Yes. You have the right to photograph, film or otherwise record police officers on duty. Officials do not have the right to ask you to delete your photos or take your equipment. It might be a good idea to record the name and identification number of all the officers you interact with at a protest. Section two of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines “freedom of peaceful assembly” – but leaves it to the courts to decide what “peaceful.” The case law has not commented in detail on the purpose of paragraph 2(c). However, what little is available suggests that freedom of assembly is intended to protect physical gatherings of people (Roach v. Canada (Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship), [1994] 2 FCR 406, 1994 CanLII 3453 (FCA)). However, the object or purpose of the meeting is not protected by paragraph 2(c) (R. v. Normore, 2005 ABQB 75, page 3; Roach v.
Canada, op. cit. The 1982 court decisions define the right to peaceful assembly as the right to hold a protest on public streets, to camp in a public park as part of that demonstration, and the right to wear masks during a demonstration. This “Know Your Rights” guide is the third in a series designed to help you understand your legal rights to freedom of expression and privacy. The Know Your Rights series is funded in part by IFEX and the Law Foundation of British Columbia and is part of PEN Canada`s Canadian programme. Special thanks to Patricia Snell and Stockwoods LLP for their legal and academic support on this guide. C.A.); Hussain v. Toronto (City) [2016] OJ No. No. 2768 (Div. Ct.)). It was also found that measures restricting the stay of homeless persons in public spaces did not violate paragraph 2 (c); in this case, however, the measures were found to violate section 7 of the Charter (Abbotsford (City) v.
Shantz, 2015 BCSC 1909). The protest itself is legal as long as you don`t break the law while you`re at it. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees your right to protest. In some cities, you must have a protest permit. Other routes are allowed as long as you can prove that you are not trying or are not likely to cause death or physical injury. Protesters on off-road roads can only be held responsible for endangering others if they wanted to, but it`s hard to prove in court what you wanted to do. Ask yourself, could someone reasonably argue that you wanted to hurt others? The police always have every reason to be patient and to rely on negotiation rather than violence. But at some point, one way or another, the law and the rights of others must ultimately be respected against illegal protests – whether they are left-wing, right-wing, center, truckers, whatever. However, all rights are limited, not just by the first section of the Charter, its “reasonable limits” clause. There is the inescapable fact that there are other people in society. If your right to protest were unlimited – anytime, anywhere, for as long as you want – then the rights of everyone else would be eroded. With the passage of Bill C-51, the definition of what constitutes a “terrorist offence” was broadened but vaguely defined.
Therefore, it is unclear whether a demonstration or protest can be considered to support or advocate terrorist offences, or whether you could personally be considered a terrorist if you demonstrate or protest. Prior to Bill C-51, the definition of a terrorist offence was based on various international conventions and was defined in the Canadian Criminal Code as any act motivated by personal beliefs (political, religious, etc.) that causes or threatens to cause death or injury to persons. Then, this week in Regina, Unifor workers` activists setting up a peaceful and legal picket line in front of the co-op refinery complex were confronted by dozens of Regina Police Service officers. Video of the confrontation shows police forcibly evicting protesters. There were reports that a protester was beaten when police moved a vehicle. Fourteen people were arrested, including Unifor President Jerry Dias. “Martial law is not really a defined legal concept in Canada,” Jackman said. But these same protesters are not allowed to park their trucks in the middle of the street day after day, for as long as they want.
Or set up road camps. Or honk those illegally parked vehicles at any time of the day or night. The Supreme Court has collectively characterized section 2 freedoms as protecting the fundamental rights of Canada`s liberal democratic society (Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 P.C.R. 3, at para. 48). Some jurisdictions have found that legal measures that impede freedom of assembly through appropriate regulation of public spaces and related public health and safety matters do not violate paragraph 2(c) (Pitts Atlantic Construction Ltd. v.
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 740 (1984), 7 D.L.R. (4th) 609 (Newfoundland Board); Hussain v. Toronto (City) [2016] OJ No. No. 2768 (Div. Ct.)). It was also found that article 2 (c) was not violated by measures restricting the stay of homeless persons in public spaces; in this case, however, the measures were found to be contrary to section 7 of the Charter (Abbotsford (City) v.
