5 ms·
Passed last May by the National Assembly of Quebec in the midst of the student upheaval, Bill 78 requires organisers of assemblies involving 50 or more people t
by sultezdukes 13y ago
Passed last May by the National Assembly of Quebec in the midst of the student upheaval, Bill 78 requires organisers of assemblies involving 50 or more people to register the details of any demonstration with the police at least eight hours before it begins. Anyone who does not comply with the law faces a fine from $1000 up to $125,000 depending on his or her involvement and leadership in the protest.
That's creepy. Would that pass a legal challenge in Canada's higher courts? The right to assemble is a constitutional right in the US. How does that work in Canada?
I looked up Canadian freedom of speech laws and came across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada
specifically: “Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms.”[3]
That generality is pretty ominous sounding.
- obstacle1 13y agoFreedom of peaceful assembly is protected under section 2 of the Charter. I am unsure of whether or not Bill 78 would hold up to a charter challenge, but it is already on its way through the courts. It kind of bothers me that Canada as a whole gets crapped on for one province's shady law. It is kind of like condemning the whole of the USA for Texas allowing capital punishment.
- pyre 13y agoAll of the other things in the article are at a Federal level. I think it's just trying to show a general pattern of limiting freedoms that has seeping into Canadian politics.
- subsystem 13y agoAs far as I know the bill was overturned after the ruling party lost the election. It does show a willingness to handle these kind of situation with "emergency laws". Then there was also this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/07/ombudsman-g20-security-rule-report856.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/07/ombud...
- diego_moita 13y agoPlease correct me if I am wrong but I understand that, since Quebec is the only province that doesn't endorse the Charter of Rights, it is probably a moot point if Bill 78 holds up such challenge. Not that I support the Bill, far from it. What I support is Quebec signing the Charter.
- dlitz 13y agoThe funny thing about the Charter, is that section 1 basically means you never really know what your constitutional rights are, because they are all subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
- jessriedel 13y agoThat seems pretty equivalent to the "compelling government interest" which can supersede the rights of US citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
- Locke1689 13y agoPlease re-read that article. Compelling government interest alone is not enough to pass strict scrutiny.
- jessriedel 13y agoSure, I said "similar" not "identical". Being narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means, as determined at some hypothetical point in the future by the judgement of justices a laymen is forced to trust, gives me minimal comfort.
- huhtenberg 13y ago> 50 or more people And the way this provision is abused "when needed" is by injecting imposter demonstrators into an assembly until it gets over the 50 limit and then having a legal reason to shut the whole thing down. This made news several times in a context of protests in Moscow, so I'm guessing the technique is just seeing a wider adoption now.