If you want to understand the strict regulations related to rallies and/or demonstrations held on Parliament Hill, you can read them here. Take your time so you can truly appreciate how many laws were broken by the idiot Truckers Convoy and, when you're done, here's your assignment.
Out of all those regulations, which is your favourite? Seriously, out of the myriad black-and-white regulations that govern precisely how people are and are not allowed to rally on the Hill, which is -- in your opinion -- the most egregious violation? Yes, it's a bit of a challenge since there are so many possibilities but give it a shot, and leave your answer in the comments section so we can, once and for all, dispense with this maddening "It was a lawful protest" bullshit.
6 comments:
All of them, CC! All the rules were broken except, maybe, the no weddings rule. Did they have one? I don't remember.
The regs allow the flying of a National Flag, but it's not clear whether that category includes a National Socialist Flag. Until the courts rule on this, I'm sure Ezra's constitutional law shysters will argue for some wiggle room on the swastika.
I thought it stops being peaceful when a peace officer asks you to leave and you don't.
@Anonymous: No, it does not stop being peaceful when a "peace officer" asks you to leave and you don't. Just because the convoy involved a bunch of assholes doing asshole things and breaking the law in multiple ways, does not mean now I'm suddenly for a police state where the law is whatever the cops say it is.
Quite often the cops tell people to leave when their presence in no way breaks the law and they are doing nothing wrong. This does not change because a cop said so; disobeying a police officer is not, in itself, a crime, and it would be a terrible idea for it to become one.
PLG: Calm down.
How did "it is not peaceful once you are asked to leave" become "police invent laws by their own say so"? Peaceful does not mean solely the lack of physical violence. "Keeping the peace" if you are expected to do so, includes not harassing others.
If asked and you refuse to leave, they may choose to arrest you, and it is illegal for you to resist. You'll get your day to challenge why. Or they may simply get in your way and slowly walk in a line to move you out of the way.
@Anonymous The thing is that what you said still has most of the implications you say it doesn't. So, take for instance, a situation where someone is peaceful, and not breaking any laws, and the police tell them to leave, and they don't. They are still being peaceful at this point. They did not stop being peaceful. What you're saying is that as soon as the police want you somewhere else, your disagreement with their orders represents you not being peaceful. And by implication, that your disagreement with their orders, by being a breach of the peace, also constitutes violation of the law. I don't like that implication, and a lot of people do mean that implication. And I'm seeing a whole lot of centrists up in arms about the way the police go easy on fascists, who seem to think that what's needed is a ratcheting up of police powers and police violence . . . nearly all of which would be used solely against left wing protesters, because the cops already have plenty of powers and are already plenty violent, they just happen to treat white fascists in specific with kid gloves, unlike the way they treat environmentalists or people with darker skin or trade unionists.
So I just felt that your comment was unfortunate in being part of a general approach to the convoy situation that I find dangerous.
(Even if the police arrest them and they do not resist, which happens with leftist protesters all the time, the arrested person is still being peaceful and still not violating any laws. Although often the cop isn't.)
Post a Comment