Mayor to rush anti-mask law into force
Mayor Tremblay was upset about the metro smoke bombs on Thursday and one of the consequences is the rushing into law of a ban he’s wanted for awhile on face coverings during protests – even though the images allegedly of people plotting the smoke-bombing don’t show anyone in masks. La Presse shows the photo and names names, saying they were denounced by their friends and describing their activities in detail. I wonder who took the photo and why – I’ve taken metro photos too, but rarely of mundane scenes like ordinary people looking at something in a newspaper.
Last night saw the 17th evening demo in a row, which several media outlets mention was less well attended than some.
Chris 08:39 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Yes, I wondered about the photographers too.
As for rushing this law, like they say, never let a crisis go to waste.
paul 09:33 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
I’m guessing that the photographers saw them throw something on the track. It can’t be that easy to throw stuff under the train during rush hour – especially with people on-watch for it. Sensing the amount of tension that a number of commuters have with the situation, I am somewhat surprised that the accused weren’t confronted aggressively.
Michel 10:28 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Were the photos taken before or after the event?
Perhaps I’m just grasping at straws and would prefer that the folks involved weren’t students.
Antonio 11:11 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Whatever the photographer’s timing, I’m glad they got the shot. And if these antisocial lefto-nutjob twerps are found guilty, then throw the book at them.
Tux 11:20 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
So, is it more important that violent protestors be identifiable, or is it more important that we have the right to protest anonymously? I’m gonna say that the right to be anonymous is more important, some people due to family/work/social/religious situations cannot be public about their political views. Masks are necessary and the cops should learn to deal with it. Personally ever since I learned about the agents provocateurs at the G20, I’ve pretty much thought that anything that works to take away some of the cops’ power is overall a good thing. They’ve grown too big for their britches.
paul 11:29 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
@Michel
The article states that they are UQAM students who were heavily involved in the protest, there isn’t much detail as to why they were identified or what evidence there is.
Michel 12:46 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
@Paul
No, I understood that. What I meant was that, before hearing that they were students, I had hoped that they not be. Because now, even though at least one of them was a member of a radical offshoot union, yesterday’s action completely tarnishes all student unions.
Fred 12:52 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Aren’t we prohibited from taking photos on the metro? (Correct me if I am wrong, I am too lazy to look this up). If so, should the police turn around and arrest the person(s) who provided the photos? Or is it that only cameras are prohibited and lo-res cell phone photos are ok?
Kate 13:33 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
You can’t take flash photos in the metro and you can’t deploy equipment like tripods or lighting booms, but other than that you’re allowed to take photos in the metro. There may also be a rule about not photographing STM staff working but I’m not sure how that would specifically be enforced.
Tux, I recall a big environmental protest a few years ago. I was taking pictures, but some Chinese people with a banner were turning their backs, I can’t remember what the specific issue was but I got the strong impression they didn’t want their faces in any protest photos and I backed off because I could see why.
Antonio will be happy, though. The Tories are considering up to ten years in prison for people who protest with faces covered.
Time for a mass conversion to Islam?
Chris 13:35 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Apparently the photos were taken after they threw a smoke device (I prefer using the term bomb for something that goes “bang”) by opening the train doors in the tunnel. It was all over twitter yesterday. Seems like the doors can be opened for about 10 centimeters while in motion.
qatzelok 14:38 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Makeup and wigs will still be legal at protests though, right?
Or should the actor who plays Ronald McDonald on TV be arrested for hiding his identity from morbidly obese children with cholesterol issues?
steph 15:07 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Tremblay says the law will only target criminal offenders, but wearing a mask to commit a crime is already a crime with additional punishment. Is he just lying through his teeth? Can’t they enforce laws that are already in place? How about they start enforcing the law that prohibits police from hiding their badge numbers!!
Antonio 15:45 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Ah Kate! I’ve become accustomed to your deliberate lapses in rigour when it comes to exposing the full story in order to favour your leftist slant. I think it’s endearing. But the truth is that the sentence does not apply to people who wish to “protest” anonymously, but rather to people who wish to partake of riots and unlawful assemblies anonymously. There is a distinction between protesting in a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law and partaking of riots or unlawful assemblies. This is a distinction that you and the rest of your acolytes here fail to make.
And yes, oh yes, even in a “free and democratic society” there are limits to the right to publicly assemble such that some assemblies may be deemed unlawful. These limits are imposed to strike a balance among citizens’ rights such that the exercise by some of their “rights” (e.g. demonstrating in front of a public official’s private residence) don’t impede the rights of others (the public official’s privacy as well as that of his neighbours).
If the class-boycotting students and other leftists-of-convenience quit gazing at their navels (under the guise of promoting their supposed moral high ground), then perhaps they’d realize that the distinction exists and they’d be readily able to make it. One can only hope, faint though that hope may be.
walkerp 15:58 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
I am not an Acolyte, I am an Adept!
Kate 17:00 on 2012/05/11 Permalink
Antonio, please keep a lid on your condescension or the banhammer will fall.
When there’s a fine line between a vigorous demonstration and a riot – when police can declare any demonstration illegal at will – then if these laws against face coverings pass, it would be a very dangerous matter to demonstrate in disguise given the risk of suddenly finding oneself defined as a criminal.
Any demonstration can be declared a riot or illegal gathering if the authorities say so.
Spock 07:44 on 2012/05/12 Permalink
Kate, Islam doesn’t accept or condone face coverings. That is a cultural issue and NOT Islamic AT ALL.
Please do not say such false things on an open site on an Internet filled with perverse uttering on this faith of 1.5 billion.
Kate 09:21 on 2012/05/12 Permalink
Sorry, Spock. I didn’t say it to mock Islam, but to suggest a semi-comic legitimate excuse for people to cover their face in public.
(Are you sure about Islam not condoning face coverings, though? What’s going on with niqabs and burqas, then?)
Spock 13:44 on 2012/05/12 Permalink
Its cultural. The Qur’an doesn’t mandate fact coverings.
Hence when women do the pilgrimage to Mecca they have to show their face and only cover their hair
Antonio 14:32 on 2012/05/12 Permalink
Kate, the police don’t declare assemblies unlawful at will. They’re declared unlawful when the route or time of the assembly hasn’t been provided to the authorities in advance and/or participants are engaging in violence.
And your rebuke brings to mind a classic song by Queen. RIP Freddie Mercury.
Kate 08:47 on 2012/05/14 Permalink
Montreal police already possess wide powers to declare demonstrations “illegal.” Section 63 of the Criminal Code states that groups of at least three people who meet for a common purpose and conduct themselves in such a way to create fear, on “reasonable grounds,” that they may “disturb the peace tumultuously,” constitute an “unlawful assembly.”
From this OpenFile article.