Rights??? Apparently we don't have any. Prorogue parliament, arrest people without cause, hold them without charge, don't give them access to lawyers; this is Harper's vision. What is next? A suspension of elections for the foreseeable future?
Nice article. Good to see that you don't believe challenges to arrests under this provision would be successful. Governments need to be able to limit our rights in the circumstances in question in order to protect society.
Earlier today Warren Kinsella claimed the Ontario government gave no extraordinary powers to the police, essentially designating the area inside the fence as protected for a three day period. Note, not outside the fence.
However, he makes this point, which I believe is in error and I would appreciate your comment:
"Next, I asked about this “new” power. Was it needed? Who requested it? Why? Good questions.
I was told police already had this power – both in the above-noted public works legislation in court houses, etc., and through common law for just about anywhere." * emphasis added
In this particular video a young man on the street, far from the fence zone seeks access to the public park. If Charter rights mean anything they surely mean something here:
To the anonymous guy above, you do all this research from newspapers. Media are NOT a reliable source. Why not read the actual regulation and legislation? Then it'll start to make some sense.
They arrested and beat Gandhi too when he refused to move and insisted on continuing his civil disobedience campaign.
If you had been Gandhi's lawyer, I get the impression that you would have advised him that it would be prudent not to resist. LOL
I thought they teach students in law school that if you do not like a law, challenge it?
But perhaps your response would be that it is not prudent to challenge a "fake" law (now that Blair has apparently admitted the 5-meter rule did not exist)?
"Fake" law to go with the "fake" lake? Unfortunately, the observed property damage, the alleged mass arrests and beatings of journalists and protesters and the reported $1B taxpayers' dollars spent on security were not so fake, were they?
6 comments:
Rights??? Apparently we don't have any. Prorogue parliament, arrest people without cause, hold them without charge, don't give them access to lawyers; this is Harper's vision. What is next? A suspension of elections for the foreseeable future?
Nice article. Good to see that you don't believe challenges to arrests under this provision would be successful. Governments need to be able to limit our rights in the circumstances in question in order to protect society.
Prof. Morton,
In this article you seem unaware that Police Chief Blair had already said he had "mislead" or lied about these matters:
See: Police admit no five-metre rule existed on security fence law
‘I was trying to keep the criminals out,’ police chief says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-admit-deliberately-misleading-public-on-expanded-security-fence-law/article1622864/
Earlier today Warren Kinsella claimed the Ontario government gave no extraordinary powers to the police, essentially designating the area inside the fence as protected for a three day period. Note, not outside the fence.
http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/06/g20-and-the-mcguinty-government/
However, he makes this point, which I believe is in error and I would appreciate your comment:
"Next, I asked about this “new” power. Was it needed? Who requested it? Why? Good questions.
I was told police already had this power – both in the above-noted public works legislation in court houses, etc., and through common law for just about anywhere." * emphasis added
In this particular video a young man on the street, far from the fence zone seeks access to the public park. If Charter rights mean anything they surely mean something here:
G20 Community Day of Action illegal search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgjX5vHt2o
Please comment
Thanks
p2p
To the anonymous guy above, you do all this research from newspapers. Media are NOT a reliable source. Why not read the actual regulation and legislation? Then it'll start to make some sense.
@LJ
Your point is...?
Your reference is...?
They arrested and beat Gandhi too when he refused to move and insisted on continuing his civil disobedience campaign.
If you had been Gandhi's lawyer, I get the impression that you would have advised him that it would be prudent not to resist. LOL
I thought they teach students in law school that if you do not like a law, challenge it?
But perhaps your response would be that it is not prudent to challenge a "fake" law (now that Blair has apparently admitted the 5-meter rule did not exist)?
"Fake" law to go with the "fake" lake? Unfortunately, the observed property damage, the alleged mass arrests and beatings of journalists and protesters and the reported $1B taxpayers' dollars spent on security were not so fake, were they?
Post a Comment