The demos march on
Monday night saw the 21st consecutive evening demo which involved two arrests but was generally peaceful.
Tuesday morning there was a scuffle between protesters and police at Collège Lionel-Groulx in Sainte-Thérèse, the tear gas being brought out, while some protesters were arrested at Jacques-Cartier bridge after briefly blocking traffic.
City council will ponder the new mask law Friday. The city is planning more draconian new laws against protest and dissent generally. There’s supposed to be brief – very brief – public consultation on Wednesday afternoon.
Ephraim 10:10 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
I don’t know about the other elements of the law, but certainly putting on a mask signals an intent that your aim isn’t simply a peaceful demonstration but to violate laws. I have no problem with protesting peacefully. But when you damage public (ie all of us, equally) or private property (no, insurance doesn’t usually pay for broken glass at businesses and even if it does, it increases the costs for all of us, since that cost has to be passed on, somehow) then we have to ask the question of, is this really a demonstration or is this rioting hiding as a demonstration.
March all you want. Yell slogans, hold up posters all you want. But when you block an bridge and people end up paying $50 fines at daycare. When you damage a car and I have to spend days to get it fixed. When you cost millions of dollars of loss to people because you think it’s acceptable to put smoke bombs and scare people on the metro, you have crossed a line.
It’s a question of personal responsibility. The insurance companies shouldn’t be paying for the broken windows, the demonstrators should. Adults take responsibility for their actions and don’t need masks to hide because they don’t want to.
Adam 10:12 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
“I don’t know about the other elements of the law, but certainly putting on a mask signals an intent that your aim isn’t simply a peaceful demonstration but to violate laws.”
Totally disagree. It could just mean that you want to demonstrate anonymously, because of work/family/social considerations. Or because you just feel like it. The right to free speech isn’t one that should be infringed on lightly. Of course, if someone’s wearing a mask *and* carrying a backpack full of bricks or rocks that’s a strong indication that they’re up to no good.
Ephraim 12:34 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Sorry, I don’t remember the constitution guaranteeing you a right to riot, damage property or in fact to demonstrate anonymously. Demonstrations are there so you can show support… anonymity isn’t showing support at all. It’s exactly the opposite. Or shall we all sign petitions now “anonymous” and ask to show up the election polls and ask for our right to not show ID so we can vote anonymously? There is no constitution right to anonymity in this way.
Adam 13:32 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
“Sorry, I don’t remember the constitution guaranteeing you a right to riot, damage property or in fact to demonstrate anonymously.”
Well, Ephraim (if that is your real name – a little anonymity is nice, eh?), let me refresh your memory:
“26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”
I have a right to privacy, and I don’t surrender that right when I express an opinion. Neither do the students. They surrender it when and only when they break the law.
Kate 14:05 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Ephraim, I think the right to protest anonymously is important here, at least partly because of the need for people from other countries to feel free to express their protest here without risking their families at home.
Adam 14:18 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
I’d also like to point out that no one is arguing that people have a right to riot or to damage property. That’s a straw man argument.
Ephraim 17:20 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Kate, that’s a question for the courts to decide. Straight up, are the masks being used by students intended to keep their anonymity or are they simply there to mask their illegal activities…. Nothing illegal with protesting. They are free to protest, peacefully. So, if they are wearing a mask there must be another reason. How about if the penalties are automatically quadrupled if you are wearing a mask and arrested for illegal activity, would that be acceptable?
Sorry, but I’m still not convinced. I haven’t seen a real need for the students to mask themselves.
BTW… clause 26 applies, my right to feel safe and secure. I’m sorry, it doesn’t give anyone the right to hide their criminality.
Adam 17:42 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Ephraim, the whole point of living in a free society is that you don’t need to justify your actions to anyone. No one needs to convince you of the “need” for anything. They just do it, as long as they’re not infringing on your rights. What’s your “need” to remain anonymous while posting on this blog? Should you be forced to reveal your full name?
The Charter only applies to the state, so it has nothing to do with anything that private actors might do to you.
And for the umpteenth time, no one is defending people who commit criminal acts (masked or not). What I am saying is that people can mask themselves for any reason they like. Until they commit a criminal act, or violate the law in some way, no one has the right to interfere. There’s nothing wrong with protesting while masked (or simply walking around in broad daylight masked, for that matter).
Ephraim 18:00 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Adam, walk into the local bank with a mask and tell me that wearing a mask doesn’t hide intent.
I understand when you wear a mask to protest a certain religious group that is known for prosecuting and persecuting those who protest. That’s one thing. Protesting the regime in Syria when you have a family in Syria.
As I said, are you willing to allow that if you do violate the law while wearing a mask that penalties are automatically quadrupled?
Would these people commit the criminal acts if they weren’t wearing the masks? That’s the question.
To me this is a question of personal responsibility. If people are being personally responsible for their actions, they have no reason to hide who they are. If they aren’t, they seek to hide. (And BTW, Ephraim is my real name, I haven’t masked my IP address. And in fact Kate and I have emailed a few times. I’m NOT anonymous at all. I never expected that I was. There aren’t that many Ephraims in the province of Quebec. Its a name on the list of the most unusual names in Quebec every year!
C_Erb 18:20 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
It’s interesting that you bring up voting which, when practiced to choose government representatives, is always done anonymously (giving your name and ID is only to ensure that you don’t try to vote more than once and isn’t connected to your actual ballot in any way). Taking away one’s right to protest anonymously is not much different than taking away the right to vote anonymously (for many of the same reasons).
walkerp 18:46 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Here is your tautology, Ephraim: “They are free to protest, peacefully. So, if they are wearing a mask there must be another reason.”
Spock 19:05 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Ephraim is more common in Israel. :)
Ephraim 19:06 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
@C_Erb Not the same thing. Your vote is anonymous, the fact that you voted, isn’t. And that’s the point of voting. Your can’t sign a petition anonymously because your name demonstrates your support…”
I have been in protests before (we once had tear gas thrown at us because we stepped on the grass!) and I’m sorry, but the amount of criminality at many of these demos is exactly the point.
@Spock, yes, but we aren’t in Israel. It’s a very uncommon name around here. (And I’m not Israeli.)
Spock 19:08 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Want uncommon? Try the name Engelbert Humperdinck… :)
Adam 19:50 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Ephraim, people walk into banks wearing masks all the time. They look like this:
http://bit.ly/J7c4t4
Or like this:
http://bit.ly/JIVnli
No, I see no reason why the penalties should increase because you’re masked. The crime doesn’t suddenly become more grave because you covered your face. I have no problem with the observation that masking one’s face adds an element of probably cause for police to stop someone, just like being Muslim or being a young male or buying a one-way ticket might make it more likely that you’ll be subject to scrutiny in an airport. But profiling people just because they’re masked is as stupid as profiling them just because they’re Muslim.
Incidentally, with all the gas being fired at the protesters, I can certainly understand why some of them would want a bandana or similar covering their nose and mouth.
And yet again, I will point out that you are effectively posting here anonymously. Sure, there are ways to find out who you are, just like there are ways to find out who masked protesters are. But if you were being fully open and transparent, as you insist the protesters should be, you would use your full name. You are confusing having an identity that is discoverable with acting under cover of anonymity.
The mask issue is a red herring. The real problem is thugs who think that might makes right, that they are entitled to disregard injunctions, that others who disagree with them are to be intimidated and harassed, and generally that they are entitled to everything they want and also to do anything they like to get it. Infringing on people’s right to privacy is not going to solve anything.
Ephraim 20:25 on 2012/05/15 Permalink
Are you talking about Arnold George Dorsey or about the German composer?
Spock 15:02 on 2012/05/16 Permalink
Arnold changed his name to that… I find it funny. Arnold is a “normal name” (if normal can be defined) and Engelbert… well… not so “normal”.
LOL :)