5 ms·

That's a pretty broad title... What the law actually changes is that if you're within 5 meters of the 'fence' surrounding the G20 zone, police have the right to

That's a pretty broad title... What the law actually changes is that if you're within 5 meters of the 'fence' surrounding the G20 zone, police have the right to ask you for ID and what you're doing there. If you don't show ID or answer their questions you are subject to arrest (but, as with this guy, probably no prosecution).

WestCoastJustin 16y ago
Totally agree. You have this guy (probably with his green bandanna over his face) while "exploring the G20 perimeter with his friend". Being passive aggressive landed him in jail but will probably have his court date dropped before July 28. Then again this appears to only be his side of the story. You want to bet that he was being a little more than passive aggressive ;) I don't really mind people who protest but I hate the fact that these yahoo fly into toronto just to stir shit up. Are they even hear for a cause for just to cause trouble? EDIT: added disclaimer: I tend to assume the worst in people ;)
- mcantelon 16y ago
  Taking a sneering attitude towards people attempting to challenge security overreach doesn't serve the public interest. Being passive aggressive isn't against the law and if he was being more than passive aggressive (i.e. physically aggressive) the charges would likely reflect that.
- mquander 16y ago
  This comment is unbelievably bad. What are you talking about, "probably with his green bandanna over his face?" Refusing to show ID is being "passive-aggressive?" I'd call it common sense (if you don't know that you're legally obligated to.) Either you have a lot of evidence that you're not telling us about, or you're casting aspersions onto this guy that are totally indefensible.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - WestCoastJustin 16y ago
    Sorry, I deleted my comment, saying; "really? I'm not allowed to make assumptions." Your suggestion has been noted. Updated original post; added disclaimer.
    - mquander 16y ago
      Sure, if you want to actually explain your assumptions. When I hear that a guy was walking around, I don't usually start off by assuming that he had his face covered and he was acting suspiciously. And I sure don't consider "the police arrested him" to be credible evidence about it, either. EDIT to respond to your reply: I guess we just won't see eye-to-eye on this. I've worn a bandanna as an accessory before, and I don't see anything wrong with walking around near a security fence, or even "checking it out." I completely disagree that those things on their own are suspicious enough to warrant arrest.
      - anamax 16y ago
        I've worn a ski-mask into a bank....
- nolochemical 16y ago
  "Public Works Protection Act" A five dollar hooker could help someone beat that ticket/fine. Public Works == city services, so its a by-law. Yawn.
- 9oliYQjP 16y ago
  I just walked home through much of the G20 district and must have walked by roughly 500 police officers on my way home. Most of them are just concerned with finding shade at this point (it's a cloudless sunny day). None of them are being jerks to people that are going about their business. As I got closer to the perimeter fence though, I noticed a lot more police staring at me. I felt uneasy enough that I took a detour home that avoided getting any closer. That said, I don't have a problem with this law. I do have a problem with the way it was passed. 1. It was passed without debate. 2. By the time it is published in the Gazette (government newspaper where laws and other notices are posted) as required by law, the law itself will have expired. 3. It exposes flaws in our legislative system both with respect to process and entrenched rights (as a Canadian I basically have none because of our Constitution's notwithstanding clause). I'd like to see these loopholes closed up. I think the law is balanced and within reason. But I would have liked to have my say before it became law. The way this went about implies that our leaders feel they have absolute power and that we citizens are merely pawns.

WestCoastJustin 16y ago

Totally agree. You have this guy (probably with his green bandanna over his face) while "exploring the G20 perimeter with his friend". Being passive aggressive landed him in jail but will probably have his court date dropped before July 28. Then again this appears to only be his side of the story. You want to bet that he was being a little more than passive aggressive ;) I don't really mind people who protest but I hate the fact that these yahoo fly into toronto just to stir shit up. Are they even hear for a cause for just to cause trouble? EDIT: added disclaimer: I tend to assume the worst in people ;)

mcantelon 16y ago
Taking a sneering attitude towards people attempting to challenge security overreach doesn't serve the public interest. Being passive aggressive isn't against the law and if he was being more than passive aggressive (i.e. physically aggressive) the charges would likely reflect that.
mquander 16y ago
This comment is unbelievably bad. What are you talking about, "probably with his green bandanna over his face?" Refusing to show ID is being "passive-aggressive?" I'd call it common sense (if you don't know that you're legally obligated to.) Either you have a lot of evidence that you're not telling us about, or you're casting aspersions onto this guy that are totally indefensible.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- WestCoastJustin 16y ago
  Sorry, I deleted my comment, saying; "really? I'm not allowed to make assumptions." Your suggestion has been noted. Updated original post; added disclaimer.
  - mquander 16y ago
    Sure, if you want to actually explain your assumptions. When I hear that a guy was walking around, I don't usually start off by assuming that he had his face covered and he was acting suspiciously. And I sure don't consider "the police arrested him" to be credible evidence about it, either. EDIT to respond to your reply: I guess we just won't see eye-to-eye on this. I've worn a bandanna as an accessory before, and I don't see anything wrong with walking around near a security fence, or even "checking it out." I completely disagree that those things on their own are suspicious enough to warrant arrest.
    - anamax 16y ago
      I've worn a ski-mask into a bank....
nolochemical 16y ago
"Public Works Protection Act" A five dollar hooker could help someone beat that ticket/fine. Public Works == city services, so its a by-law. Yawn.
9oliYQjP 16y ago
I just walked home through much of the G20 district and must have walked by roughly 500 police officers on my way home. Most of them are just concerned with finding shade at this point (it's a cloudless sunny day). None of them are being jerks to people that are going about their business. As I got closer to the perimeter fence though, I noticed a lot more police staring at me. I felt uneasy enough that I took a detour home that avoided getting any closer. That said, I don't have a problem with this law. I do have a problem with the way it was passed. 1. It was passed without debate. 2. By the time it is published in the Gazette (government newspaper where laws and other notices are posted) as required by law, the law itself will have expired. 3. It exposes flaws in our legislative system both with respect to process and entrenched rights (as a Canadian I basically have none because of our Constitution's notwithstanding clause). I'd like to see these loopholes closed up. I think the law is balanced and within reason. But I would have liked to have my say before it became law. The way this went about implies that our leaders feel they have absolute power and that we citizens are merely pawns.