Wearing a mask at a riot becomes a crime today Maximum 10-ye

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:08 am
Location: Next door

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 7:39 pm » by Malogg


Wearing a mask at a riot becomes a crime today
Maximum 10-year prison term for conviction of new offence


Image

A bill that would ban the wearing of masks during a riot or unlawful assembly and carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence with a conviction of the offence is scheduled to become 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 is expected to be 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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ml?cmp=rss
HAHA Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7600
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:34 pm

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 7:48 pm » by Flecktarn


soon bar codes on our foreheads ,so much for the ideal we were free
ImageImage

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:08 am
Location: Next door

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 8:09 pm » by Malogg


Flecktarn wrote:soon bar codes on our foreheads ,so much for the ideal we were free



Ima agree that Masks should not be worn to hide ID but in my opinion >

They should be worn to make a statement and if any beastly officer asks for the Mask to be lifted so the officer can see his/her face and the protestor does not comply then yes they should be knicked for hiding their ID but fkn up to 10 years inside.


COME ON THIS IS BEYOND A FKN JOKE !! CHECK THIS OUT >>>

3 N HALF YEARS FFS AND THE BBC'S STUART HALL GETS 15 MONTHS FOR F@CKING CHILDREN AND RUINING UMTEEN FAMILIES LIVES WITH A PRICELESS AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE VICTIMS FFS LYNCH THAT F@CKING JUDGE. . .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kr ... ed-1959244



THE LAW NEEDS OVERHAULED IE CORRUPTION NEEDS OUTED.
Last edited by Malogg on Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
HAHA Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: Just About Everywhere

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 8:13 pm » by Rizze


If I want to protest for good reason, such as the poll tax ( it turned riot) in 1990 (The police caused it) I would do so with a mask, but as soon as it turns ugly such as looting, I would turn face.

Someone will have to oppose this, I think it should be against the law for a cctv camera to take images of me without my consent, because that is why they want masks banned, they will further this to ordinary protests.

I think it should also be illegal to have cops take images of me at anytime.
Yet they do this at any demonstration.
What right do they have to image me at all, and you also.
Some people don't want their face seen as is their right.


Listen to the Riot act? :)
Image

http://ufomaniacs.blogspot.com/
http://tiny.cc/Rizzesearch
"The greatest things on earth are us,supposedly.
Why don't we act accordingly, with humanity" Rizze

Initiate
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:53 am

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 8:23 pm » by Crusader


I bet this does not include the mask wearing coppers.
Regular is not a unit of measure

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:08 am
Location: Next door

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 8:48 pm » by Malogg


Crusader wrote:I bet this does not include the mask wearing coppers.


Exactly :clapper:
HAHA Image

Conspirator
Posts: 2312
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 8:56 pm » by Cia212


Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.


The law is worthless - anyone can claim a religious reason.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:08 am
Location: Next door

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 8:58 pm » by Malogg


Cia212 wrote:
Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.


The law is worthless - anyone can claim a religious reason.



Ima canni as Ima gave up on religion nae so long ago
HAHA Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: Just About Everywhere

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 9:03 pm » by Rizze


I never went to the link so I automatically thought U.K. I was outraged, at least we as protesters still have little freedom left.
Remember this back from 2011

David Cameron's statement.

• Instant messaging services will be reviewed. "We are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality," he said.

• The police will have new powers to order people to remove facemasks. "On facemasks, currently [the police] can only remove these in a specific geographical location and for a limited time," Cameron said. "So I can announce today that we are going to give the police the discretion to remove face coverings under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity."
Image

http://ufomaniacs.blogspot.com/
http://tiny.cc/Rizzesearch
"The greatest things on earth are us,supposedly.
Why don't we act accordingly, with humanity" Rizze

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 7611
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: ON A GIF: HUNT

PostWed Jun 19, 2013 9:19 pm » by Fatdogmendoza


We could have a crowd of 10'000 protesters wearing burkhas claiming that they were considering becoming moslem women after transgender operations ( only the men obviously :mrgreen: ) and were curious about how comfortable the get up would before they committed..

:sunny:

:peep:
Canubis wrote:slith dont b A noob.. u r my no 1 mo fo


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook