Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Bill C-26, The Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, passed second reading in the House of Commons December 15, where it was "enthusiastically endorsed in principle by the NDP and Liberals". It's now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
"This legislation expands citizen's arrest in a way that makes private law enforcement powers greater," Russomanno asserted. "And when we look at the numbers of arrests being affected by private law enforcement, you can see that it's undergoing a massive increase, and this simply wasn't contemplated by Parliament."
Russomanno suggested "the elephant in the room" is whether Charter protections apply to persons subjected to citizen's arrests. Most appellate case law says "no" (although the Supreme Court hasn't settled the question).
Absent constitutional constraints, if private security forces are to be given broader arrest powers, there must be enhanced oversight and regulation, Russomanno argued.
The Canadian Bar Association will oppose Bill C-26's expansion of citizen's arrest, said criminal lawyer Eric Gottardi of Vancouver's Peck and Company.
"We're of the view that the law on citizen's arrest, as it currently exists, is fine, and this is a kind of a worrisome expansion of the power of the individual citizen to potentially get themselves into dangerous situations," he said.
Gottardi warned that the bill opens "a real can of worms" with respect to private security forces, which don't get the same training or oversight as peace officers.
"I think it's going to be hard, on any view, to cast [private security] as state actors," he explained. (The Charter protects only against actions taken by the state, not by private actors.)
Yet, "statements [arrested] people make to those individuals [making a citizen's arrest] are likely to be fair game for use in any trial down the road," Gottardi pointed out. "And right now there wouldn't seem to be any obligation on the arresting individual to provide any kind of notice to the [arrested] individual that what they say might be used [against them at trial], or that they might have access to a lawyer upon their arrest. And again there doesn't seem to be a lot in place in terms of other types of oversight, or redress, for any kind of misconduct that might happen during the arrest." (People wrongfully arrested can sue in civil court).
Gottardi said the bill is also ambiguous about how long after an alleged offence a citizen may make an arrest, and about what constitutes "reasonable" force during the arrest.
"To the extent that this is going to be seen as encouraging shopkeepers and other individuals to put themselves in harm's way, it's certainly not something that the CBA supports," he said.
Bill C-26 now at Third Reading
Green Party leader Elizabeth May - the only MP to oppose the bill - said C-26 will encourage vigilantism and amounts to a "very big gift to the private security companies."
"The constitution of this country is governed by the concept of peace, order and good government," May said. "This stuff goes off in a wacky new direction, and it worries me."...
The bill has the support of the Liberals and the NDP, in part because a private member's bill by NDP MP Olivia Chow inspired it.
Thanks, Olivia.
It's all about protecting property rights. I love it, now the mall security forces will be legally entitled to do full on take downs of perps. Fortunately for the poor people in Canada who will come in contact with this new species of "peace officer" they would never lie about the type of provocation that caused them to blacken someones eyes. No pesky civilian oversight of any kind is also another bonus for this new owners entitlement to its own police with arrest powers.
Cool
What May and the rest of them fails to apprehend is that security in the broadest general sense is already in the service of private interests. The fact that some of it is subsidized or is paid for entirely by the public doesn't obscure the fact in the least.
Which is precisely why we need way more civilian oversight not less. The police forces are already way too unaccountable. We don't need a whole shitload of cop wannabes being told they have the power to arrest people.
Stupid idea and the caucus should have told Olivia exactly that when she first proposed it. The proof it was a dumb idea is the Conservatives bringing it back as a government bill.
Brings a whole new meaning to food security. You see em in all the grocery outlets now as it is.
Sounds like a fucking stupid bill. And the NDP supports this???
So if Elizabeth May is the only Progressive in the House on this issue, how does that make the Greens right-wing Libertarian Tories with composters?
[Sorry if this seems like a thread hijack, but it's a perfect example to illustrate]
...right-wing Libertarian Tories with composters
That's a new one on me.
"Tories with composters" in many ways, for sure. But right-wing libertarians? Certainly not in May's case.
Of course they will, why would anyone be surprised? Is the "law and order issue", really this toxic?