gas? Journalism crews? Bystanders?

I'm a little confused by the anguish over this (proposed?) law.

At first, I thought that not being able to wear masks at a protest or riot was going to pretty much shut down Hockey Night in Canada. In fact, I'm not sure it wouldn't apply.

But what are the objections? "What if I'm an innocent bystander, who just happens to be standing around, minding my own business, in the middle of a riot, and I'm accidentally, sort of, wearing a mask?" It took me a long time to type that, I was laughing too hard.

Or, "I just happen to be rioting, you know, my normal Friday night activity when the Maple Leafs aren't losing Stanley Cups. I want to burn some cars, but the vicious police are generating clouds of tear gas to stop me and my friends. Don't I have the right to wear a mask so I can keep smashing windows and such? It's all in good fun, right?"

Or, "Listen, I'm a heroic resistance fighter willing to sacrifice all. I don't care if I go to jail or get injured by the police bullies, the cause is more important than any petty, personal concern. But I've got to have the mask, because if the boss finds out, I'm going to lose my chance to get promoted to day shift."

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm a little confused by the anguish over this (proposed?) law.

At first, I thought that not being able to wear masks at a protest or riot was going to pretty much shut down Hockey Night in Canada. In fact, I'm not sure it wouldn't apply.

But what are the objections? "What if I'm an innocent bystander, who just happens to be standing around, minding my own business, in the middle of a riot, and I'm accidentally, sort of, wearing a mask?" It took me a long time to type that, I was laughing too hard.

Or, "I just happen to be rioting, you know, my normal Friday night activity when the Maple Leafs aren't losing Stanley Cups. I want to burn some cars, but the vicious police are generating clouds of tear gas to stop me and my friends. Don't I have the right to wear a mask so I can keep smashing windows and such? It's all in good fun, right?"

Or, "Listen, I'm a heroic resistance fighter willing to sacrifice all. I don't care if I go to jail or get injured by the police bullies, the cause is more important than any petty, personal concern. But I've got to have the mask, because if the boss finds out, I'm going to lose my chance to get promoted to day shift."

I appreciate your humor, it made me smile. Though the remarks about Canada and the such were in bad taste.

There is no anguish; only concern. Why must it be me in the crowd? I may not be there, but countless other people will be. You can bet your ass there will also be people around who are not rioting. Contribute something meaningful to the thread, otherwise, you're the one who looks like an ass.

Your entire post concerns how this law may affect a riot, but not how this law may effect a peaceful protest (which is what I am talking about).

Second; in the G20 protests a pregnant women, who was struck by a riot officer with a baton in the stomach, may have sufferred a miscarriage (I have never been able to find an update on that). It is a reality that other people, though not being myself, will be injured, and probably most will not deserve it. Your entire post, though made humorously, is construed from the vantage point of "I" or "me"; perhaps you believe we need not look out for the interests of others.

Third; People have been fired for things their employers read or see on facebook, and the like, before. What makes you think the same wouldn't happen in this instance?

Just as well, someone needing to hold their job while at the same time expressing a political belief contrary to their job is, in my opinion, not always a hypocritical action, as you suggest it to be. It's just the reality that you must pay your bills and live in the world; but that doesn't mean you cant try to change it while you do so.

The problem is that a protest can get out of hand very quickly and it isn't always the protestors that necessarily incite it. I'm not a protestor but I am a writer. A few years ago, I attended an evening protest that had been approved by the city and had a permit. My intention was to basically witness/report what occurred. There were perhaps 2 or 3 protestors out of several hundred that were definite issues--very aggressive to both police and other protestors. One actually became confrontational with me. The gross majority of the protestors, on the other hand, were actually pretty well meaning and, at one point, a bicycle cop nearly rode his bike out in front of a car. The protestors and another police officer closest to him actually pulled him back, keeping him from serious injury. As everyone was breathing sighs of relief and feeling glad that they'd kept him from getting mowed down by a car, both officers just scowled at everyone. The view that the officers in attendance had of the protestors, without exception, was a very, very poor one and this was for a legal protest. That peaceful little protest went bad three blocks later when one of the aggressive guys started a problem a block ahead of me and everyone in that section of the march paid the price for it. The curious thing is that the moment I walked out of the group of protestors, I became viewed as a normal citizen again. It's really hard to explain and I know that the above falls short. All I can say is that, based on what I experienced and witnessed, it takes two to tango.

Originally posted by anon4m05

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

What about at G20 where the riot police removed any identification / badges and were fully decked out in riot gear? Why can they hide their faces?

What if there is a "lawful" protest wherein everyone (or a lot of people) is/are wearing masks, and the police send in a provaucature to incite a riot? Are they all now subject to the 6 months in jail??

This is absurd, in my opinion.

Edit; I am fine with this, so long as the police involved at such demonstrations have their Badge # and ID plasterd on their riot shields or other visible areas. It's a two way street and protesters are not the only ones capable of unecessary violence.

edit on 6-6-2013 by anon4m05 because: (no reason given)

Also, what if someone wearing a burkha is innocently walking past a few people who are gathered in a public place?

What about people on Halloween Night in fancy dress and gathering together with their faces disguised?

They could make this law fit anything they want, whomever they want, and whenever they want.

Wow, they are going to have a lot of kids at the police station getting printed on Halloween.

Originally posted by anon4m05

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

Do not take part in a riots that warrant the use of tear gas, infact do not riot.

For the record, I've never been to a riot lol. It is a reality that peaceful and lawful protests can turn into riots, it has happened before. But, just as an example; Would a pregnant women in the crowd be arrested for covering her face from tear gas? Journalism crews? Bystanders?

edit on 6-6-2013 by anon4m05 because: (no reason given)

Occupy was really interesting in terms of what occurred with journalists. From what I recall, journalists were told to stay back from the protests--sometimes several blocks--and warned that if they entered the area in question that their press passes would mean very little. Below is a news report made by Fox's local station in NY:

Journalism groups have filed complaints about the restrictions and arrests, resulting in renewed scrutiny of how the Police Department processes requests for press credentials. Of the 10 reporters arrested in New York on Tuesday, half had credentials. Discussing the arrests, Mr. Stearns said, “In the heat of the moment it may be very hard to tell who is and who isn’t a journalist,” though he said that was no excuse.

www.nytimes.com...

Hopefully, this helps answer your question in terms of whether journalists would be treated differently although this is what happened in the US in terms of journalists covering protests and not Canada. I think, however, the quote by Stearns would probably apply anywhere because I do think "heat of the moment" plays a considerable role.

reply to post by anon4m05

Dear anon4m05,

I am sorry that you my remarks struck you as in bad taste. Since it is a Canadian law, and you appear to be Canadian, I thought the references to Canada would be appropriate. I enjoy the occasional "riot" that breaks out among masked players at hockey games. One of my favorite players was "Gump" Worsley, the goalie who didn't wear a mask. He'd be safe from jail, eh?

(If it matters to you, and I'm not sure why it would, my parents are 'peggers, and I'm going up next month for my nephew's wedding. I like Canada a lot.)

Why must it be me in the crowd?

You are quite right. I used the pronoun "you" when I should have used the indefinite pronoun "one." I'll try to kick the habit.

I may not be there, but countless other people will be. You can bet your ass there will also be people around who are not rioting.

Forgive me, but I can't bend on this point. I grant there will probably be journalists (rioters usually love their publicity). But if an average citizen sees a flood of rioters coming from one direction, and riot police with shields and tear gas coming from the other, and he just stands there, he will have a chance to explain to the magistrate after his friends kid him for being an idiot.

I was hoping that my critique of the arguments against the law was meaningful. If you only want people who oppose the law, I can understand your objection. I promise to try real hard to find a reason to oppose it. However, I can't guarantee success.

Oh, I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. Sometimes these threads can get burdened down with humorless movement types, sort of like the Commisars.

With respect,
Charles1952

Edit to add: I see you've added quite a bit of material to your post. I suppose I should respond to that as well.

Your entire post concerns how this law may affect a riot, but not how this law may effect a peaceful protest (which is what I am talking about).

Well, since the snippets of the law you quoted in your OP only deal with "riots or unlawful assemblies," I don't feel I'm distorting the issue. Does the law address legal, peaceful protests? If not, why bring it up?

Second; in the G20 protests a pregnant women, who was struck by a riot officer with a baton in the stomach, may have sufferred a miscarriage (I have never been able to find an update on that). It is a reality that other people, though not being myself, will be injured, and probably most will not deserve it. Your entire post, though made humorously, is construed from the vantage point of "I" or "me"; perhaps you believe we need not look out for the interests of others.

As far as I can see, that has nothing to do with a mask law. My post was from a vantage point of "I" or "me," because that's what happens when one is quoting a speaker.

Third; People have been fired for things their employers read or see on facebook, and the like, before. What makes you think the same wouldn't happen in this instance?

Maybe it would. So? Does an employee have the right to stay emploed after his employer finds out he has been engaged in rioting or unlawful assembly? I don't know, I'm not familiar with Canadian employment law. Surely that's between the employer and employee.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Forgive me, but I can't bend on this point. I grant there will probably be journalists (rioters usually love their publicity). But if an average citizen sees a flood of rioters coming from one direction, and riot police with shields and tear gas coming from the other, and he just stands there, he will have a chance to explain to the magistrate after his friends kid him for being an idiot.

This I can certainly agree to; this made me smile as well. All the same, there likely well be innocent bystanders in some cases.

I was hoping that my critique of the arguments against the law was meaningful. If you only want people who oppose the law, I can understand your objection. I promise to try real hard to find a reason to oppose it. However, I can't guarantee success.

No, not really. I'm just looking for an informed discussion about the various implications of that law. I think it would defeat the purpose of the forum had I only been searching for opposition.

Oh, I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. Sometimes these threads can get burdened down with humorless movement types, sort of like the Commisars.

Humor is always welcome in my books; I think sometimes we take ourselves too seriously, and at times, humor can humble someone in a good way.

Cheers,

Anon

reply to post by charles1952


Although the law itself does only address riots and unlawful assemblies, peaceful protests can have small factions of individuals rioting or what have you. When that happens suddenly everyone of the peaceful protestors are subject to the laws of a "riot", when they arn't rioting, and had every intention to be peaceful. So, although only directly addressing a riot, the law indirectly effects peaceful assembly as well.

Sorry, I should have clarified the thing about the women. I wrote it as an example of someone being hurt, but I forgot to write was; suppose that pregnant women was navigating a cloud of tear gas? She doesn't want to inhale that in order to protect her baby. She uses a mask, and you see where I'm going. That's just an example, mind you.

And to the last thing about the employer; well yeah, obviously the employer reserves that right. However, I wasnt talking about someones boss finding out he has been engaged in rioting or unlawful assembly. I brought it up to illustrate the potential of being fired simply if your political beliefs run contrary to your employers, which we know is not allowed.

But REALLY, what I am saying here, and I am sure you would agree with this, is that police officers and riot police should have the badge # / ID clearly visible. I have no problem with the mask thing, hell, it might be a good thing; but if protesters must be easily identified, so must the police. As I said earlier, those who protest are not the only ones capable of undue violence.

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

Do not take part in a riots that warrant the use of tear gas, infact do not riot.

edit on 6-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: .

Pictured: Not a rioter.

Originally posted by Monger

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

Do not take part in a riots that warrant the use of tear gas, infact do not riot.

edit on 6-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: .

Pictured: Not a rioter.

For anyone who wishes to read the story behind that picture;

Turke y Protests

Edit; there are many cool pictures there. The article is also relevant to our discussion of the use of masks. I see many, many people in these photos, some with masks, others without, mostly the police wearing masks. It doesnt really seem to make any difference actually, whether a protestor wears one or not.....maybe in smaller demonstrations yeah, but larger ones, it seems that a law like this would be useless

Originally posted by Monger

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Am I the only one who has a major problem with this?? What happens in the event riot police use tear gas? You can't cover your face?

Do not take part in a riots that warrant the use of tear gas, infact do not riot.

edit on 6-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: .

Pictured: Not a rioter.

Pictured: Not in Canada.

reply to post by intrepid


I'm pretty sure that I wasn't implying that it was. It does speak to a broader point, that police (even here in Canada) have never required a riot to employ use of things like tear gas. I don't think it's ever been a secret that, every now and then, police have been known to be a little heavy handed.

reply to post by anon4m05

Dear anon4m05,

Thank you for your relpy, it looks like everything is pretty much settled then. The mask law is fine and the police wear numbers. All's good.

With respect,
Charles1952

You know who else has something similar?

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the U.A.E.

www.albawaba.com...

Not such good company.

reply to post by charles1952


I don't agree with you very often, but that post was gold!

It took the words right out of my brain.

How about a muslim who for religious reasons is allowed to cover their face, if they are at a riot of some sort, do they get charged?

This new *Law* is outrageous. What of the Police who cover up their identity with masks etc? This law just assumes that people want to cause trouble during a riot, but perhaps some people are protecting themselves as the police have in the past unfairly targeted certain people. This is truly outrageous. You can get away with far more heinous crimes and they are penalizing this so heavily.

This means the Gov is now scared of the people and are going to extremes.