O Canada .. you are so screwed now. Maximum 10-year prison term for conviction of new offence.

Wearing a mask at a riot is now a crime - Canada - CBC News

Wearing a mask at a riot is now a crime
Maximum 10-year prison term for conviction of new offence

The new law will make it a criminal offence to wear a mask or conceal your identity during a riot. (Michael Probst/Associated Press)​

​

A bill that bans the wearing of masks during a riot or unlawful assembly and carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence with a conviction of the offence became law today.
Bill C-309, a private member's bill introduced by Conservative MP Blake Richards in 2011, passed third reading in the Senate on May 23 and was proclaimed law during a royal assent ceremony in the Senate this afternoon.
Richards, MP for Wild Rose, Alta., said the bill is meant to give police an added tool to prevent lawful protests from becoming violent riots, and that it will help police identify people who engage in vandalism or other illegal acts. The bill is something that police, municipal authorities and businesses hit hard by riots in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and other cities in recent years, were asking for, according to Richards.
"The provisions of my bill are effective immediately, which means police officers across Canada now have access to these tools to protect the public from masked rioters," Richards said in a statement being released today.
The bill creates a new Criminal Code offence that makes it illegal to wear a mask or otherwise conceal your identity during a riot or unlawful assembly. Exceptions can be made if someone can prove they have a "lawful excuse" for covering their face such as religious or medical reasons.
The bill originally proposed a penalty of up to five years, but the House of Commons justice committee amended it and doubled the penalty to up to 10 years in prison for committing the offence.
Richards noted in his statement how rare it is for a private member's bill to become law and said that its final passage is the culmination of two years of work and a lot of consultation with police and business owners.
Bill comes into force immediately upon royal assent

"We can all rest easier tonight knowing our communities have been made safer with its passage," said Richards.
The bill didn't have unanimous support, and was opposed by some who are concerned about its effect on freedom of expression and privacy. Critics said the measures are unnecessary because the Criminal Code already includes a section about wearing disguises while committing a crime.
Civil liberties advocates argued the measures could create a chilling effect on free speech and that peaceful protesters can unintentionally find themselves involved in an unlawful assembly. They also noted that there are legitimate reasons for wearing masks at protests; some may be worried about reprisals at work, for example, if sighted at a political protest.
"Any law that infringes upon civil liberties needs to be held to a test of absolute necessity, and I don't think that test has been met in this instance," said Michael Byers, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia and a board member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, in an interview. Byers testified at the Commons justice committee that studied the bill.
Byers said freedom of expression was not properly factored into the design of the bill and that its measures could deter acts of political expression.
Richards argues that his bill will actually help protect the legitimate right to protest because it will help prevent illegitimate protesters from infiltrating a peaceful event and causing trouble. He also said police told him the existing Criminal Code provision about disguises is more geared toward armed robbery offences and is difficult to apply in protest situations.
In a recent interview, Richards said there is a lot of misunderstanding about his bill and that there will always be people who disagree with it.
He said he is proud to have identified a problem and created a solution. The bill becomes law when it receives royal assent.

 

I'll bet it does not apply to the police forces wearing helmets and masks that have taken off or covered their ID badges.

Sounds fair.

 

And of the course the cops will declare it a riot simply because they start trying to muscle the protestors and the protestors muscle back.

 

"They" are working hard to protect us and they need more meta-data.
Michael Geist - Why Canadians Should Be Demanding Answers About Secret Surveillance Programs

Parliamentary Wrap-Up For The Week Of June 10 – 14, 2013

"They" need the long-form census again...and MANDATORY.

Bill C-260: An Act to amend the Statistics Act (mandatory long-form census questionnaire)

• Introduced on June 23, 2011 by Carolyn Bennett, St. Paul’s
• Would reinstate the mandatory long-form census

"They" need to be able to arrest and detain citizens without charge for 3 days or a year if they choose to remain silent.

Canada's new detention-without-charge bill has Crowder crying foul - News Leader Pictorial - May 3, 2013
"The bill, passed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's majority Conservatives, would authorize police to pre-emptively detain Canadians and hold them for up to three days without charging them, The Globe & Mail has reported
"
"The bill would also allow authorities to imprison a Canadian for up to 12 months if she or he refuses to testify in front of a judge at an investigative hearing.
"
Mandatory minimum sentences for minor offences, new prisons being built...

Oh wait...still payoff season...brb

 

LOL, you guys are actually worse off than we are! Plus you can't own handguns (you can tuck them inside your jacket). I guess my step across the border plan if things go way sideways here has some holes in it. I guess I'll just stay here where we can still get AR15's, Pistols, and Fully Automatic weapons (if we get approved and pay the 200 tax stamp).

 

Yeah, and they buy their milk in plastic bags! Who ever heard of such a thing? What the hell is spumoni ice cream? I never encountered these things until I went north of the border.

Disclaimer: the above was written in a poor attempt to inject humor into a serious discussion.

 

Plz do stay there...wish we would build a REAL border to protect us from armed yankee refugees when your dollar collapses.

 

I can still buy raw milk from a farmer...as long as I claim it's for my cats.

 

So, that's your version of freedom? I milk my cows and answer to no one.

 

This is the version of freedom your other countrymen are living...

Minnesota Dairy Farmer Arrested For Selling Raw Milk

The Rawesome Raid and the Controversy Over Raw Milk - Forbes

First they came for the xxxx but I was not an xxxx so I did nothing....

 

No different where you live. Look it up and you'll see.

 

Canada[edit]

The sale of raw milk directly to consumers is prohibited in Canada[16] under the Food and Drug Regulations since 1991.

No person shall sell the normal lacteal secretion obtained from the mammary gland of the cow, genus Bos, or of any other animal, or sell a dairy product made with any such secretion, unless the secretion or dairy product has been pasteurized by being held at a temperature and for a period that ensure the reduction of the alkaline phosphatase activity so as to meet the tolerances specified in official method MFO-3, Determination of Phosphatase Activity in Dairy Products, dated November 30, 1981.
—[17], Section B.08.002.2 (1)​

Provincial laws also forbid the sale and distribution of raw milk. For instance, Ontario's Health Protection and Promotion Act, subsection 18(1) reads: "No person shall sell, offer for sale, deliver or distribute milk or cream that has not been pasteurized or sterilized in a plant that is licensed under the Milk Act or in a plant outside Ontario that meets the standards for plants licensed under the Milk Act."
In January 2010, Michael Schmidt was found not guilty on 19 charges relating to the sale of raw milk in the Ontario Court of Justice.[18] As of February, 2011, that case is under appeal with a scheduled hearing date in April, 2011.
In British Columbia, Alice Jongerden is challenging the constitutionality of that province's legislation, which deems raw milk to be a hazardous product.[19]
Meanwhile, Canada does permit the sale of raw milk cheeses that are aged over 60 days. In 2009, the province of Quebec modified regulations to allow raw milk cheeses aged less than 60 days provided stringent safeguards are met.[20]
United States[edit]

Main article: United States raw milk debate
Twenty-eight U.S. states do not prohibit sales of raw milk.[21] Cow shares can be found, and raw milk purchased for animal consumption in many states where retail for human consumption is prohibited.
Most states impose restrictions on raw milk suppliers due to concerns about safety. As of 2009, the state of Connecticut has discussed creating possible restrictions upon the sale of raw milk to farms and farmer's markets.[22] The FDA reports that, in 2002, consuming partially heated raw milk and raw milk products caused 200 Americans to become ill in some manner.[23]
Many governmental officials and the majority of public health organizations hold to the need for pasteurization. Before pasteurization, many dairies, especially in cities, fed their cattle on low-quality food, and their milk was rife with dangerous bacteria. Pasteurizing it was the only way to make it safely drinkable. As pasteurization has been standard for many years, it is now widely assumed that raw milk is dangerous.[24] The Cornell University Food Science Department has compiled data indicating that pathogenic microorganisms are present in between 0.87% and 12.6% of raw milk samples.[25]
Proponents of raw milk (in the U.S.) advance two basic arguments for unpasteurized milk. They claim that pasteurization destroys or damages some of the milk's nutrients, and that while pasteurization may kill dangerous bacteria, it also kills off good bacteria that raw milk supporters claim to have health benefits.[26] The United States Food and Drug administration claims that this is false, and that pasteurizing milk does not destroy any of its nutritive value.[8]
Proponents also invoke the benefits of direct-marketing when promoting the sale of raw milk. The ability of the farmer to eliminate the middle-man and sell directly to the consumer allows for greater profitability. Many manufacturers sell small-scale pasteurization equipment, thereby allowing farmers to both bypass the milk processors and sell pasteurized milk directly to the consumer. Additionally, some small U.S. dairies are now beginning to adopt low-temperature vat pasteurization.[27] Advocates of low-temperature vat pasteurization note that it produces a product similar to raw milk in composition and is not homogenized.