Oh, man, I’m like totally harshing the buzz. I’ll, like, try to tone it down, k?
Naw, I’m a Doper. The fight against ignorance continues. It really is taking longer than we thought. 
Hey, Spoons, have you ever thought of getting a name plate for your desk that says, “The Man”? That would be awesome! 
It would certainly reassure some of my clients. “You think the other side is The Man? Naw, look at my nameplate…”
As I said, I don’t think this will apply. But it is part of the act. And I don’t know what kind of mischief these protesters supposedly planned to commit, so while no life was actually in danger (as the crime was never actually committed) it’s possible other sections will apply:
And of course, conspiracy:
Conspiracy is a crime in the criminal code; mischief is punishable as an indictable offence.
Sadly, my only understanding of summary conviction in Canada is from Wikipedia, which claims a pardon is automatic after three years.
I trust our court system to properly apply a standard of reasonableness and make any punishment proportional to the crime committed (or lack thereof), of course, but these are the laws on our books. I’d like them to also apply a standard of reasonableness to these arrests. Is it reasonable to arrest a peaceful group at all? One which had not been ordered to disperse, or even allowed to voluntarily? Was it only done to curb their expression?
I wonder if SmashTheState was there with his, what was it, “Pan Handler’s Union?”
Says the guy who used to rob from said wealthy – literally.
I had the misfortune of living on Spadina Ave., including a winter without heat, water or sewer connection in the house, with many of the doors, floors and interior walls removed (our building permit was pulled after we gutted the place but before we began to re-build); in a house that was previously a drug rehab facility run by the Scientologists, so lots of druggies and religious fanatics kept appearing in various rooms; beside a half-way house for young offenders who kept stealing our bikes; across the street from a centre for aboriginals who kept puking on our doorstep. Ever wake up to a drugged out street person trying to climb into bed with you? Ever find a drunk in your tub complaining about not keeping the place warm enough for him? Ever had to disarm a raging lunatic who was chasing your roomate with a sledge hammer? Ever watched another roomate cuddling a racoon in his sleep, and figuring that as long as it keeps him warm there is no need to wake him? I gotta say, being one of the privileged class that the anarchists oppose ain’t all its cracked up to be. Spadina Ave.? Spadina – fuckity, fuckity, fuckity – Avenue? Leave it to the anarchists and send them the property tax bill just for shits and giggles.
Curbing their expression had nothing to do with their being arrested. They were cluttering up one of the main streets of downtown Toronto after the conference was over, and after they had had a couple of days to roam about expressing themselves.
I’d be okay with the wearing of a mask at a protest being an arrestable offense.
I’ll reserve my judgment when all the facts are in. Quite frankly, the news coverage of the event was appalling, and I don’t mean in terms of bias one way or another; it was just plainly terrible. The local news reported rumour as fact over and over, did an awful job of explaining what was going on at any given time, didn’t put any effort at all into speaking to the peaceful demonstrators and organizers about their concerns, and generally seemed disorganized. They also, to be frank, seemed understaffed. I got the sense CP24 was trying to cover the whole thing with a news staff that amounted to “three guys with handi-cams.”
The media’s coverage of these sorts of things is often confused and bad - I am reminded of the coverage of Hurricane Katrina, when the media breathlessly reported about how black people were turning into animals inside the Superdome and shooting at rescue helicopters from rooftops, all of which turned out to be total bullshit. So you will please forgive me if I wait for the shit to be sorted out before I am sure what the full facts are.
If in fact the police acted hastily, then the TORONTO POLICE ACTED HASTILY. That does not amount to civil rights being suspended in Canada; I don’t know how much more simply this can be put. There have been unfair trials in Canada; does that mean the right to a fair trial has been suspended? The courts exist to sort this sort of thing out and if anyone’s civil rights were violated I fully expect it will become a matter of litigation. If the police acted irresponsibly the courts will deal with it. They have before. the measure of a society’s protection of civil rights is not whether they’re perfect, but whether they honestly try.
Because it’s never been needed, thank God. How would killing people have made things better?
The police, overall, did an excellent job of keeping the damage to a minimum without anyone getting badly hurt.
Okay, Baffle. You seem earnest, and I’m sure you’re only going on what you can find as a layperson. Fair enough.
I’d suggest that your “mischief” charge doesn’t apply. First of all, there was no threat to life. What the Code is referring to here is something that causes actual danger to somebody’s life. Although outlandish, a lot of Wile E. Coyote’s schemes to kill the Road Runner would provide good examples. Short of the protestors inciting the police (or anybody else) to run off a cliff or drive at high speeds into a fake tunnel painted on a wall, any mischief charge laid would proceed on summary conviction.
A very common application of the Mischief charge would be, for example, graffiti tagging a building; or possibly, breaking a window. For such things, the Crown usually proceeds on summary conviction. Proceeding on an indictable, and going for life imprisonment, wouldn’t even enter their minds if these were the acts that gave rise to the charges. Sorry, but the “advisors” in the crowd were wrong.
You’ve tried to make much of “assembly” and “expression” in this thread, usually in the context of the Charter. Those are both s. 2 freedoms, you’re right. But you’re forgetting (or never knew) that any piece of legislation that purports to curb any Charter rights is subject to the s. 1 Oakes Test. Here is s. 1 in its entirety:
Emphasis added. So this Regulation and its associated legislation (remember the Public Works Protection Act?) that curb these freedoms must be the following in order to be constitutional:
(a) Intra vires the province of Ontario; and
(b) Must pass the Oakes Test. Is limiting the people’s freedom of assembly and expression demonstrably justified in these circumstances?
Here’s a free hint: the Act and Regulations are intra vires the province of Ontario. As for part (b), you may disagree, but you’re going to have to dig through plenty of caselaw if you’re going to make an argument that way. Without doing the legal research myself (something I honestly don’t feel like doing from home on a Sunday night), I’d guess that there are many instances where limits such as those instituted by the Act and its Regulations are perfectly constitutional. In other words, I think your s. 2 Charter arguments as to “assembly” and “expression” would fall apart when faced with caselaw indicating that such laws and regulations are perfectly okay if their goal is to maintain public order and protect property under such circumstances as occurred over the weekend.
Like I said, Baffle, you seem earnest. If you can stand a suggestion, arm yourself with knowledge when you go protesting. Don’t rely on so-called “legal advisors” who are not lawyers but who have been invited by a faction that has an obvious bias.
I knew the mortician at the Wing On Funeral Home who was convicted of robbing the dead. His younger brother was a buddy of mine. Spadina Avenue is … interesting.
That doesn’t justify arrest without warning.
Well, it’s not like they were being scooped up by a police tractor beam…
Thank you for this post, it’s really helpful in clarifying the legalities of the situation. I’m still confused about how they came up with the charge of ‘conspiracy to commit mischief’ in the first place. What other better and more appropriate choices could there have been? Their assembly wasn’t tumultuous, and so sections 63-69 don’t seem entirely appropriate either for that time. I did come across a cite (lost now, unfortunately) claiming a peace officer can arrest for ‘breach of the peace’, an offence without any attached punishment, but I don’t know what that entails either.
Regarding your suggestion about arming myself with knowledge… I try to. As you can see, it’s difficult as a layman, and that’s why I appreciate your corrections so much.
You’re right. They should have pronounced:
And then arrested them.
They get thirty minutes to disperse following that one. (See sections 63-69 mentioned in my previous post.)
Wrong. Check the law on breach of peace, which is what they were arrested for (not mischief). There is no requirement for a warning for either breach of peace or for mischief. The business about giving a warning deals with breaking up a riot, not breach of the peace or mischief.
For the police’s side of the story, have a boo at the Jeff McGuire vid, in which the police allege that there were people who dawned masks in that group and that the police recovered weapons en route, causing the police to believe that there was going to be a breach of the peace as there had been the previous day. He also notes that after the rain, the police released all of them unconditionally on the direction of the Chief of Police. http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/the-mayhem/#clip319180
Well, like I said, I’m not about to get into any legal research tonight, and that includes plowing through the Criminal Code and various Ontario legislation outlining provincial offenses that may be applicable.
ETA: Muffin makes some excellent comments on breach-of-the-peace charges.
If you are really interested, you may wish, however, to head to a law library (you’ll find one at the University of Toronto or Osgoode Hall) and ask the librarian for a current copy of Tremeear’s Criminal Code. Tremeear’s (as it is colloquially known) is annotated; that is, for each section, it includes leading case citations involving cases prosecuted under that section, and very brief synopses of the cases and their applicable principles. If you want further information, you can ask the librarian for help as to finding any of Tremeear’s cited cases in the various reporters; or you can try searching for the cases yourself, using online resources such as Canlii.
Be warned, however, that do-it-yourself legal research is risky if you don’t know how to do it right. Law schools have entire courses devoted to the subject. A layperson’s efforts at informal research can be helpful and informative, but if you require a proper legal opinion that provides good, solid, answers to your questions, I would urge you to consult a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
The last time I saw breach of peace prosecuted against a large number of people was when a significant portion of the population of a small town gathered to cheer on a cat fight. When the Court visited the town, everybody, their grandmother and their dog turned up to plead to the charge (well, not the dog – it just sat at the back of the hall). The judge was a but surprised to find so many people there – standing room only in the hall and also in the hallway – so she started asking people in the crowd why they were there. Person after person replied “I was charged with breach of the peace,” so the Judge asked the Crown what it was all about. The Crown explained the cat fight that moved from the bar to the street, and the large number of people who gathered to cheer on the women who were duking it out. The Judge then asked the ultimate question: “If everyone was cheering on the fight, whose peace was being disturbed?” After a full minute of puzzling, the Crown replied: “The police.” The Judge dismissed all the breach of the peace charges, and the young OPP officers who were new to the town learned a bit about community relations.
I didn’t say it would make it better. I was just pondering why we trained that way and not any other way.
On the other hand, a person about to throw a molotov is prime target material for sniper’s, imo.