When Does An Assembly Become Unlawful?

Because we were rather busy yesterday preparing a small celebration marking my sister-in-law's retirement at an enviably young age, I am just getting caught up on my Saturday newspaper reading. One of the issues that caught my attention is the private member's bill making its way through Parliament as an amendment to the Criminal Code. Introduced by Alberta Conservative Blake Richards, Bill C-309 is the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots or unlawful assemblies act.

While the proposed amendment presents itself as a strong response to the violent depredations of anarchists like the Black Bloc during the 2010 G20 Summit demonstrations in Toronto, many infer a more sinister motivation behind Richards' initiative. Curious as to the truth in this matter, I checked out the Criminal Code's definition of unlawful assembly:

Unlawful assembly

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

You can perhaps appreciate the ominous implications of this definition, most notably the subjective nature of fear that demonstrators will disturb the peace tumultuously, an elastic definition if there ever was one. As my wife pointed out to me, does that mean that if three people were picketing their M.P.'s office, their behaviour, whether masked or not, could constitute criminal behaviour based on someone else's reaction to the assembly?

Bill C-309 does indeed carry ominous implications, epecially since existing law already gives police all the power they need to arrest rioters and those committing crimes while masked.

As outlined in Section 351 of the Criminal Code,

Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

So yes, I think there is much merit in the argument that this private member's bill is just another move by the Harper regime to stifle dissent. That is also the view of many Star readers, who have responded to this issue with their usual vigour and thoughtfulness. I am posting a link to those letters here, but because access to readers' letters on the Star website is frequently of limited duration, I am going to later put up a separate post that reproduces several of them for your consideration.

Repression 2.0

Given its evolution, so to speak, the state of Tennessee's new attempt to control and criminalize people's thoughts and acts can hardly be seen as astonishing.

John Baird, A Friend Indeed

Want $1 million of taxpayers' money for a project that fails to meet government criteria? If he is your 'dear friend,' call Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird for intervention that hardly qualifies as 'divine'.

The Powerful Stench Of Obsequiousness At The CBC

With the polls revealing that the NDP, under leader Thomas Mulcair, is enjoying 34% of popular support while the Harper Conservatives languish at 30%, it is probably no surprise that the CBC is once again polishing up its apples in yet another desperate and misplaced effort at appeasing its political masters. Having recently had its budget gutted, I guess it was too much to think that the Corporation would have found its spine and at least proceeded with a measure of dignity and integrity toward its ultimate doom under the Harper regime. Last night's At Issues Panel revealed that to be a forlorn hope.

With the right ably represented by both Bruce Anderson and the National Post's John Ivison, challenged in small measure by Chantal Hebert and the Huffington Post's Althia Raj, we were told how much of a mistake it was for Tom Mulcair to be critical of the inflationary effect of the Alberta tarsands on the Canadian dollar, a high dollar making it more difficult for Canadian manufacturers to compete. There was much tut-tutting on the divisiveness of such a pronouncement, the subtext being, I think, that Mulcair surely can't be considered Prime Ministerial material. Of course, nothing was said of our current Prime Minister, the master of national division.

This panel was followed by Rex Murphy's screed against Mulcair which, I must confess after listening to for about one minute, I turned off.

Should you deem yourself constitutionally strong, you can watch the panel discussion here; mercifully, the Murphy jeremiad does not yet appear to be on the website.

UPDATE: I'm sorry to report that Mr. Murphy's tantrum is now available via The Huffington Post. This time I made it to the 1:30 mark. If Rex does not get a Senate seat out of his unrepentant toadying, there clearly is no God.

Memo To Peter Mansbridge: Peter, you really have passed your best before date.

Are Workers Paying For The Globe and Mail's Sins?

UPDATE/CORRECTION: While I strive to be as accurate as possible in this blog, the second paragraph of this post contained an inaccuracy, which I have since rectified.

I have to say that my heart rejoiced yesterday when I saw the news that Torstar, the parent company of The Toronto Star, has increased its quarterly earnings over the year by about 100%, an unequivocal confirmation that quality, in-depth journalism for the social good can still very much be a profitable enterprise in the 21st century.

I also have to admit to an almost equal delight in the news I received from my son that the Globe and Mail, by contrast, is not faring so well. The Earnings Per Share (EPS) profit that the Globe and Mail contributes to Bell Canada, its parent company, is off by 0.23.

I interpret this profit reduction as an indictment of the direction in which John Stackhouse has taken the paper since assuming the mantle of editor-in-chief. It is a direction that has seen such betrayals as unequivocal editorial endorsements of the Harper regime, an inhouse apologist for all things Harper named John Ibbitson, and the continued employment of unoriginal thinkers like Neil Reynolds and Margaret Wente who, one suspects, would have great difficulty recognizing an original thought, should one occur to them, an admittedly unlikely event.

The one group for whom I feel sympathy at the Globe is the rank and file, who are now being asked to take unpaid leaves this summer in an attempt to temporarily reduce costs.

Oh, and I almost forgot. In either a very desperate grasping at straws for financial salvation or a very public display of delusions of grandeur, The Globe announced today that it is instituting a paywall. If you read the article, I strongly encourage you to also peruse some of the readers' comments that follow, comments of such withering contempt that one might infer that this 'Hail Mary pass' from the Globe is too desperate by anyone's standards.

Are You Watching the Polls, Mr. Harper?

Oh, how I hope this news shakes up Harper's arrogant smugness.

The Sad Saga Of Our Declining Democracy Continues

During the past year I have written many posts on the sad spectacle of a Canadian democracy in decline, citizen cynicism and apathy rather than vigorous engagement becoming the default position of more and more Canadians. I have also offered the opinion that this is in large part the result of practices purposely pursued by our political 'masters', most egregiously by the Harper regime, so as to leave the field pretty much clear for the 'true-believers' to exert a disproportionate influence on election results when they turn out and the rest of us tune out.

Extreme partisanship has relegated the public good to an afterthought, an example of which is highlighted in Martin Regg Cohn's column today in The Star. He writes about how the clash of politics has impeded anti-bullying legislation that was supposed to proceed smoothly as a response to the suicides of gay students, but has instead degenerated into open displays of bigotry, taunting, tweeting, sulking and shouting (or heckling, as parliamentarians call it).

An even more penetrating assessment of the price we all pay for the debasement of the political process is to be found in Chantal Hebert's column today, also in The Star. Entitled Ballot box seen as dead end rather than means to an end, Hebert first uses the ongoing Quebec student unrest to advance her thesis that our elected representatives are no longer looked upon as a viable source of representation, a notion which, when you think about it, strikes at the very heart of democracy:

Their movement increasingly boils down to an extreme manifestation of a widespread disenchantment toward Canada’s elected institutions; one that is leading alienated voters of all ages and in all regions to see the ballot box as a dead end rather than as a means to an end.

Hebert then turns her sights on the Harper regime:

In the national capital, a government elected with barely four in every 10 votes a year ago has since been going out of its way to disenfranchise the majority that did not support it.

Over the opening year of their majority mandate, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have moved to discourage civic dissent — in particular but not exclusively on the environmental front.

They have replaced federal-provincial dialogue with diktats and adversarial litigation.

They have placed themselves on a collision course with the courts over the place of the rule of law in the exercise of ministerial discretion.

The concept of ministerial responsibility has been reduced to a quaint historical footnote and parliamentary accountability is on the same slippery slope.

In the House of Commons, the government has moved to stifle the input of its opposition critics at every turn, systematically curtailing debate on bills or more simply subtracting legislation from competent scrutiny by cramming it inside inflated omnibus bills.

It should surprise no one that governments who treat the rule of law as a pesky inconvenience will eventually breed the same attitude in those that they purport to legislate for.

Hebert ends her piece by referring to ours as a debased democracy.

I have one questions that burns in my soul - Is there anyone or anything that can reinvigorate us at this point to reclaim our birthright?