[ShepherdsDog]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

The honest man had nothing to fear in Vlad Tepes' principality. The other kind though? Well, too bad for them I guess.

Vlad Tepes was only a threat to the muslims who wanted to keep Romania under their bootheel. Vlad's first stand against the muslims was when a delegation of the vermin showed up to collect their annual jizya (extortion money) and Vlad beheaded them and sent them back whence they came.

He then proceeded to dish out more brutality to the muslims then they could stand and summed up his actions when the Caliph marched on Vlad's capital city.

When the muslims showed up they found the city gates open, welcoming them.

Around the city they found 20,000 living and dead muslims impaled on stakes.

The clear message was 'come get some, motherf*ckers.'

The muslims left and went home.

To my many Romanian friends Vlad is a hero who saved them from muslim domination.

To me he is an example of what it takes to deal with these people if you let them get out of hand.

To be honest, Vlad eliminated anybody he saw as a threat. Germans were high on his his hit list too and they were the ones who started many of the 'stories' about him that culminated in the vampire myth. His own boyars were also targets,and rightly so, seeing as his own nobles and family tried doing him in. All that being said and done, he is considered a national hero in Romania and is held in high regard by the Romanian Orthodox Church.

We have to ask if he was any more blood thirsty than some of our own cultural icons, like Richard the Lion Heart, who was killing Jews, Muslims and Christians in a land not his own. Vlad was fighting for his own lands against a foe that had just sacked, when he was a young man, Constantinople, the greatest city in Christendom. The last Caesar was dead and the Hagia Sophia, largest of all Christian cathedrals, was desecrated with minarets.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The title of this thread is a bit of a misnomer. You don't have to be wearing a mask at a riot. You can be weraing a mask at an "unlawful assembly" which is pretty loosely defined in Canada. If the cops see three people standing there, they can call it an unlawful assembly.

Maybe so, but I don't think this new law will be used in such situations. Hopefully the various law enforcement agencies in Canada use this once a real riot breaks out, thus leading to significant property damage and personal injury.

Of course, there's no guarantee in that, but there is a fine line, in my view, between a legitimate protest and a riot. In my opinion, there is little justification for any sort of mask during a peaceful demonstration, and there is plenty of evidence that, during riots, those concealing their faces are more likely to carry out property damage and cause personal injury to others.

[Jonny_C]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

... there's already provisions in the Criminal Code to deal with concealing your identity during an indictable offence. Smashing, looting and wanton destruction are all potentially indictable offences. So what is the point of this law?

It's because this is pre-emptive. To remove mask-wearers early on, before they start any trouble. In my opinion, it isn't right to arrest people before they have committed a crime.

Seems to me it's common for people to be arrested for intent.

And if there's someone in a mask in a demonstration, that is now classed as evidence of intent. I think that makes sense.

The warning is clear - wear a mask in a demonstration and you face arrest and charges. The lesson is also clear - if you want to participate in a demostration, don't wear a mask.

At the root, the whole thing is quite simple.

[Lemmy]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

The warning is clear - wear a mask in a demonstration and you face arrest and charges. The lesson is also clear - if you want to participate in a demostration, don't wear a mask.

That may be the lesson this law intends but the real lesson it gives is to disguise your identity in other ways.

In unrelated news, falling mask sales offset by rising wig, sunglasses, face-paint and makeup sales.

[Jonny_C]

Lemmy Lemmy:

In unrelated news, falling mask sales offset by rising wig, sunglasses, face-paint and makeup sales.

Good reply!

Still, there's nothing quite like a mask.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Lemmy Lemmy:

In unrelated news, falling mask sales offset by rising wig, sunglasses, face-paint and makeup sales.

Good reply!

Still, there's nothing quite like a mask.

Going to see a lot more black block in clown makeup!

[Jonny_C]

What constitutes a disguise? More fodder for the courts.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

What constitutes a disguise? More fodder for the courts.

I would suspect. At some point it might be moved to simply disguising your identity during a riot vice a mask.

[romanP]

raydan raydan:

Isn't rioting a crime by itself?

This is like making it a crime to wear a mask when you rob a bank.

ding ding ding YOU'VE WON THE GRAND PRIZE!!

it was already illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime, before this law was written.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You know, as much as I detest the anarchists, I detest this kind of thing even more. It's just one more advance of the police state that the anarchists rage against. Why not just pass a few more such laws and prove the anarchists case for them?

of course we're right. we've always been right.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

Which sections of our respective constitutions delineate that it's a basic freedom to conceal your during the commission of a crime?

In the US it would be rooted in the 1st Amendment as in the 1st Amendment it can be argued that anonymous speech is protected speech. Period.

(Edit: Our 5th Amendment also prohibits laws that require people to incriminate themselves and if this law went to the Supreme Court I imagine the 5th Amendment argument would loom larger than the anonymous speech argument.)

In Canada you folks have a Soviet-style document of 'rights' that enumerates a list of rights and then also creates a construct within itself to abrogate those rights.

More or less, our Constitution says we have certain rights no matter what.

Yours says that you have certain rights unless your government says otherwise. This renders your rights into mere privileges.

both truly are acts of absurdity. governments do not give or take rights. the activities outlines in those documents, whether it be the US Bill of Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or either of our constitutions, are inalienable because we will exercise them whether a piece of paper says we can or not. rights are exercised by the people who have always had them.

$1:

Likewise, if I were a Canadian I'd be wearing a mask pretty much all the time after this.

you mean like this?

$1:

Your government wants to put people in jail for ten years for wearing a mask at a riot? What about ten thousand such people? Where are you going to put them? How much will you spend on their trials?

and then we get into how the government defines a riot, or "unlawful protest".

[Jonny_C]

romanP romanP:

raydan raydan:

Isn't rioting a crime by itself?

This is like making it a crime to wear a mask when you rob a bank.

ding ding ding YOU'VE WON THE GRAND PRIZE!!

it was already illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime, before this law was written.

That's not the point. The point is that people who wear masks in demonstrations and incipient riots frequently do so because they are prepared to commit crimes under the cover that such mayhem provides.

[romanP]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

romanP romanP:

raydan raydan:

Isn't rioting a crime by itself?

This is like making it a crime to wear a mask when you rob a bank.

ding ding ding YOU'VE WON THE GRAND PRIZE!!

it was already illegal to wear a mask while committing a crime, before this law was written.

That's not the point. The point is that people who wear masks in demonstrations and incipient riots frequently do so because they are prepared to commit crimes under the cover that such mayhem provides.

you mean these guys?

[Jonny_C]

Looking at it from your apparently warped point of view, I guess that makes some sort of sense, right?

[romanP]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

Looking at it from your apparently warped point of view, I guess that makes some sort of sense, right?

i don't see what's warped. they fit all of the criteria you just mentioned, and they have weapons! also, they frequently get away with injuring and otherwise traumatising anyone who happens to be around, lie about it in court and get away with that too. if they're convicted, they get a slap on the wrist and a paid vacation. what a bunch of violent freeloaders. somebody should make a law against these parasites.