5 ms·

Canada’s protest laws are different (and much more limited) than those of the US. Any protest that significantly disturbs the peace is not protected. https://

by 542458 5y ago

Canada’s protest laws are different (and much more limited) than those of the US. Any protest that significantly disturbs the peace is not protected. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2c.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

ktkoffroth 5y ago
Isn't significantly disturbing the peace kinda the entire point of protest? I would wager many of the protests and demonstrations done during the Civil Rights Movement in the US "significantly disturbed" the peace, and yet they were effective at creating needed change.
- bombcar 5y ago
  A protest almost by definition is a disturbance of the peace - otherwise it’s just a gathering of like minded people doing something.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  > Isn't significantly disturbing the peace kinda the entire point of protest? No.
- 542458 5y ago
  Again, Canada is not the US. > Section 2(c) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; it does not protect riots and gatherings that seriously disturb the peace: R. v. Lecompte, [2000] J.Q. No. 2452 (Que. C.A.). It has been stated that the right to freedom of assembly, along with freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: Guelph (City) v. Soltys, [2009] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26. So an hypothetical protest that, for example, had set up on the lawn of parliament or major’s hill park and did not sound loud horns at random hours of the night would not be dispersed.
  - codechad 5y ago
    - dang 5y ago
      Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, and it's not what this site is for, regardless of the topic or your views on the topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - codechad 5y ago
- tylersmith 5y ago
  Yes but Canada doesn't work like the US. They don't have constitutional free speech or rights to assemble.
  - 542458 5y ago
    My link is to the section from our charter on the freedom of assembly. Our freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are understood differently than yours.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Our Charter is not an analogue to the US constitution. It can be suspended (and routinely is) by the government.
      - 542458 5y ago
        The charter is explicitly part of the Canadian constitution. The notwithstanding clause or override is only very rarely invoked (and in many provinces has never been invoked).
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        It has been used repeatedly, and it's not just provinces either, the federal government can also use it. It's not really rare, it crops up every few years.
        542458 5y ago
        Legislation invoking the clause has been enacted only five times across all of Canada. In one of those cases no rights were suspended and invoking it was unnecessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_C... I would count 4 invocations that actually did something (all of which were limited to single provinces) across the past 40 years to be fairly rare.
- yorwba 5y ago
  You can have a successful protest that doesn't disturb the peace simply by gathering a large enough number of people to demonstrate that there's significant support for your demands. Disturbing the peace will also inconvenience other people who might not have had an opinion before, but end up opposing your protest simply because they want to live their lives undisturbed. Unless you have a realistic plan to seize power, remaining peaceful is probably a better idea.
FpUser 5y ago
I remember when Toronto was suffocating because of garbage removal workers strike. More than that when we finally started to bring garbage to commercial dumping sites those were blocked by strikers and they would allow only few people per hour to make huge line ups. IANAL but this looked like mischief to me. And when people out of frustration had started throwing garbage bags in front of the site bylaw officers were right there issuing big fines. More than that, I tried to talk to strikers and they were fucking boozed up to their gills. That is despite laws against public intoxication. Police were ignoring all of this. So the government was totally fine with strikers "disturbing the peace". From what I see they're very selective on what to enforce and when.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Exactly. However, in the world of those who long ago fell prey to the "red vs. blue" or "left vs. right" false dichotomies, there is only the question of "what side are you on?" One is not allowed to point out hypocrisy or plausible hypotheticals where the exact same decision-making in the future will be turned against those for whom the decision-making is currently convenient.

by 542458 5y ago

ktkoffroth 5y ago

Isn't significantly disturbing the peace kinda the entire point of protest? I would wager many of the protests and demonstrations done during the Civil Rights Movement in the US "significantly disturbed" the peace, and yet they were effective at creating needed change.

bombcar 5y ago
A protest almost by definition is a disturbance of the peace - otherwise it’s just a gathering of like minded people doing something.
oh_sigh 5y ago
> Isn't significantly disturbing the peace kinda the entire point of protest? No.
542458 5y ago
Again, Canada is not the US. > Section 2(c) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly; it does not protect riots and gatherings that seriously disturb the peace: R. v. Lecompte, [2000] J.Q. No. 2452 (Que. C.A.). It has been stated that the right to freedom of assembly, along with freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: Guelph (City) v. Soltys, [2009] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26. So an hypothetical protest that, for example, had set up on the lawn of parliament or major’s hill park and did not sound loud horns at random hours of the night would not be dispersed.
- codechad 5y ago
  - dang 5y ago
    Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly, and it's not what this site is for, regardless of the topic or your views on the topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - codechad 5y ago
tylersmith 5y ago
Yes but Canada doesn't work like the US. They don't have constitutional free speech or rights to assemble.
- 542458 5y ago
  My link is to the section from our charter on the freedom of assembly. Our freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are understood differently than yours.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Our Charter is not an analogue to the US constitution. It can be suspended (and routinely is) by the government.
    - 542458 5y ago
      The charter is explicitly part of the Canadian constitution. The notwithstanding clause or override is only very rarely invoked (and in many provinces has never been invoked).
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        It has been used repeatedly, and it's not just provinces either, the federal government can also use it. It's not really rare, it crops up every few years.
        542458 5y ago
        Legislation invoking the clause has been enacted only five times across all of Canada. In one of those cases no rights were suspended and invoking it was unnecessary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_C... I would count 4 invocations that actually did something (all of which were limited to single provinces) across the past 40 years to be fairly rare.
yorwba 5y ago
You can have a successful protest that doesn't disturb the peace simply by gathering a large enough number of people to demonstrate that there's significant support for your demands. Disturbing the peace will also inconvenience other people who might not have had an opinion before, but end up opposing your protest simply because they want to live their lives undisturbed. Unless you have a realistic plan to seize power, remaining peaceful is probably a better idea.

FpUser 5y ago

I remember when Toronto was suffocating because of garbage removal workers strike. More than that when we finally started to bring garbage to commercial dumping sites those were blocked by strikers and they would allow only few people per hour to make huge line ups. IANAL but this looked like mischief to me. And when people out of frustration had started throwing garbage bags in front of the site bylaw officers were right there issuing big fines. More than that, I tried to talk to strikers and they were fucking boozed up to their gills. That is despite laws against public intoxication. Police were ignoring all of this. So the government was totally fine with strikers "disturbing the peace". From what I see they're very selective on what to enforce and when.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
Exactly. However, in the world of those who long ago fell prey to the "red vs. blue" or "left vs. right" false dichotomies, there is only the question of "what side are you on?" One is not allowed to point out hypocrisy or plausible hypotheticals where the exact same decision-making in the future will be turned against those for whom the decision-making is currently convenient.