Ok, with this post I make (more) enemies ... .
Today's Globe notes:
"Embedded within a 1939 law known as the Public Works Protection Act, it places a special designation on the perimeters of the summit security wall. The provision allows police to search without a warrant, demand identification and deny entry."
I don't like being asked for identification while walking on a public street -- and I was asked this past week on my way to teach at St Mikes -- imagine the thought process "hmmn, 50ish y.o. white mail in a suit with bow tie carrying a textbook on regulatory law -- better check him out".
That said, making a temporary regulation to keep people away from the security fence (presumably to stop them scaling it) is hardly a big deal. It pales beside the restrictions on movement made by sealing off Toronto's core.
It's probably constitutional as a small infringement on rights for legitimate goal -- the Supreme Court has ruled protection of foreign officials is a valid public goal. (It may be questionable in terms of federalism -- it's probably better as a federal law). Regardless, I suspect any charges will be withdrawn before trial (and after the Summit) so a challenge to the regulation would be moot.
My only concern would be an expansion of the use of the PWPA to allow warrantless searches more widely. In theory if it works once it'll work again ... . (But I don't see it being used widely and if it was it would be struck as unconstitutional -- it only works because it's brief and for a special event).
I'd be happier if there was more public discussion of the law before it was put into the regulations but I can see the concern that it might spur more protests.
In any event, it is raining in Toronto and my guess is the whole Summit, protests and all, will be just a wet washout.
10 comments:
The problem is that five meters becomes ten meters and so on.
I remember hearing a vice principal telling some teachers a story about how he was stopped by a police officer because the VP appeared to be in the wrong neighbourhood. He was South Asian in a predominantly white neighbourhood. When the officer questioned the VP, the VP replied that he was heading to the school. The officer replied, "Are you a caretaker?" The VP--my friend--filed a complaint against the officer for discrimination.
If we are not free in one part of Canada, then we are not free anywhere. Without freedom, there is no democracy.
Maybe one of the constables recognized you, and decided to hassle you. The internet is a big place, with lots of readers. Not to mention you've been on TV.
All in all, this is Chairman Harper's way for getting back at TO. Revenge for all those times the Leaside boy was shunned, and dismissed by the Toronto "elites". He'll lock down the city and show you latte sipping city folk, who didn't recognize his genius--and never invited him to your boy/girl parties.
He reminds me of the loser who gets mixed in with the local toughs, and takes his new found power too far, before eventually becoming the bullied boy again.
In honour of Chairman Harper being nicknamed "Cartman" by bloggers, Respect my authoritah!
You should be more concerned about a law being passed giving police exceptional powers with no notice or discussion, resulting in people being stopped on the basis of a law they could have no knowledge existed.
And yes, your approval of Harper's police state tactics isn't going to win you any friends. There is no armed insurrection in Canada. How, then, do we justify such heavy handed tactics?
I can tolerate, begrudgingly, the security.
I'm still going to rake Harpo over the substance of this billion dollar photo op where ZERO has been achieved.
Much like prorogation, this isn't a big deal until it's abused. And much like prorogation, we have no guarantee that it won't be abused.
Much like prorogation, this isn't a big deal until it's abused
When have powers never been abuse?
The only solution is to curb powers so severely that they are effective but overall benign.
Of course they passed it in secret James.. and of course they did it because they knew they'd get a big public outcry beforehand and owuld be forced to shelve it. Heck, they couldnt even bother telling the Mayor of Toronto they'd gotten these new powers.
I'm frankly appalled you think this isn't such a big deal.
More... http://whatisthemessage.blogspot.com/2010/06/dark-days-for-toronto-and-for-canada.html
"Secret regulations that reverse the rights of citizens? No notice, signs, or warnings of new rules of arrest and search and seizure without cause? These are supposedly "in keeping with the values and standards" of the citizenry? In whose wet dreams would those be, Dalton-the-Self-Exalted? It almost goes without saying that no-notice-change-of-law are not in keeping with the values of ANY citizen with whom I am an acquaintance!"
A lot of people are very outraged about this, and I think it shows the huge gulf between your 'liberal' values and ours that you are prepared to tolerate this sort of thing.
It reminds me of the movie "Batman", where the Joker displays his ownership of his girlfriend: she is utterly beautiful, but deliberately defaced, in a toyingly limited manner.
Post a Comment