Unlawful assembly - should such a thing exist?

Post Reply New Topic

Nothing new about this. Bona fide anti semites use the term anti-zionism as well but they use it to hijack the term in which it only serves the agenda of the Israeli far right and pro Israel lobbies in the west. When nazis and extreme right types use the word 'Zionism' they mean it as a pejoritive against all jews. These are the same lunatics who subscribe to the idea that Communism is a 'plot' by global Jewry to undermine whites.

When anyone else uses the word Zionism in its correct context, they mean it as a supporter of Israelis (not even necessarilly Jews) and their unalienable right to the land of Palestine at any cost. Even some Jews identify as Anti-Zionists.

Any form of non-peaceful assembly whatever its purpose should be forbidden by law.

All persons in the U.S. legally have the right to free speech and peaceful assembly to petition for redress of grievances protected by the First Amendment. One does not need to be a citizen to enjoy this right. He just has to be here legally.

ruveyn

Does non-peaceful assembly include sloganeering against the anti-emeute?

...it means whatever is politically expedient to the establishment on the day.

Should there be such a thing as Unlawful Assembly?

Yes, if an assembly gets out of hand (assaults, damage to public or private property, disturbing the peace, etc...) then it should be considered unlawful and acted upon appropriately by the cops.

Illegal aliens are foreign nationals that have no right to influence internal policies, and occupy leaves mounds of trash, soak everything in piss, paralyze traffic for people who get paid hourly and have other things to do, commit vandalism and other property crimes that usually don't affect the "1%", and don't forget the rapes and muggings sprinkled in the mix.

Unlawful Assembly is when they make the arrests before anything actually happens.

Stopping a wrong doing when it is the processing of becoming an overt act is both legal and necessary. When should we stop a gunman? Before he shoots someone or after he has shed blood. The same things goes for mobs and riots.

When it is clear that an assembly is simply making a complain known and it does so in an orderly fashion (lines of folks carrying signs and chanting their complaint) then it should be permitted provided it does not obstruct traffic.

ruveyn

The quest to remove subjectivity from the law is futile. All law is subjective--because the law, whether it be statute, contract or jurisprudence, attempts to enunciate a general principle that can guide the future actions of individuals. There is not statement of law that is not subject to interpretation, and all interpretation must be made in the context of the instant case. The law creates an artificial, objective standard of a reasonable person, but acknowledges, always, that this standard is a fiction.

If you go to case law you will find more clarity that should answer your questions, or at least provide you with a clearer context to understand them. Any law library will provide the Canadian Abrdigement--Canadian Statute Citations that will lead you to all published cases that have interpreted section 63. The post 1985 cases will likely include Charter analysis (or reference to Charter analysis) as well.

One person suffices, but that one person's fear must be reasonable. If you pick up the phone and say, "there are three people on the sidewalk outside my home and I am afraid they're going ot riot," then the next question out of the police officer's mouth will be, "why do you think that?" On the other hand, if you call up and say, "There are three guys carrying bricks and yelling and screaming on my street," then the law is far more likely to see this as a reasonable fear.

What Unlawful Assembly means in practice is that someone marches in a large demonstration, someone at the other end of it throws a stone at a window, the police proclaim Unlawful Assembly without that person knowing, suddenly the anti-emeute charges or worse kettles people and charges them with a criminal offence. That person has done nothing wrong. By the way, the American government would ban such a person for life from entering the country even if not convicted. The policy is to ban anyone accused of a crime at a protest. Their paranoiac fear of revolutionaries, that helped to condemn so many Jews to death in World War II as Jews were banned on the grounds that they were said to be communists and anarchists, is really ridiculous.

Problem being that you can be charged with unlawful assembly just because you look a bit scary. Three titanic black guys walking around chatting can be unlawful assembly if they scare a bunch of white supremacists, for example. All it is, is an easy way for police to break up peaceful protests under the pretense that it's scaring people.

Says a lot about the American government and its commitment to freedom that it has a policy to discourage people in other countries from protesting. Sure, one can say that it's their country, they can choose not to let people in if they want to, but it remains that this this policy serves to discourage people from protesting and that's the intention.

Why do you claim, "that person has done nothing wrong?" I will agree, that person did not throw the stone, but that person was a willing participant in an assembly, and was reckless as to whether or not that assembly became unlawful. If you choose to participate in a demonstration, you run the risk that the conduct of others will turn the assembly into an unlawful one. By being heedless of that risk, you bring down the risk of criminal penalty on yourself.

In reality, of course, the Courts are going to be extremely suspicious of charges brought against a person in such circumstances. We have seen ample evidence both in Toronto after the G20 and in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup riots that the Courts are more than willing to exercise the benefit of the doubt in favour of the accused where the conduct of the police is in question.

As for US immigration practice, if you are going to lie--at least lie credibly. The United States does not bar aliens from entering on the basis of policy--it bars them on the basis of law. And the law says nothing like what you claim. Generally speaking, an alien requires two unrelated convictions for crime before they are inadmissible to the United States. (Certain crimes, particularly drug offences, require only a single conviction).

Being charged with a crime does not give rise to an inadmissibility, but it gives rise to a basis on which to question admissibity. It is quite proper for an immigration officer to refuse admission to a person who is subject to an unresolved criminal accusation on two bases: first, because the question of criminality is unresolved and second, because the person may well be seeking to abscond from the jurisdiction of court. This would certainly be a Canadian immigration response to unresolved criminal charges in the United States.

By far the greatest number of people who are administratively barred from entry to the United States are people who lie to an immigration officer. Those who have been charged with unlawful assembly, and who have not yet been acquitted, and who fail to dislose this truthfully at the border are, quite simply, the authors of their own misfortune. I would expect no country to treat this sort of thing any differently.

Well, we just had our international day against police brutality march, or more precisely we did not as that weasel Simoneau proclaimed that people are free to march as his troops were terrorising everyone and immediately divided the crowd in two with a charge complete with stun grenades, as his troops boxed everyone and prevented people from joining the crowd, and then after ten minutes or so of terrorism had the nerve to proclaim Unlawful Assembly! Naturally it was topped off with mass arrest kettles. They imported police from Toronto and Ottawa for the occasion! The festivities began with the police dragging people away for daring to wear a scarf in the winter... you can't make these things up. I guess some will say that we should be thankful that they aren't shooting people in the crowd, though one of these days one of the stun grenades will kill people, particularly if they keep misusing them and aiming them for people's heads. If they continue to take their cue from the baying right wing mob, they certainly will start killing protesters.

I have a marvellous example of how people can be doing nothing wrong and march in an Unlawful Assembly. I go up to people I know who are marching and say "Did you know they proclaimed Unlawful Assembly?", and many didn't even know what it was, and none of them knew at all! They didn't see anything. It was at the front of the crowd and they weren't there. I ask several people. Perhaps I should post it one day.

It is funny that we encourage 'unlawful assembly' abroad when we fear it at home.

I think it's funny that the American government thinks that revolutionaries from abroad are planning to stream into the country, like they'd really somehow get the American people to join their planned revolution... they're so downtrodden that they don't have enough hope to even consider such a thing.