Conservative MPs on the House Justice Committee have sent a bill banning the use of masks by ‘rioters’ with an increased penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Bill C-309 would make it illegal for those rioting or participating in an ‘unlawful’ protest to conceal their identities. Despite section 351 of the Criminal Code already outlawing the use of a disguise while committing an indictable act, this new legislation would also apply to the non-indictable offence of participating in an ‘unlawful’ protest, giving another means for the police to persecute protestors. NDP MP Françoise Boivin worries that this bill will be “a way to pre-emptively arrest masked protesters, even if they’re peaceful.”

Another concern would arise if police decide to use tear gas and pepper spray to control a demonstration, as they did in the early 2000s in response to the anti-globalization movement. Protestors used vinegar soaked bandanas and gas masks to protect themselves from the toxic fumes. If the police deemed just protests ‘unlawful,’ would the use of protective masks be used as an additional charge to persecute dissent? Unfortunately, the answer is in all likelihood yes.

To read more click here.

In the following paragraphs, second-year McGill Law students Farid Muttalib and Eric Brousseau exchange thoughts on the policing of protests.

Eric,

We’ve seen a spate of public demonstrations in Montreal over the past few months, some of which have ended in clashes with the police. In November, a major anti-tuition hike protest ended with riot police being deployed on McGill’s downtown campus. As part of pressure tactics aiming to compel the government to change its stance on tuition, students have occupied and surrounded various downtown buildings over the past few months. At the blockade of the Loto-Quebec building in early March, a young CEGEP student suffered a serious eye injury when a stun grenade blew up near his face. At the annual anti-police brutality protest last week, things took a turn for the worse fairly quickly, as some demonstrators clashed with police officers. This week, students were detained after having blocked the Champlain bridge, and the riot squad was deployed against Aveos workers, who had blocked Côte-Vertu boulevard.

Meanwhile, not far from our very own Faculty of Law, striking students from the Schools of Social Work and Nursing have created “picket lines” and are preventing access to Wilson Hall.

Mayor Tremblay recently called for a public debate to ensure that violence no longer occurs in the context of protests. Somewhat troublingly, however, he suggested that the city would look into measures that ensure that the rights of demonstrators do not infringe the “rights of society” (suggesting that they are two opposed groups). Tremblay deplored the high costs attached to policing protests, further complaining that the protests tarnished the city’s reputation and added to congestion.The mayor suggested that the city would explore the possibility of requiring permits, compelling demonstrators to register (their routes) with police, and possibly even outlawing face coverings – although he was clearly aware of the legal obstacles such measures would have to overcome.

In my humble opinion, it is very likely that major protests become even more common in the years to come, given the current “austerity” movement and the fact that social networking makes it very easy to quickly attract large groups of people to an event. In light of this possibility, it seems more important than ever to have a public debate on the role of free expression and the right to assembly in a democratic society. This should probably be done without the loaded terms advanced by Mayor Tremblay. Read the rest of this entry »

In the wake of the St. Patrick’s Day riots which occurred on Fleming Drive in London, Ontario last Saturday, the London City Council has passed a strengthened by-law, based on an existent nuisance by-law, that would enable to the police to break up a party “before it gets out of control.” The hope is that such a by-law will allow the police to prevent circumstances from occurring that might escalate into a dangerous situation such as another riot.

The law, however, would extend not only to public property, but to parties on private property as well. If certainly types of behaviour are present at the party, such as fighting or loud music, the police would have the right to force those not living on the property to leave. This presents a potential threat to the civil liberties of those enjoying a social party, on their private premises, in that their right to such a private social gathering will be disallowed if the police deem it to be too boisterous.

The white supremacist website, Stormfront.org, announced that there would be a white pride rally in Edmonton on March 24 supported by a group that calls itself Blood & Honour (see the announcement here).  The exact location of the rally will be announced the day before.

The Edmonton Journal has reported that Edmonton police “will have a visible presence during the rally to ensure that everybody’s rights to free speech have been respected.” However, no permit has yet been issued for the rally and councillor Amarjeet Sohi has informed Metro News that “the city will not be issuing a permit, because the content of the rally is hate.”

In response to the white pride rally, an anti-racism rally has also been planned for March 24 to be held from noon to 3 p.m. at End of Steel Park near the Old Strathcona Farmers Market.

Check out the articles below:

Edmonton Journal

Metro News

«More than 100 people were arrested and two were injured after a protest by Montreal students turned ugly on Thursday evening, with police firing tear gas into the crowd.

About 2,000 protesters headed north through the city, then west along Sherbrooke Street, but no police were visible along the route, although they were positioned on adjacent streets and in the city’s subway system.

 When about six officers did appear, a few protesters started throwing rocks at them. At one intersection, police fired off two loud stun grenades, sending a panic through the crowd. Protesters ran in all directions, but riot police formed a line, and banging on their shields with their batons, marched forward, shoving demonstrators north.»

The provincial Liberal government is set to pass Bill 22, which will impose a cooling period and make strike action by teachers illegal. Teachers walked out for three days last week in protest to failed negotiations. The new legislation will impose stiff fines on teachers, even for work to rule action they had engaged in throughout the year.

The NDP opposition attempted to make an amendment to the bill that would have imposed a third party mediator to help end the dispute, a strategy that the government has rejected. There are serious concerns that the government is using legislation to substitute for serious bargaining, since the bill also imposes significant contract terms, including raising class size caps for special need and regular students.

Despite the chaos caused by the three day strike, BC residents appear to sympathize more with the teachers than the government, a warning sign to Premier Clark as she faces the electorate next year.

For more on the conflict read here.

BC Education Minister has tabled legislation to recall teachers if they choose to take job action. It extends the current contract and appoints the mediator to try to bring the sides closer. That said, the Minister has threatened to impose a new contract if a deal is not reached by September.

A major issues, aside from wages, is the ability to negotiate class sizes. In BC Teachers’ Federation the BC Supreme Court followed Health Services and declared that legislation that prohibited bargaining on various mattered, specifically class sizes, violated s. 2(d) Charter rights to collective bargain. The government, however, is not allowing for negotiations of class sizes until the next round of bargaining, postponing its adherence to the court order.

For more information on this read here.

The BC government is preparing to introduce back-to-work legislation in response to failed bargaining with the province’s teachers. In response, the BC Teachers’ Federation is seeking  a strike mandate from its members, who have been without a collective agreement since June.

Tara Ehkre, president of the Greater Victoria Teachers’ Association vocalized anger that for the third time in ten years the Liberal government is imposing a settlement. While the teachers have proposed mediation or arbitration, Education Minister George Abbot has offered such a solution only for non-monetary issues since he believes the parties are too far apart on other matters.

The strategy of legislating contracts for public servants has become a new trend for right-leaning governments and this will raise once again issues related to Freedom of Association rights protected under s. 2(d) of the Charter. The recent Fraser and Health Services decisions affirmed that the right to collective bargaining is a protected Charter right, although the specific content of that right and whether it goes beyond the duty to bargain in good faith is unclear. That said, if the practice of dragging out negotiations so as to assure government legislated settlements becomes the norm it will become a contested issue as to whether employers are genuinely bargaining in good faith, sure to produce some very interesting Charter litigation.

For more details about the teachers’  situation read here and here.

Read about legal response to the Postal Workers being legislated back to work last May here.

In May 2011, Winnipeg City Council unanimously approved an Outdoor Smoking Bylaw to prohibit smoking within prescribed distances of certain locations, including sports fields and outdoor rinks where youth are playing, school properties and playgrounds, and City of Winnipeg workplaces.

However, as reported by the Winnipeg Free Press, the prohibition against smoking on hospital grounds and within 8 meters of any entrances has attracted the most attention. Enforcement started in January, with hospital security handing out small reminder cards to those found to be smoking in prohibited areas. They have now transitioned into the next phase with warning tickets being issued to “repeat offenders”. These tickets do not yet carry a fine, but one copy is kept by hospital security and another is sent to either the supervisor of an offending staff member or the ward where a patient resides.

Later in the year, City of Winnipeg bylaw-enforcement officers are set to start issuing tickets, which would start at $100 and increase up to $1,000 for subsequent offences. The City is also encouraging the public to politely ask others to butt out in the designated areas, however, complaints to the City can result in the issue of a ticket.

Find the full article here. The comments section illustrates what a live issue this remains among the public.