# What should Police do with Hezbolah Supporters



## jimb (3 Oct 2006)

So my question would be this...............If Hezbolah is on the Canadian Government's list of Terrorist groups, what should local Police do about people at a demo that are wearing T shirts with that name on ob it, or carrying the Hezbolah flag? Would that be "supporting a terror group"? What about speakers at that demo who are advocating in favour of Hezbolah? Should they be charged under our " Ant- Terrorism" Act?

Any comments?

JimB.


----------



## wotan (3 Oct 2006)

Well, if Hezbollah is on a "banned" list, I would presume that they would be subject to arrest, however, I'm not sure what the Criminal Code says about the situation.  Perhaps, their actions could fall under hate crime legislation?  Interesting question though.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

Unless they are agitating the crowd into a fighting frenzy OR unless they are actively raising funds - not much you can do...  You see some Nazi flags and memorabelia - pert much in the same line of thought....

Some uninformed citzens support Hezbollah for the good things they have done - so, regardless of the AK on the flag, it's not a crime to weat a TShirt or wave a flag.


----------



## patrick666 (3 Oct 2006)

I don't believe the Anti-Terrorism Act prohibits the use of flags or other forms of support to terrorist groups aside from fiancial, contribution to a terrorist, instructing a terrorist act or harbouring a terrorist. The Anti-Terrorism act defines terrorism as _"taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system."_ - Waving a flag that represents a designated terrorist group does not fall under that definition

A hate crime is as follows:


*Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred* - http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

communicate statements, 
in a public place, 
incite hatred against an identifiable group, 
in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace. 
Under section 319, "communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a "public place" is one to which the public has access by right or invitation, express or implied; and "statements" means words (spoken, written or recorded), gestures, and signs or other visible representations.

I am not familiar with Hezbollah's ideals or philosophies and cannot comment wether it is hate-mongering or not.


----------



## Trinity (3 Oct 2006)

Patrick H. said:
			
		

> *Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred* - http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm
> 
> The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:
> 
> ...



And... even if someone did this......

The police would probably film at let the rally happen and arrest AFTERWARDS (hours to days/weeks).  To arrest during would be too difficult
and might possibly cause a huge uproar.  After that, anytime a convicted person holds an event maybe they could pre-empt
it because of their history.


----------



## Blakey (3 Oct 2006)

Interesting,

Participating, Facilitating, Instructing and Harbouring



> 83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
> 
> Prosecution
> (2) An offence may be committed under subsection (1) whether or not
> ...


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267115.html

One can only hope that, in lieu of timely arrests, an agency would be collecting information on _said_ individuals/organizations.


----------



## Klc (3 Oct 2006)

Although technically, nothing is stopping you from 'detaining' the individuals should you believe they met the prior circumstances  ;D



> 494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
> 
> *(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence*; or
> 
> ...



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267889.html#Section-494


----------



## jimb (24 Oct 2006)

My intention was to stimulate debate about this subject and to guage the forum's point of view on those in Canada who openly support a terrorist group like Hezbolah.

Should citizens who support terror groups be subject to investigation by CSIS and or other Canadian Police forces?  I say YES for sure. And the person who commented about video at demos is right on the money, to get a record of the activity and as future court room evidence of the act. And in many cases it is a bad idea to arrest at the moment that the offence has occured. I was taught that YES you can arrest someone in a church, BUT it is as really bad idea to do that. Makes a stink. Same thing with demos, get the guy later, once he is identified accurately. 

In fact doing a good background and "known associates " investigation should be the first part of building a good air tight case against the terror group supporters.  Someone who is so much behind a terror group, that they attend demos,  will have friends of the same ilk, so lets set a wide net and find them all. 

Jim B . Toronto.


----------



## MPIKE (24 Oct 2006)

Well despite the links and references to sections of law the entire issue is not that black and white..   The issue of enforcement gets more difficult with case law findings like this;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/24/khawaja-ruling.html
 :

The police can only operate within the parameters they are given.  It's not a policing issue in solving this issue is one of governance.
And now that the definition of "Terrorism" has been questioned the issue is further clouded.


----------



## Jacqueline (24 Oct 2006)

There is another _similar_ topic...(this may be relevant)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50480.0.html


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

> What should Police do with Hezbolah Supporters


 Hook 'em up to that cool chair from A Clockwork Orange, and make 'em sit through 72 hours of back-to-back Barney videos. That'll learn the bastards!


----------



## niner domestic (24 Oct 2006)

I'd hold off on any further discussions until further information comes out of an Ontario court. The judge has severed a portion of the Crim Code that deals with Terrorism and it's definition.  The rules it seems, keep changing.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (24 Oct 2006)

I enjoyed reading this thread.  Honestly it will put a smile on my face for hours.  I really like the new way people are discussing here,  and I love how people are citing specific laws.



			
				Klc said:
			
		

> Although technically, nothing is stopping you from 'detaining' the individuals should you believe they met the prior circumstances  ;D



**wet blanket alert**
     With respect,  if you perform a citizen's arrest,  you better have some really compelling reasons. It is extremely easy to sue in civil court for unlawful confinement. And when I say easy I mean if you're accused of shoplifting and they say "Come with us now or we will embarrass you by pointing and saying he is a shoplifter" you can sue for unlawful confinement. In civil court the measure is "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt". The last thing you want is a civil case - I'd rather have the crown press charges against me than to have a really angry person with deep pockets who just wants to make my life miserable haul me infront of a judge.

     It is not your right to stop others with whom you disagree from performing a political statement.  Please remember that an indictable offence is a more serious charge.  Vandalism (under a certain $$$ damage) or j-walking are so far away from indictable most police officers don't bother with them.   You can arrest for trespassing,  if you are the owner or an agent of the owner.  Now for public land,  who would have authority to act on behalf of the owner,  the police?  ;-)

(Just as a side note - I'm not sure,  but I think desecrating a grave is an indictable offence.  As is indecent exposure - a sexual assault.  Now I'm not sure on this)

Now with my standard wet-blanket stuff out of the way,  your voice is as free as theirs.  If you're out of uniform and in no way identify yourself as a member of the CF and off duty ... well still please still conduct yourself with dignity and grace.    

And if you feel the police are not enforcing certain laws,  phone up them up and complain. If you really really want,  you can later issue a formal complaint to the crown,  with your evidence against specific individuals.  (Video tapes work well) On a plus side you don't have to pay for the court fees if the crown looses and if they are convicted and a non citizen,  they're out of the country. (They the whine and complain when they're back in their land how Canada is a big mean country that kicks you out for no reason - how unfair)


----------



## neko (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Hook 'em up to that cool chair from A Clockwork Orange, and make 'em sit through 72 hours of back-to-back Barney videos. That'll learn the bastards!


Advocating torture?!!


----------



## youravatar (24 Oct 2006)

neko said:
			
		

> Advocating torture?!!


Strenuous Interogation Techniques....at least thats what america tells us ^^


----------



## paracowboy (24 Oct 2006)

neko said:
			
		

> Advocating torture?!!


social re-education. Barney teaches kids to love everyone, he can teach anti-Semites, too.



			
				youravatar said:
			
		

> Strenuous Interogation Techniques....at least thats what america tells us


I know your tongue is firmly in cheek, but the various techniques employed by the US in their PW/Detainee camps is no different than many techniques they (and we) use to teach our own personnel to resist interrogation on many different courses. It sucks, but it ain't torture.

A Streisand concert...now THAT'S torture!


----------



## neko (24 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> social re-education. Barney teaches kids to love everyone, he can teach anti-Semites, too.


Ah now I understand you, it could work.
Or they'll just plot to blow up the purple guy. 
The thought has crossed my mind a time or two. >


----------



## youravatar (25 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> social re-education. Barney teaches kids to love everyone, he can teach anti-Semites, too.
> I know your tongue is firmly in cheek, but the various techniques employed by the US in their PW/Detainee camps is no different than many techniques they (and we) use to teach our own personnel to resist interrogation on many different courses. It sucks, but it ain't torture.
> 
> A Streisand concert...now THAT'S torture!


Speaking of anti-semites. Streisand?! She's jewish. Don't reinforce their beliefs.


----------



## FredDaHead (25 Oct 2006)

youravatar said:
			
		

> Speaking of anti semantics. Streisand?! She's jewish. Don't reinforce their beliefs.



Anti-semantics, eh? What, they want newspeak to replace English? I mean, I know English sucks, but advocating violence against a poor, defenseless language.

..OH! You meant anti-semitic! My bad.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Oct 2006)

aaannnnd, we're officially off the rails! Wheee!


----------

