Upto 6 Months in Jail for Anti-Olympics Signs?

[ajax]

A proposed B.C. law would allow municipal officials to enter homes to seize unauthorized and possibly anti-Olympic signs on short notice, civil libertarians say.

Violators could be fined up to $10,000 a day and jailed up to six months, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said Friday.

The proposed law was introduced Thursday as a bill to amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act.

The government said in a statement that the changes will "provide the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler with temporary enforcement powers to enable them to swiftly remove illegal signs and graffiti during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games."

"The legislation does not change the existing scope of authority to regulate signs and graffiti. Rather, it provides, on a temporary basis, a faster way of removing signs and graffiti that violate municipal bylaws during the short period the Games are underway."

Bill Bennett, the minister of community and rural development, said that given the short duration of the Olympics, the cities of Richmond, Whistler, and Vancouver must be able to enforce their own bylaws quickly.

"That to me seems like a reasonable thing to do when you've got the Olympic games lasting 20-odd days," Bennett said.

"You've got the potential for some businesses to try and exploit the games logo without having paid for the rights to do that. I think its a reasonable thing for communities to want to remove those kinds of signs, and to remove them before the end of the Olympic Games."

Civil rights group concerned
But that explanation didn't sit well with civil liberties advocates, who said that if the law passes, municipalities would need to enact their own bylaws to take advantage of their new powers, and that the new powers go further than the government suggests, particularly in Vancouver.

The city passed the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games bylaw in June to restrict the distribution and exhibition of unapproved advertising material and signs in any Olympic area during the Games.

City officials have said the law is intended to clamp down on so-called ambush marketing, and it includes an exception for celebratory signs, which are defined as those that celebrate the 2010 Winter Games and create or add to the festive atmosphere.

'People will be risking $10,000-a-day fines and six months in jail just to criticize the Olympics.'
— Robert Holmes, B.C. Civil Liberties AssociationBut legal experts say the definition of an unapproved sign is open to interpretation.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has been warning for several months that the vague wording might be used against anti-Olympic signs or promotions for anti-Olympic events or material.

And under the bill introduced Thursday, the maximum fine for violations would rise to $10,000 a day from $50, and a jail term of six months, the association said. As well, city officials would only have to give notice of 24 hours, rather than two weeks, before entering a property to remove a sign.

"If Vancouver acts on this provision, people will be risking $10,000-a-day fines and six months in jail just to criticize the Olympics," Robert Holmes, the president of the civil liberties group, said in statement.

"Six months in jail is usually reserved for criminals who have a record of several convictions for breaking and entering," Holmes said.

"Telling people who exercise free speech that local authorities may barge in, rip down signs inside your property, fine you or throw you in jail will underscore the growing impression that our governments care more about their own camera appearances at Olympic events than about people's rights," Holmes said.

Court challenge launched
Earlier this week, the association helped two anti-Olympics activists launch a legal challenge of Vancouver's 2010 Olympics bylaw in B.C. Supreme Court, claiming it was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson says he's still studying the issue.

"Certainly, groups such as civil liberties have the right to challenge the laws, the bylaws that are made, so we'll respect that process and hopefully it makes those laws stronger and more reasonable," Robertson said.

The association is suspicious of the timing of the provincial bill's introduction so close to the Olympic games, which have been planned for years.

"We've seen them timing things so that they don't put in place laws that are special to the Olympics until the last minute," Holmes said. "And part of that leads to the suspicion that they've done it in a calculated and deliberate way, to remove the ability of the courts, and people who might want to take it to court, to have their rights protected."

Anti-Olympic activists involved in the legal challenge have also said they and their family and friends are being subject to unreasonable harassment and surveillance by the Olympic security unit.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...law-bccla.html

Note that it is only proposed, not yet passed. Just shows even more how money rules the Olympics.

[Volvo-brickster]

sikh's wearing kirpans can enter olympic venues due to religious beliefs

i cant even post an anti olympic poster in my house without the cops threatening to enter my house and violating my right to free speech and indepdent thought.

Vanoc and IOC uses Charter of Rights of freedom to wipe their asses with it as they see fit.

Funny how many harped on China during the summer olympics due to a lack of human rights and its happening in our own backyard.

[El Bastardo]

Anti-Olympic hippies vandalizing the clock downtown and those wannabe militant natives who stole the flags from city hall ruined it for the rest of us.

Free speech is fine, when its done appropriately. When you go out of your way to make someone miserable because you're a little butthurt over all that money not going to provide heroin to addicts or servants to wipe people's asses on the rez it makes a moot point of activism.

Protest appropriately. Protest responsibly.

Don't protest just because you don't like seeing hard working, educated people who are doing their best to demonstrate a little pride bring the international spotlight on Vancouver for the second time in 25 years.


Now my rights as a citizen have to be trampled on because you couldn't keep your dick in your pants when it comes to protesting.


Fuck you.

[JesseBlue]

what? anti olympics banner fine and jail time? and unauthorized olympics banner and logo, fine and probably jail time too...wtf...gimme a break....everyone should just put anti gov't

[ajax]

Originally Posted by Volvo-brickster

sikh's wearing kirpans can enter olympic venues due to religious beliefs

What's that got to do with this? Have you heard of an incident where a Sikh has used his Kirpan as a weapon in a spontaneous situation? Should they not be allowed to enter NHL hockey games? Wait, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to wear them to the mall either! Something like an airplane is understandable, but there are no Sikhs here who want to go on a crazy stabbing spree within an Olympic event.

[Volvo-brickster]

Originally Posted by ajax

What's that got to do with this? Have you heard of an incident where a Sikh has used his Kirpan as a weapon in a spontaneous situation? Should they not be allowed to enter NHL hockey games? Wait, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to wear them to the mall either! Something like an airplane is understandable, but there are no Sikhs here who want to go on a crazy stabbing spree within an Olympic event.

first off, before anyone mis-interprets my post, i mention Kirpans and relgious beliefs because section 2 of the charter states :

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

however

the very next line of the charter states :

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication

Why is it that during the olympics, someone can have their Charter rights recognized but another person can't?

Double standard ?

[ajax]

Originally Posted by Volvo-brickster

first off, before anyone mis-interprets my post, i mention Kirpans and relgious beliefs because section 2 of the charter states :

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

however

the very next line of the charter states :

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication

Why is it that during the olympics, someone can have their Charter rights recognized but another person can't?

Double standard ?

Very well, I take back my post

[dutch]

You're blaming protesters for your rights being trampled on? At least they're doing something because they believe in something.

You're complaining on a car forum.. keep on bending over and loose a few more rights.

Originally Posted by El Bastardo

Anti-Olympic hippies vandalizing the clock downtown and those wannabe militant natives who stole the flags from city hall ruined it for the rest of us.

Free speech is fine, when its done appropriately. When you go out of your way to make someone miserable because you're a little butthurt over all that money not going to provide heroin to addicts or servants to wipe people's asses on the rez it makes a moot point of activism.

Protest appropriately. Protest responsibly.

Don't protest just because you don't like seeing hard working, educated people who are doing their best to demonstrate a little pride bring the international spotlight on Vancouver for the second time in 25 years.


Now my rights as a citizen have to be trampled on because you couldn't keep your dick in your pants when it comes to protesting.


Fuck you.

[El Bastardo]

What am I gonna do? Protest the protesters because I support the Olympics?

Just because I'm not a disruptive asshole doesn't mean I don't care about when my rights are stepped on.

[urrh]

i don't see how this bill is not unconstitutional. doesn't it violate our rights outlined in the canadian charter of rights?
so those affected should be able to sue the city. right?

[goo3]

Originally Posted by urrh

i don't see how this bill is not unconstitutional. doesn't it violate our rights outlined in the canadian charter of rights?

Have you read the bill? Or you just basing it on what this guy said:

Originally Posted by ajax

"Telling people who exercise free speech that local authorities may barge in, rip down signs inside your property, fine you or throw you in jail will underscore the growing impression that our governments care more about their own camera appearances at Olympic events than about people's rights," Holmes said.

LOL. That's the thing w/ the news. Anybody can say shit. No one has to back it up. No one had their BS meter going when they read this?

so those affected should be able to sue the city. right?

If it's like that dude said, then yes. And they should win. Let's see if they do.

[MG1]

Originally Posted by ajax

Note that it is only proposed, not yet passed. Just shows even more how money rules the Olympics.

It's kind of sad that it has come to this.

Somehow, I think this is only the beginning. The media is gonna have a ball with this.

I hope people keep their cool and not go overboard. Once someone draws the line, it gets ugly. The games are coming whether we like it or not. We might as well make the best of it. Whatshisnuts made that passionate speech to the business community last week. Convincing average Joe or lower than average Joe might not be such an easy task. Looks like the Hitler thread and this one might as well be merged into one. I wonder how far the government wil go to ensure the very few people who are not happy campers behave themselves.

[you!]

olympics ftl!

[StylinRed]

that sounds like Criminal Law to me... the province wouldnt be able to pass that without the Supreme Court knocking it down

maybe they're hoping to bring it into effect before the olympics.. act on it

and it wont be struck down by the supreme court until the end of the olympics

[Carl Johnson]

Originally Posted by urrh

i don't see how this bill is not unconstitutional. doesn't it violate our rights outlined in the canadian charter of rights?
so those affected should be able to sue the city. right?

These rights are generally subject to the limitations clause (section 1) and the notwithstanding clause (section 33). The limitations clause in section 1 allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights. Every case in which a court discovers a violation of the Charter would therefore require a section 1 analysis to determine if the law can still be upheld. Infringements are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified." Section 1 has thus been used to uphold laws against objectionable conduct such as hate speech (e.g., in R. v. Keegstra) and obscenity (e.g., in R. v. Butler). Section 1 also confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed.

The notwithstanding clause authorizes governments to temporarily override the rights and freedoms in sections 2 and 7–15 for up to five years, subject to renewal. The Canadian federal government has never invoked it, and some have speculated that its use would be politically costly. In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec (which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless). The provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have also invoked the notwithstanding clause, to end a strike and to protect an exclusively heterosexual definition of marriage,[4] respectively. (Note that Alberta's use of the notwithstanding clause is of no force or effect, since the definition of marriage is federal not provincial jurisdiction.)[5] The territory of Yukon also passed legislation once that invoked the notwithstanding clause, but the legislation was never proclaimed in force.[6]

[Gnomes]

Yay for more censorship

[urrh]

Originally Posted by goo3

Have you read the bill? Or you just basing it on what this guy said:

no, you're right. i was too lazy to actually look into it

[!LittleDragon]

Originally Posted by ajax

Note that it is only proposed, not yet passed. Just shows even more how money rules the Olympics.

Yeah, it's pretty sad... the Olympics should be about the athletes, not showing off the host city and not about raking in the money.

Regarding this proposed law tho, people have to look beyond the Olympics because if it passes, it'll set precedence for future laws

I don't support the Olympics but they're gonna happen whether I like it or not so I'm just going to get outta dodge and head to NYC for a month.

[b0unce. [?]]

EDIT: NEW UPDATED LOOK lol

[MG1]

Originally Posted by b0unce. [?]

Bwahahahaha........ you going to jail. Retired RCMP guy gonna call it in.