This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2013-06-19 23:20
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/19/pol-mask-bill-royal-assent.html
A bill that bans the wearing of masks during a riot or unlawful assembly and carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence with a conviction of the offence became law today.
Bill C-309, a private member's bill introduced by Conservative MP Blake Richards in 2011, passed third reading in the Senate on May 23 and was proclaimed law during a royal assent ceremony in the Senate this afternoon.
Richards, MP for Wild Rose, Alta., said the bill is meant to give police an added tool to prevent lawful protests from becoming violent riots, and that it will help police identify people who engage in vandalism or other illegal acts. The bill is something that police, municipal authorities and businesses hit hard by riots in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and other cities in recent years, were asking for, according to Richards.
"The provisions of my bill are effective immediately, which means police officers across Canada now have access to these tools to protect the public from masked rioters," Richards said in a statement being released today.
The bill creates a new Criminal Code offence that makes it illegal to wear a mask or otherwise conceal your identity during a riot or unlawful assembly. Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.
The bill originally proposed a penalty of up to five years, but the House of Commons justice committee amended it and doubled the penalty to up to 10 years in prison for committing the offence.
Richards noted in his statement how rare it is for a private member's bill to become law and said that its final passage is the culmination of two years of work and a lot of consultation with police and business owners.
Bill comes into force immediately upon royal assent
"We can all rest easier tonight knowing our communities have been made safer with its passage," said Richards.
The bill didn't have unanimous support, and was opposed by some who are concerned about its effect on freedom of expression and privacy. Critics said the measures are unnecessary because the Criminal Code already includes a section about wearing disguises while committing a crime.
Civil liberties advocates argued the measures could create a chilling effect on free speech and that peaceful protesters can unintentionally find themselves involved in an unlawful assembly. They also noted that there are legitimate reasons for wearing masks at protests; some may be worried about reprisals at work, for example, if sighted at a political protest.
"Any law that infringes upon civil liberties needs to be held to a test of absolute necessity, and I don't think that test has been met in this instance," said Michael Byers, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia and a board member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, in an interview. Byers testified at the Commons justice committee that studied the bill.
Byers said freedom of expression was not properly factored into the design of the bill and that its measures could deter acts of political expression.
Richards argues that his bill will actually help protect the legitimate right to protest because it will help prevent illegitimate protesters from infiltrating a peaceful event and causing trouble. He also said police told him the existing Criminal Code provision about disguises is more geared toward armed robbery offences and is difficult to apply in protest situations.
In a recent interview, Richards said there is a lot of misunderstanding about his bill and that there will always be people who disagree with it.
He said he is proud to have identified a problem and created a solution. The bill becomes law when it receives royal assent.
GJ CANADA.
-
Kazuni wrote on 2013-06-19 23:23
.............wat
-
Yoorah wrote on 2013-06-19 23:59
The bill is something that police, municipal authorities and businesses hit hard by riots in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and other cities in recent years, were asking for, according to Richards.
Richards argues that his bill will actually help protect the legitimate right to protest because it will help prevent illegitimate protesters from infiltrating a peaceful event and causing trouble.
If you think about it a bit you will realize that this bill is actually a good thing.
Decent people don't wear masks at most (all?) legitimate protests anyway. If you're gonna go out there and stand up for a cause, have the balls to show your face and be accountable for your actions. If you're just a dumbass who wants to take advantage of a protest crowd to start trouble (like, say, start a riot just like one that happened in Vancouver recently), then it'll be much easier to separate you from the legitimate people in the crowd.
GJ Canada (no sarcasm here).
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2013-06-20 00:16
Quote from Yoorah;1109322:
If you think about it a bit you will realize that this bill is actually a good thing.
Decent people don't wear masks at most (all?) legitimate protests anyway. If you're gonna go out there and stand up for a cause, have the balls to show your face and be accountable for your actions. If you're just a dumbass who wants to take advantage of a protest crowd to start trouble (like, say, start a riot just like one that happened in Vancouver recently), then it'll be much easier to separate you from the legitimate people in the crowd.
GJ Canada (no sarcasm here).
I agree only to an extent. This is "perfect world" idealism.
Have a look at many countries outside of North America to see an example of the next step further down this road. It really isn't about protecting others, its about given more power to the government. They've all followed the exact same path, starting with laws targeted towards unlawful and criminal activities for your safety.
This is how freedom dies. Slowly enough that each increment is not very harmful so not worth fighting over.
Slowly enough that at every step the government can say they are protecting the people against some evil, and the people can say it is only targeting the evil people: "if you are hiding nothing you have nothing to fear."
Strategically enough that when the breaking point is reached, ANY comment against the actions of the government is already legislated and illegal... so even with your "rights" intact, something like protesting makes you a criminal...
Honestly, I'm sick of all these moves the governments keep taking to sneak towards what other countries are already struggling with. Fuck everything, I'm moving to Cana-
Oh wait.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2013-06-20 00:27
I don't think we should have this for the following 2 reasons:
1) as much as I hate religion, I respect people's rights to do whatever. Canada, or at least montreal, is a very multi-cultural and tolerant place. This now means those women (possibly other people/religions too) who wear those full face masks daily can't protest legally unless they disrespect their religious beliefs.
2) If some day canada becomes as fucked up as some other countries out there, you will not want to protest with your face exposed.
Bonus reason: crazy halloween parties.
In the short term though I do agree that there's been way too much shit this past year in montreal because of students, and many of the bad situations were caused by the few bad apples wearing masks and being violent.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2013-06-20 00:34
Quote from Osayidan;1109335:
In the short term though I do agree that there's been way too much shit this past year in montreal because of students, and many of the bad situations were caused by the few bad apples wearing masks and being violent.
If they're doing something bad, the mask law has nothing to do with the results. You'd get caught and punished for what you did or you don't get caught and get away with it.
Why does the mask have anything to do with whats going on?
-
TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-06-20 01:11
Quote from Cucurbita;1109343:
If they're doing something bad, the mask law has nothing to do with the results. You'd get caught and punished for what you did or you don't get caught and get away with it.
Why does the mask have anything to do with whats going on?
I think the main problem is the government taking the choice away from people. It's a needless move to be honest. I don't think it's necessary to restrict people on that matter. Even people who won't wear mask in riot will feel cheated because they use to have the freedom to do so.
-
Lyrveil wrote on 2013-06-20 01:50
Quote from Cucurbita;1109343:
If they're doing something bad, the mask law has nothing to do with the results. You'd get caught and punished for what you did or you don't get caught and get away with it.
Why does the mask have anything to do with whats going on?
I think it has to do with full faced mask which basically cover everything. It's harder for whoever watch the security tape to identify the person except by their size and weight since the smart troublemaker would most likely throw away the clothes they wore to not be recognized in public.
@Osay: People with religious reason can still protest if we go according to this part of the bill
The bill creates a new Criminal Code offence that makes it illegal to wear a mask or otherwise conceal your identity during a riot or unlawful assembly. Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.
All in all I think it's a good thing really. Like Yoorah said people should have the balls to show their face during a protest. You want to show them you're a real person, not just a faceless number protesting just to protest. And usually people wearing mask tend to take too much liberty and cause ruckus during those riots.
-
Gensokyou wrote on 2013-06-20 02:40
At first I was like Good job.
Then
The bill creates a new Criminal Code offence that makes it illegal to wear a mask or otherwise conceal your identity during a riot or unlawful assembly. Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.
Ohohohohoho double standards.
-
psyal wrote on 2013-06-20 03:02
Well, it seems a bit silly to put that law in, considering there's multiple ways to conceal one's identity without using a mask that would be acceptable.
List:
Hood, to shield from sun/wind/rain/snow
Sunglasses, to protect eyes
Regular glasses, to aid eyesight
Medical mask, prevent colds/keep from spreading cold
All those various skin aid/care products that are visible when on(this one is questionable, but could be considered for medical purposes)
Makeup, for appearance
Scarves, to shield from wind/cold
Hats, to shield from sun/rain/snow
Helmets, for safety purposes
Another thing to point out:
The law basically states, "If you're participating in some illegal assembly/riot, we're going to give you a ten year sentence for making it difficult to find out who you are."
I'm not quite sure what the punishment is for participating in such a thing, but either the punishment is light, and so you might as well do it unmasked, or the punishment is heavy, in which you have a choice between guaranteed heavy punishment or possibly getting away from somewhat heavier punishment.
Either way, I don't see that law changing much about how often such things happen.
As an end note, if that article is accurate, I don't believe it says anything about making it illegal to wear masks during lawful protests.
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2013-06-20 10:29
Quote from Gensokyou;1109421:
At first I was like Good job.
Then
Ohohohohoho double standards.
Quote from Osayidan;1109335:
I don't think we should have this for the following 2 reasons:
1) as much as I hate religion, I respect people's rights to do whatever. Canada, or at least montreal, is a very multi-cultural and tolerant place. This now means those women (possibly other people/religions too) who wear those full face masks daily can't protest legally unless they disrespect their religious beliefs.
I wouldn't say double standards. If they didn't provide that exception, it would alienate a group of religious people from being able to protest at all
-
Elleanior wrote on 2013-06-24 03:27
Good job. Just.... good.. job... :fail:
-
Aubog007 wrote on 2013-06-24 04:43
Wow, good job canada, however i feel like this is masking another issue.
-
Hanna wrote on 2013-06-24 05:39
Quote from Gensokyou;1109421:
At first I was like Good job.
Then
Ohohohohoho double standards.
because that would be alienating and removing their right to protest
good job canada this protects their right to protest peacefully you should be happy
why would you want to wear a mask other than to avoid the police for illegal activity (besides religious reasons)
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2013-06-24 17:21
This has been completely prohibited at almost any kind of public assembly in Germany for over two decades now, but on top of that we don't have that silly exception with religious reasons. We don't have prison time for that though, just forced exclusion from assembly.
And fuck slippery slope fallacies.