babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
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: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
That's fine ..everybody buy a stick on beard that just shows your eyes and forehead, or grow one like an Arabian, I bet the cons would love that.."look insurgents , can we shoot ,can we".....just as the police like the "everybody looks the same old Ork look" so can everyone else play that game. Or better yet show up at demonstrations looking exactly like police...or all the same..the regimented look.
Seriously tho...If police didn't wear masks etc then no one else should..my reasoning being ..the "Agent Provocateur"...At this point in history under a Conservative classless scum bucket government when police can dress up like protesters and throw rocks just to instigate a riot so US trigger happy snipers on roof tops can shoot them dead with real bullets like they attempted to do at the Montebello summit..I'm for the no mask rule and if anybody shows up with one ..rip it off their heads including police...especially them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-P70EM0pEA
So yep as long as the Harper cons are in power no one should be concealing their identity...they are the worst government in Canadian history save the one that ordered the shooting of striking coal miners a zillion tears ago in Saskatchewan...and that too was a conservative bastard that got elected with support from the KKK...they even tried to rewrite history and blame it on the poor Liberals with a phony documentry about Tommy D. aired during the Martin era to get their gullible wacko reformmmm supporters wound up..yep cons are the scungyest of the scungyest. Just look at the rigged election for a recent example...
This comment bugs the hell out of me, because it's a bit condescending, but also because it ignores the rights of bona fide protestors to be anonymous behind masks if they choose to do so. So I wear a mask at a protest - how is that anyone else's fucking business???
I distinctly remember hearing on the radio a few days ago, during one of those "national news headline" blurbs that come at the top of the hour, that the NDP was opposed to this bill. I've read the relevant articles, and while I don't see that the NDP has actually come out in support of these measures, they certainly have not communicated very well on this matter.
"Françoise Boivin, the NDP justice critic, said the official Opposition does not have a problem with the "concept" of the bill,"
So, was that an error in reporting, then? I'm confused.
If you hope this law remains unenforced, why do you support it? Wouldn't it make more sense to not support the law?
The fact of the matter is that participating in any social justice movement, especially one which confronts power structures in a serious way such as the student strikes in Quebec or anti-Olympics organizing, carries some element of risk. That continues today, where cameras are everywhere and google makes it easy to find "dirt" on people. Heck, between employers screening new hires with google and media coverage of protests, it can effectively blacklist participants in social justice struggles. And some people are more vulnerable to this risk than others. For example, not everyone can single-handedly take down three large, heavily armed policement like you can - I know I can't. Similarly, some people are more vulnerable to reprecussions at work or in their personal lives if they are seen at a protest - people who are precarious workers, for example. Hence, I think it is important that we support their right to wear a mask at protests.
Plus, it can get pretty damn cold in January.
I think the proposed new law is to be enforced only only against those who are wearing masks at a 'riot' however that term is defined, but I'm still against it.
Ten fucking years for wearing a mask. Where's the outrage???
Two issues for me:
1) criminalization of concealment of identity. I am fine with make it a crime to wear a mask while committing a crime but not for being at a protest-- and not for being in the crowd when someone else committed a crime that's guilt by something less than association-- by proximity. It should be limited to those actually committing a crime -- but we have legislation for that already. That Boivin was referring to existing legislation means this is what she is thinking of.
2) Proportion. People should not get ten years for wearing a mask while even doing a crime that would only get you a summary conviction. It needs to be proportional. Perhaps double the time for whatever crime they committed.
However, I am not that worried about this bill-- if applied to otherwise innocent people or minor offenses it will not survive a Charter challenge.
That's fine, if you can afford to do a charter challenge. What about the 99% who can't?
Crossposted with genstrike.
I agree-- no crime for being at a protest-- but ok to have additional penalties if you commit a crime while wearing a mask-- I'd even go for double the penalty. So if you commit no crime then you should be able to wear what you like.
If you throw a rock through a window and might have gotten 60 days then with a mask that could be 120...
Tell me is the government going to criminalize a person walking down the street in a niqab if there is a protest nearby?
And what about nuance? I mean, if it's the cops who instigated the riot, and you're arrested while the riot happens.. I mean, this whole concept is just totally insane. Ten fucking years. We've officially become a police state with this. I'm going to be very, very disappointed if my party, the NDP, don't protest this vigorously.
I think there will be lawyers willing to help in a case like this. Of course they will fight for a costs order and keep the proceeds which is not altogether unfair. I have known a fair number of lawyers who would take a case like this with no money down and take whatever the court awards for their fees-- point being they also make new law...
Not sure what you mean. I don't support criminalizing being at a riot. We should only criminalize what you do that is a crime at a riot. So if you are not lighting fire to cars and throwing rocks through windows you and your privacy ought to be respected.
I won't go to the mat to defend a person who is concealing their face to try to get away with criminal behaviour-- beyond insisting that the penalty be proportional -- no more than the amount they would get for the crime itself. If no crime then no problem with the mask.
Stop this stupid law before it gets entrenched. Ten fucking years! Jesus, where's the outrage over this???
A point being that if you have freedom of expression -- you should also have freedom to be there and not express your identity-- again so long as you are not also doing a crime while being private.
@ Sean #37
3) What are people supposed to do in the winter when it is -30?
There has been a law like this on the books in Germany since the 1980s. It is illegal to wear a mask in public. Painting the face to obscure identity is also illegal. I remember that the thing that scared a friend of mine most at one demo was not being identified by police, but being identified by neonazis and targetted later.
I have always thought of that law as something which is tolerated there (terrorist activity was used as the excuse to bring it in, after all), but would be seen as too invasive to be acccepted here.
We shall see.
Google the term Gladio and 'strategy of tension'
Well, then, I recommend not providing the cops with a reason to rough-up any of you or your/my lefty friends. Don't be stupid and things should turn out okay. Some young cops spend a lot of time lifting weights in order to be the meatheads that they are. Unless you're a meathead and like the rough stuff, too, don't provoke them.
From a link above:
Boivin argued the additional law may simply muddy the water and give defence lawyers an opportunity to point out inconsistencies between various statutes.
"We're still not really convinced of that factor, that for police it will be easier (to prevent property damage)," she said. "What will be a legitimate excuse to cover your faces?"
At first I wasn't sure what she was asking, but now I get it. She's making the point that criminalizing wearing a mask is ridiculous, because there are legitimate reasons for doing so - even at an event that turns into a riot* or "unlawful assembly". So I can give her credit at least for this.
*sometimes police instigated, too.
Oh, Christ. The cops will attack and hurt you whether you provoke them or not. We've seen this in demonstration after demonstration. We could debate all night why this happens, but it's a reality.
This is not even remotely close to being true.
I think the provision of this bill that makes you criminal for wearing a mask-- just because someone else is committing a crime is especially dangerous-- this is a whole lot further than guilt by association and now is guilt by proximity even if you have no knowledge of what is happening close to you.
Boom Boom perhaps the reason I am not panicking is this bill makes no sense when you consider the basis of criminal prosecution. If you accept that a mask is legal in most contexts and then say that it is suddenly not because of something going on that you are not necessarily even aware of, then you lack the ability to proceed with a crime. "Mens rea" is missing-- the requirement that you have to have a guilty mind. So if you are innocent in thought and intent you cannot be guilty of a crime.
Put differently: if wearing a mask in all cases was a crime then you would have mens rea by putting on the mask and a criminal test could be satisfied. However, this is saying that you could be fine putting it on but not if something bad happens near you, with or without your knowledge. This is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
So I accept the existing law that provides that there can be criminal sanctions for wearing a mask while committing a crime. I oppose cookie-cutter criminal justice that puts massive penalties out of proportion. And I strongly oppose any law that could make wearing a mask while not committing a crime suddenly a crime in itself.
Does this logic work for you?
Agreed, Boom Boom.
And taking nothing away from Dr. King, we also have to recognize that while there are lessons to be drawn from the tactics of the civil rights movement of the '50's and '60's (before anyone says it... Gandhi too), we're living in a different time and place, and our strategies and tactics need to fit our present reality. We can learn from past struggles, but we shouldn't be beholden to them as if they were eternal absolutes. One of the things that made the non-violent tactics of the civil rights era successful was the fact that there was a community of support for those who risked life and liberty. I live in a city of just under 900,000, yet I have a hard time imagining that the progressive/activist community here would adequately support even one family whose primary breadwinner went to jail for any significant length of time, let alone the hundreds or thousands that a campaign of civil disobedience would require. if we're going to be beholden to the strategies and tactics of 50 years ago, and if they're to have any hope of being successful; we have a shit-ton of work to do to build true communities of resistence.
Yes I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm suggesting that masks are useless against police violence. Masks might be useful for cops and the military pretending to be protesters on our side, but masked hooligans look good on TV broadcasts showing cops smacking people with batons and throwing punches.
If I saw some stranger with a mask on at a protest, I'm keeping one eye on that guy. And he's going to get an earful from me if he pretends to be with my group while smashing windows and taunting the cops to come and baton all of us. Young people and women don't need that kind of guy at a peaceful protest. We don't need to look like masked criminals on TV. This isn't Egypt or Colombia or Honduras with people being blacklisted by government hit squads. At least not yet, anyway. If things get that bad, then donning masks won't be much help. At that point it'll be go time. Better that we eat our wheaties and get fit.
Since when do criminal courts award costs to the lawyers of accused persons who are acquitted?
Shrugging off oppressive laws by saying "it'll never pass the Charter" is the epitome of passivity in the face of incipient fascism.
Maybe this mask craze thing is happening now because of the development of the ADS (active denial system) nice term for skin burning microwave crowd control device, where they project microwaves and cook you from the inside out..like a 711 sub in hopes you run away from the intense heat under your skin...Which videos do back up...What of your grey matter? Do you think our conservative government gives a shit about a lefty's grey matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
Lots of info and videos on these devices on the net and there thinking commercial use also...
In relation to masks ...microwaves can be reflected...protestors standing in front will get zapped like chicken in the oven BUT everyone behind who can see has their face/ head exposed ..so they have to prevent people from covering their faces because microwaves can't penetrate mesh or reflective materials of which masks can be coated with or sprayed with conductive paint's or made of other materials.....key factor is NO MASKS ALLOWED..
Another thing is the ear piercing LRAD (long range acoustic device ) aka Acoustic cannon.....head covering gear won't let the ear piercing sound waves thru Ohh Ohh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Acoustic_Device
Actually helmuts might be a good thing to wear if these things are around sky scrapers as windows might break (opera singer) and fall on you severing body parts ...again what of your grey matter ..Utra sonics besides blowing out your eardrums and affecting your nervous system can also blow up small capillaries in your brain, and we all know what Mr Conservative thinks about lefty's brain.
At this rate protestors are going to have to not just protect their heads with a helmut and a reflective mask but may want to consider full body armour also....obviously this will make protest obsolete as no one is going to want to go to jail over a clothing issue and then there is the cost, of which the protester also pays via police state taxs for the police gear and weapons.
So the message is clear to Canadians..no protesting is allowed ..so hard core protestors will be forced now to go underground and become a lone wolf , sharpen there skills and for gods sakes I hope they don't go after innocent people ..it should be obvious by now the government is cruel , insensitive and selfish and only cares about itself anyways..not the citzens..besides if you want change you start at the top and work yer way down...think No root No weed No problem..yes this no mask theory is going to work real good.
I wonder what Joe Comartin might have said.
What about the democratically abhorrent senate? Can we not count on them to be sober for a second thought on the matter?
Because if this bill does slide past the senate, I'm NEVER VOTING for either wing of the PROPERTY PARTY EVER AGAIN!
Note to self: It is already illegal to commit a crime while wearing a mask. Therefore, avoid wearing a mask when committing an offence under the criminal code.
Yep I think I can manage it.
Common wisdom would have it that people wearing masks at demonstrations while displaying any sort of intensity over and above the established rituals are unwelcome anyway. This is where general public opinion, activism and politics converge into a singular determination that a few troublemakers mustn't be permitted to ruin it for everyone, notwithstanding the fact that "it," meaning practically everything under the sun, is already in ruins precisely because the ruin makers haven't taken the sing-a-longs and the 'what-do-we-wants' seriously in decades, if they ever did. People who deplore the building of sprawling new prison complexes, but who also come down in favour of this latest hardening of the system, display a peculiar and obscene ambidextrousness.
I'd say it'd be the epitome as well, were it not for the ones saying 'it sounds well and fine to me.'
I never said that, either. We need a rollyeyes emoticon. Or even a two fingers my eyes on youticon. Yeah!