How do you demand for a public inquiry anyway???
Charles, while I find the manner of your arrest disgusting, I am even more shocked by the theft of your pictures. Yet even that is not what I found most disturbing.
You say you were paraded infront of the conference attendees. According to the Geneva Convention, Article 13, paragraph 2, "Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." It seems you (and likely the other people arrested) do not even warrant POW status. Welcome to the police state.
10 comments:
Actually, Charlies, this guy IS off the mark. I posted in response to "My few hours in jail", indicating there is a difference between POWs and those accused of criminal/illegal activity.
I would encourage anybody who wants to jump on the quotation of Geneva Article 13 to note the title of Part II (in which Articles 12 and 13 appear) and read Article 12:
PART II
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12
Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
There is no "enemy power". There is no war. POWs are defined contingent upon a status of war. Please, drop the Geneva Section 13 arguments. They devalue those whose Genevea guarantees have actually been violated.
12:33 may be right however, public humiliation is unacceptable as it is against the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Police cops cannot deny the basic rights when arresting someone no matter what the charges are. In this case charges are of suspect and weak nature.
This sounds like that “I can do it therefore I am doing it and I am going to teach this person a lesson”. Police cop playing macho.
That's true, but not truth. The commentor didn't say they were prisoners of war, they said that they 'don't warrant the treatment of prisoners of war'.
But even articles of war are not absolute. For example, many people you talk to think we are in a 'war on terror', I saw a commentor say "we are at war with these people". However, Canada has been breaking the Geneva convention simply by abiding by the US definition that 'technically its not a war, its just a metaphoric war'.
I think the poster and Charles have excellent points here. There is a reason to have a Geneva convention, its importance doesn't lie in the specifics.
"cruel and unusual punishment" is a very serious issue. We can note that it is just one issue of many others-why was charles arrested, why weren't others, why were his pictures deleted, and also why was he paraded in front of the conference.
When a citizen of the country who is exercising their right to protest, or even worse, when they aren't even protesting but are standing back taking pictures, and they don't get the liberties granted prisoners of war, that's a serious issue. Charles was doing nothing 'criminal' or 'illegal'-he was in a public place taking photographs of a public event.
So I don't think making comparisons 'devalues' anything, that statement makes no sense. It seems very fitting here.
I think this is very important to continue, for example, this, I believe is the charge Charles was arrested for, 'obstruction':
139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,
is guilty of
(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
This charge has been thrown around a lot, and is especially worrisome. The police seem to think that if they don't like you, they can arrest you for 'obstruction'. There have been many flagrant abuses of this charge.
For example a mikmaq at the Burnt Church reserve was charged with 'obstruction' because he was filming a fellow native who was getting pummelled by RCMP officers.
In actuality 'obstruction' has serious uses, such as this:
http://www.canlii.org/nb/cas/nbqb
/2005/2005nbqb147.html
In this case a lawyer was taking bribes.
So the relevant question is, to what extent Charles 'obstructed' anything. We only have footage from several sources, unfortunately, none I've seen show the actual moment of the arrest.
Charles should definitely get two things: witnesses, and footage, if any exists. Somebody must have some.
So if the charge does not exist, and we don't know that yet, then obviously it is quite correct to make this analogy, especially since the 'criminal/illegal' aspect has been done away with.
Hey don't go talking Baby Talk to him. He got what he deserved. He broke the law.
Lets see if he has that silly smile on his face when he stands before The Man " THE JUDGE "
He should have known to stay away from a possible trouble making incident. Not being legit Media.
Being a Blogger, doesn't mean your Legit Media. He's got to learn this.
Charles was doing nothing 'criminal' or 'illegal'-he was in a public place taking photographs of a public event.
How many times does it need to be explained that it was NOT public property? He was not taking pictures of a public event, he was taking pictures of a crime in progress of which he was participating.
12:33 here again. I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of the treatment of Charles. I'm simply saying, the argument that he was treated unfairly has no basis in Geneva Article 13.
Something is not right for sure and if he feels he needs to question the police's action; he is in the right to do so. Good Luck Charles!
How many time does it need to be repeated that it IS PUBLIC PROPERTY. The Saint John Trade and Convention Centre is OWNED by the CITY OF SAINT JOHN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?? DOES IT SINK IN? Sorry to use caps but some people haven't taken their awake medication.
Plus, there were CBC reporters there as well, why were only FOUR people arrested if it was a 'crime in progress'. Why weren't the CBC, ATV,etc., reporters arrested?
And the commentor simply said that one would hope a canadian citizen, particularly when they seem to have done nothing wrong, would be treated as well as a POW as dictated under the Geneva Convention. I agree with that, I would think a canadian citizen would at least be accorded those rights (in fact more)
You only get a few posters here Charles, but out in the real world just about everybody I talked to about this agrees that this was a horrible misjustice. It's unfortunate because it puts those in favour of Atlantica in a negative light, which explains the non stop press against protestors in the Irving papers.
To Anonymous : 11:53 PM
You have some hilarious logic there. If you think that every square inch or property that is owned by the city is public property for public usage, you're delusional. By that strange thinking, are we supposed to have every right to barge into every private meeting being held at any given time in city hall or the convention centre? What about the jail, heck, we must be able to barge into the cells and do whatever we want, claiming it's public property? Or, gee, the library is public property, we should be able to go inside after hours even if the doors are locked... and since it's public property, we should be able to take whatever we want from the place, computers, fine money, etc., right?
You do not have the right to go anywhere you want whenever you want to do whatever you want. There are laws in this country.
Post a Comment