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
I'll be damned if the NDP will get a free pass from me when they choose to condone a further descent into a police state. The problem is that the law is addressing something that is not a real problem but part of a propaganda campaign to vilify protestors.
We have enough fucking draconian laws and I would like the NDP to start opposing them. I remember who the lone voice was in the House who stood up to Harper's crime and punishment agenda when he had a minority. I was shouted down then by NDP partisans but I don't care I will complain about the NDP anyway because of its acquiescence with the slow boiling of us frogs in the pot.
True-- and this is why we should not let ourselves be pushed into extreme positions on either side because one extreme will likely deliver the other.
Sorry Sean the protestors are not the ones engaged in arming themselves to the teeth. The law is an attempt to curb civil rights and it needs to be opposed in concept not have a debate about how to improve the idea.
With a 10 year max considered along the scale of available sentences, this constitutes the stuff of big house, max security. The bail amount and behavioural requirements correspondingly increases, meaning your average lower income insurgent gets to wait out the pre-trial period in the clink, and as we know from political prisoner Mandy Hiscocks' these type of offenders spend much of their time behind bars under max security arrangements. What we would do well to understand in all of this is not the deepening of an already harsh system, but it's expansion; from the traditional and convenient enemies of the state, non-white communities that is; to encompass a whole demographic the system had previously displayed far more leniency toward. I think we can be certain that it won't even things out in that regard, simply because the system will give themselves more latitude in the way they typically dish out their violence elsewhere, so that the disparity is maintained regardless. We won't be having any fair across the board repression. Oh no, it won't be like that.
The NDP has not condoned anything other than the laws that already exist and has stated that the principle of this law, as described by the Cons, is already covered. Please be careful with such sweeping statements based on a single media article. The NDP will respond with its answer and we should condemn it then if it is bad but at this point we are going based on a brief interpretation. I don't defend poor policies of the NDP but this is not a policy. Can't we hold off a bit -- then we may not look quite so foolish if the NDP comes out saying exactly what we want them to.
I think the NDP is avoiding being cast as against what is already the law. The distinction of what is reasonable is essential-- because if we don't have someone calling for that then an extreme will win the debate and chances are it will be the extreme position the government is advocating.
Many people who attend demonstrations also are uncomfortable with people being violent behind a mask. And by this they are equally unhappy with those who do so behind a ski mask as the police.
We serve the defence of human rights better by avoiding extremes in my view.
I agree which is why we need to fight:
- the extreme nature of the penalty
- the extreme nature of the basis for one (that someone else may be committing a crime or someone determines the gathering unlawful)
instead of the idea that a mask can legally be worn committing a crime. If we let the Cons characterize our opposition as against any restriction on a mask ever we will be out of this debate and will lose the ability to stop this legislation.
It would seem that with this latest measure, all they've succeeded in doing is to inadvertently signal that the era of peaceful protest is over, as it has been for quite some time, with everything that remains within that state of nothingness becoming a farce for the 24/7 news cycle. This will likely assist in summoning a new era of anonymous and widespread guerrilla insurgency; one that removes itself from the limelight as a tactical adjustment, which in turn will also serve to justify the existence and expansion of the surveillance state even more. Sure, they'll still require the services of agent provocateurs among the approved peace marches and such. Appearances and tradition must be maintained regardless, so as to at least not render so openly the mass protest for the spectacle that it always was for the past 40 years.
Orderly and licensed protests won't do anything ..no media coverage ..nothing! The system is geared towards letting trained killer animals (Piggys) out of there cage and feed on prime red meat (protestors)....
However if there was a nationwide left oriented in your face media there would be no need to protest..you don't see right wing fanatics and oil company's protesting do you? There demands are met daily on conservative media and conservative government. Right now that is what is lacking for the left..maybe when the NDP takes over the government they can reconstruct the CBC and all left demands will be met and we can watch the right protest with NO COVERAGE except when they are beaten over the head for throwing a rock or god forbid wearing a mask.
If you think about it , local protests don't really mean much unless they get coverage and inform people anyways. The internet with live streams helps but it's still not there for all to access like turning on a TV. Internet is great but still not quite at the level of TV brainwashing , but getting there. Internet you may reach 100 viewers..TV you may reach 1 million viewers..still a long way to go.
The modern day protest may as well just pay a bundle for a well oiled and professionally done video presentation for the "you tube" like the "Konny" group did...how many viewers? or remember the "Oil sands don't visit Alberta" video. These vids reached more people and generated more discussion than a protest where piggy's were beating there fellow countrymen to death.It's almost like the PREFERRED method the govt wants you to do , as they can beat you into submission and televise it to other citzens...record your faces for intel,facial recognition...etc etc.and once it's over it's over , not like a song or video that is almost immortal.
They sure are doing a good job of creating lone wolf scenarios for the future that's for sure with the conservative militant style of suppression. The sooner Cromwell err I mean Harper goes the better.
I think that people who attend demonstrations are uncomfortable with people being violent whether they wear a mask or not. I am sorry if you view the right to protest without revealing yourself to the police and others is an extreme position.
Nobody on here is arguing for the right to commit violence with or without a mask on. The point is the violence. The NDP would do well to start talking about the violent reaction the police are meeting demonstrators with rather than getting sucked into the debate about how to control a non-existent problem.
They are allowing the right wing to not only raise the issues that are designed to end protest but they are even allowing them to frame the debate.
It is extreme to me that we have young people jailed for organizing protests in Toronto, some arrested in the middle of the night before the event even occurred. The police state is already here and it is imprisoning non violent protesters all ready. That should be the focus of the NDP not, those protestors in masks are ruining it for everyone. It is the totalitarians running our country that are ruining our society not anyone wearing a mask to a demonstration.
That's right. It's not something I boast of and would prefer it doesn't turn into gossip.
And so you were saying?
I would imagine they could continue wearing masks outside the Egyptian embassy... as long as they don't walk a few blocks downtown and begin smashing windows and looting baubles while, and at the same time, wearing masks.
As a socialist I just will not condone the smashing and grabbing for the sake of a few capitalist baubles. It only makes capitalists and their baubles appear to be worth something more than they really are. Violence against capitalists and their stuff only works to undermine genuine protest because the situtation then becomes all about private property laws enforced by the full force of the state regardless of our legit concerns.
MLK Jr and civil rights marchers needed neither masks nor to smash things and set cars ablaze. That was the work of provocateurs at the time hoping to discredit protesters with legitimate concerns.
It is explicitly set out in the Charter — it's called "freedom of peaceful assembly" (section 2 c)).
But there is not a lot of case law about it. If judges can resolve a given constitutional issue by looking at it from the perspective of good ol' "freedom of expression", that's what they'll do cause it's more familiar terrain, for one thing.
Fidel have you been to any big protest where the police have rioted? You sure come across as an armchair protestor not someone who actually would take to the streets to protest things like the G8/G20. Of course if that impression is wrong feel free to tell me all about your experiences on the streets of Toronto and your detention for sitting down peacefully.
Did you not pay any attention to the piece above explaining the new array of weapons the police are being outfitted with. You are asking other people to prostate themselves before the naked force of the state and to forgo any head protection against people who fire tear gas and rubber bullets at your head and assail your hearing with sonic audio.
Sounds like sonic audio will be a given from now on. there is a court case going about it in BC right now I believe to do with a school being vandalized
I was picked up by cops in a paddy wagon in my first protest in Ottawa - against the Viet Nam War - in front of the US Consulate and I think it was in 1968. We were taken to the police station and released after getting our photos taken in a lineup. I was 18 at the time and didn't know my rights, nor did any of the youngsters I was with. The cops just took advantage of us.
Please re read my posts -- this is a complete mischaracterization of what I have been saying -- I have said clearly several times the opposite.
I have only said that it is fair that committing a crime with a mask on could get further sanctions but that you should be able to wear a mask when not breaking the law-- which part of that are you missing?
Also please consider I defined committing a crime much more narrowly than the bill does -- must be soemthign you do not the situation of the crowd or if others are doing something...
That is the other part of the German laws. Anything that might serve as protection against a baton - armour, a hat or helmet, a shield, or even a pillow - is considered a passive weapon, and can get you a weapons charge.
The only reason I was aware of it was because you mentioned it.
I'm saying that if you had experienced being gassed you might understand that masks aren't entirely useless against police violence.
Thank you! I told you I didn't know the legalities, and as usual, you proved I was right!
Now, can you explain to me the basis on which the Montréal police continually declare assemblies "illegal" - is it under the Criminal Code? Municipal bylaw? Both? Would it stand up to constitutional challenge? Has there ever been such a challenge? Shall we (you and I) mount one?
Separate thread??
Ah! Okay then. At the point when the cops use tear gas and illegally so according to the 1993 UN convention, don your mask and forge ahead with not smashing and looting. I'll bet nine times out of ten you won't be sent down the line for breaking their oppressive property laws and swinging public opinion against our legitimate protest in the process.
If I am there with you, I can handle a cop or two with my diplomacy. But not when I have two of them hanging off each arm and blood streaming down my face while I watch helplessly as they pummel you on the sidewalk. I don't want or need that. And neither does anyone else.
moved
Actually this thread has covered lots of bases ....the NDP will make the right decision I'm sure.
We should all stock up on these before they are forever banned:
Recorded votes on Second Reading of C-309 (I'm assuming this is the bill in question) shows that among the NDP Caucus, only Denise Savoie supported this bill, while Glen Thibeault, Paul Dewar, Philip Toone, Thomas Mulcair, Francois Pilon, Romeo Saganash, Dennis Bevington, and Niki Ashton abstained or were absent. The rest of the Caucus voted against.
Seriously, was that so hard to find out before jumping on the "lets-hate-the-NDP-for-selling-out" bandwagon?
wow, lots of Cons and Libs 150% support it! Im so glad NDP against it 99%! even Green and BQ too!
Personally, I'd be happy to have the NDP make me look foolish by doing the right thing on the law 'n' order file for a change.
Here's the criminal law as it now stands:
Here's the entire operative portion of the amendment:
Perhaps, Sean, you'd like to clarify for us what parts of this are acceptable to you and what parts are not?
Omigod! This is going to give Fidel a serious case of whiplash when he does a complete 180°!!!
" (1) while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse"
Well there you go....no one knows when or if a demonstration will turn ugly so to be on the safe side one should be wearing a mask in case the police turn the microwave on you and burn up your insides....lawful excuse? ..like what safety , health, defense.....same with the ear drum destroyer....you better have a helmut for that one too...and be wearing something to cover your ears ....the police like to use tear gas ...unfortunatlely that too is a health and safety issue that would require wearing a GAS mask for your protection..same with rubber bullets ...one shouldn't run the risk of being permanently disabled (blind) for the rest of their life because of conservative wack jobs and their hair brained ideas , so the law does have one big loophole....the lawful excuse.
In an ideal world where those risks didn't exist ...the ideal response would be not wearing a mask , but that is not the case in a Conservative Canada....the more protection you have the better off you will be ...and where do Conservatives get to even bring up the word "lawful" when they rigged the election like common unlawful criminals anyways...
Long thread.