4 ms·

Justice Minister Wants to Arrest People Before the Crime Is Committed

2 points by h2odragon 3y ago

yawpitch 3y ago
Rather disingenuous title; on actually reading it the bill would create a peace bond that would enjoin someone that the government believed likely to engage in what the bill elsewhere defines as a hate crime — after a judge found that the government’s beliefs were warranted — from actually engaging in that hate crime without being subject to the penalties of violating the bond. That’s fundamentally no different than a restraining order… you’d only be subject to house arrest (not, importantly, the same as arrest) if you behaved in ways that stepped over the line drawn in front of you. Which also means it’s pretty likely to be extremely ineffective in achieving its goals, but that’s another kind of misrepresentation.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  > likely to engage in crime I really do think that justifies the title, myself. The restraining order is not a penalty [1], it is notice that you will be penalized should you do $Action. This has penalties before the illegal activity has happened. [1] This can also be argued, but I'll refrain for the sake of discussion.
  - yawpitch 3y ago
    A restraining order is a kind of recognizance, so is a peace bond, and both exist to deter potential (and legally likely, without the recognizance) criminal action, everything described in the amendment in the Bill adding 810. 012 to the Criminal Code seems to present a situation essentially identical to what CAN be incorporated into a restraining order… you’re only penalized if you break the bond, or refuse to enter into the recognizance, and there are some very specific limitations on your freedom that the recognizance brings into force. If you are deemed so likely to engage in a hate crime that you’re put under one of these your best course of action would be to not engage in a hate crime… you’ll lose none of the freedoms you previously enjoyed and have actively decided to put at risk by threatening illegal actions against someone who (reasonably, in the eyes of a judge) fears you. Sure, you’ll have to prove your willingness to remain peaceable for its duration, but it’s your own actions that put you there.

2 points by h2odragon 3y ago

Rather disingenuous title; on actually reading it the bill would create a peace bond that would enjoin someone that the government believed likely to engage in what the bill elsewhere defines as a hate crime — after a judge found that the government’s beliefs were warranted — from actually engaging in that hate crime without being subject to the penalties of violating the bond. That’s fundamentally no different than a restraining order… you’d only be subject to house arrest (not, importantly, the same as arrest) if you behaved in ways that stepped over the line drawn in front of you. Which also means it’s pretty likely to be extremely ineffective in achieving its goals, but that’s another kind of misrepresentation.

h2odragon 3y ago
> likely to engage in crime I really do think that justifies the title, myself. The restraining order is not a penalty [1], it is notice that you will be penalized should you do $Action. This has penalties before the illegal activity has happened. [1] This can also be argued, but I'll refrain for the sake of discussion.
- yawpitch 3y ago
  A restraining order is a kind of recognizance, so is a peace bond, and both exist to deter potential (and legally likely, without the recognizance) criminal action, everything described in the amendment in the Bill adding 810. 012 to the Criminal Code seems to present a situation essentially identical to what CAN be incorporated into a restraining order… you’re only penalized if you break the bond, or refuse to enter into the recognizance, and there are some very specific limitations on your freedom that the recognizance brings into force. If you are deemed so likely to engage in a hate crime that you’re put under one of these your best course of action would be to not engage in a hate crime… you’ll lose none of the freedoms you previously enjoyed and have actively decided to put at risk by threatening illegal actions against someone who (reasonably, in the eyes of a judge) fears you. Sure, you’ll have to prove your willingness to remain peaceable for its duration, but it’s your own actions that put you there.