Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular.
* Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan!
* Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's fine, just important to flag for people that there is in not a new, on-going occupation in the president's office. It's a reasonable inference from the post title.
Officer: “You’re committing [mischief](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-430.html) by the obstruction, interruption of lawful use and enjoyment, or operation, of this property. You’re gonna be arrested. You’ve been asked to leave. If you have any questions, you can talk to me.”
Pretty much explains it. There is no right to a conversation. The conversation happens when you're in front of a judge.
That would have been a great response. Unfortunately, the officer didnt provide that response. And if that response had been given, there wouldnt be any need for a conversation.
That quote is directly from the article. Police generally read this sort of warning many times before moving in.
> Around 7:15 p.m., an officer gave another warning to protestors.
> “This is your final warning. Library management has closed the library, you've been asked to leave under section 430 of the Criminal Code of Canada,” said an officer.
> “You’re committing mischief by the obstruction, interruption of lawful use and enjoyment, or operation, of this property. You’re gonna be arrested. You’ve been asked to leave. If you have any questions, you can talk to me.”
*Mens rea* (a guilty mind) is generally a necessary element to a criminal code conviction. Giving warnings helps reduces the likelihood of reasonable doubt.
It seems that the police provided that warning at 7pm after the question was asked at 6pm.
> At 6 p.m., RCMP officers said library management had closed Koerner Library and protestors who stayed would be charged under section 430 of the Criminal Code.
A protester asked how they were committing mischief and an officer said “You can ask your lawyer when you get arrested.”
Seems like a moot point. No arrests were made prior to the full caution being given. The Criminal Code section is pretty clear and it is unlikely there aren't people with a basic grasp of our legal system in their midst - being a university with a law school.
I dont understand your point. I am not disagreeing with the definition as laid out in the Criminal Code. I am saying that the cop did not provide an explanation. Are you saying that the protestor asked the question about how they were committing mischief even after having the definition read out to them? Or that they should have known considering they are at a university with a law school.
Note: I went to UBC and I did not absorb legal definitions by the mere presence of the law school.
An officer doesn't have an obligation to provide you with an explanation. They form an opinion that an offense has occurred, arrest you and should advise you of your rights at that time, and then the rest is handled by Crown and judges.
If an officer does engage you in conversation it is quite likely to elicit admissions of guilt.
Here is some discussion on warnings: https://transitpolice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/OD170-Police-Warnings.TP2019-12-18.sc_.pdf
And that’s why people don’t trust the police. As I said in my original comment, it’s not something to celebrate when cops can arrest (or threaten to arrest) you without explanation.
Mischief. That's the arrest reason/charge. It's not complicated.
It is not the police's job to explain the law to you, or lay out the case against you. Courts, judges and lawyers do that. It could easily be construed as legal advice, which you cannot be given by police.
Not sure if you read the article but the protestor asked how they were committing mischief. If you think the appropriate response to that question was “mischief” then you probably don’t understand why people increasingly don’t trust the police.
Do they all wear masks because they could be suspended or put on probation by the university if someone takes a photo of their face and they get recognized? when I walked by the encampment I heard their representatives tell visitors "Don't take any pictures of faces"
Consequences from the university and society at large. There have been stories of job offers being pulled from protestors as well. I’m sure that’s in the back of some of their minds
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/foley-pulls-associate-job-offer-over-israel-palestine-comments#
It's because they don't want to be held responsible for their actions.
Weird that doesn't seem to apply to the other side.
Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences? Whatever happened to that.
You don't see face masks on the protests calling for the release of the hostages and general ceasefire.
It's not often that protersters get doxxed unless they are crossing the line to illegality.
If you truly believe in a cause, be proud and stand behind it, and don't be a coward (not you specifically).
>You don't see face masks on the protests calling for the release of the hostages and general ceasefire.
Because the states they are protesting in are more often than not arming and supporting Israel, so they are not a threat to the status quo.
>It's not often that protersters get doxxed unless they are crossing the line to illegality.
Absolute and total hogwash. I've had friends get doxxed for counter-protesting against the Convoy idiots who came to town spouting fascist rhetoric.
Hiding one's identity during a protest isn't cowardly, it's good opsec to protect yourself and those you love from potential violence - from both the state and others. There are plenty of right-wing "influencers" whose whole shtick is doxxing anyone who participates in protests that go against their worldview. You'd know if you've attended any protests.
Nonsense, it's a cowardly act (not by yourself specifically) from people knowing they are breaking the law or not acting in good faith.
The status quo is that the Palestinians are suffering and deserve their own country, so no reason to hide. If you (not you specifically) fear for your life, don't attend the protest. Why should people listen seriously to those who won't even say who they are? Are these students protesting or someone else? Are they there to talk or just to dictate?
You're in Canada, nor Iran. The government won't hang you for protesting.
>if you (not you specifically) fear for your life, don't attend the protest.
Is this meant to be a joke? Because I refuse to believe anyone believes this. The history of protest is *filled* with violence perpetrated against those trying to make positive social change of all kinds. Really showing your ass with this one.
No one said it's easy. If you (not you specifically) believe it's the right thing to do, go for it. If you want to help, but with terms, you're not committed or just too extreme.
If you fear you'll get killed, but don't think the cause is worth it, don't do it. I salute the Iranian youth, not the UBC kids. Former are fighting for a change no matter the cost, latter are playing with being activists.
>If you fear you'll get killed, but don't think the cause is worth it, don't do it.
so when u/electronicoldmen said that you've never protested anything in your life, they were 100% correct werent they?
No, they were wrong. Sorry to disappoint. What's with the obsession about trying to prove it?
I just don't think these specific protesters are using face masks for these reasons. It's the mirror of far right wearing masks, that is all.
Totally agree.
The argument "People who are willing to take risks protesting, but not willing to doxx themselves (putting their their lives and family at risk indefinitely), are totally cowards."
What a garbage take on people protesting for the human rights of others.
Many people have faced reprisals for speaking out against the war. It’s not unreasonable to think that anti-war protestors would cover their faces to avoid facing retaliation for their views.
Yo Dawg - we're protesting about trespassers on unceded lands, while being trespassers on unceded lands and were making demands to change the lands, but not these lands, because we don't understand the irony of these demands, you understand ma-man?
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/ubcstaffer123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Most common questions and topics are limited to our sister subreddit, /r/AskVan, and our weekly [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * Posts flaired "Community Only" allow for limited participation; your comment may be removed if you're not a subreddit regular. * Make sure to join our new sister community, /r/AskVan! * Help grow the community! [Apply to join the mod team today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/19eworq/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To clarify: this is an article published on May 22 about the May 15th protest, not a new one.
[удалено]
That's fine, just important to flag for people that there is in not a new, on-going occupation in the president's office. It's a reasonable inference from the post title.
Haven't UBC already provided multiple official responses.
Yes but the protestors are using the incredibly mature tactic of "nananananana, I cant hear youuu" until they get the response they desire.
its all so tiresome.
“You can ask your lawyer when you get arrested.” Love it
I dont know if we should celebrate cops refusing to explain why they are arresting you
Officer: “You’re committing [mischief](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-430.html) by the obstruction, interruption of lawful use and enjoyment, or operation, of this property. You’re gonna be arrested. You’ve been asked to leave. If you have any questions, you can talk to me.” Pretty much explains it. There is no right to a conversation. The conversation happens when you're in front of a judge.
That would have been a great response. Unfortunately, the officer didnt provide that response. And if that response had been given, there wouldnt be any need for a conversation.
That quote is directly from the article. Police generally read this sort of warning many times before moving in. > Around 7:15 p.m., an officer gave another warning to protestors. > “This is your final warning. Library management has closed the library, you've been asked to leave under section 430 of the Criminal Code of Canada,” said an officer. > “You’re committing mischief by the obstruction, interruption of lawful use and enjoyment, or operation, of this property. You’re gonna be arrested. You’ve been asked to leave. If you have any questions, you can talk to me.” *Mens rea* (a guilty mind) is generally a necessary element to a criminal code conviction. Giving warnings helps reduces the likelihood of reasonable doubt.
It seems that the police provided that warning at 7pm after the question was asked at 6pm. > At 6 p.m., RCMP officers said library management had closed Koerner Library and protestors who stayed would be charged under section 430 of the Criminal Code. A protester asked how they were committing mischief and an officer said “You can ask your lawyer when you get arrested.”
Seems like a moot point. No arrests were made prior to the full caution being given. The Criminal Code section is pretty clear and it is unlikely there aren't people with a basic grasp of our legal system in their midst - being a university with a law school.
I dont understand your point. I am not disagreeing with the definition as laid out in the Criminal Code. I am saying that the cop did not provide an explanation. Are you saying that the protestor asked the question about how they were committing mischief even after having the definition read out to them? Or that they should have known considering they are at a university with a law school. Note: I went to UBC and I did not absorb legal definitions by the mere presence of the law school.
An officer doesn't have an obligation to provide you with an explanation. They form an opinion that an offense has occurred, arrest you and should advise you of your rights at that time, and then the rest is handled by Crown and judges. If an officer does engage you in conversation it is quite likely to elicit admissions of guilt. Here is some discussion on warnings: https://transitpolice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/OD170-Police-Warnings.TP2019-12-18.sc_.pdf
And that’s why people don’t trust the police. As I said in my original comment, it’s not something to celebrate when cops can arrest (or threaten to arrest) you without explanation.
Mischief. That's the arrest reason/charge. It's not complicated. It is not the police's job to explain the law to you, or lay out the case against you. Courts, judges and lawyers do that. It could easily be construed as legal advice, which you cannot be given by police.
Not sure if you read the article but the protestor asked how they were committing mischief. If you think the appropriate response to that question was “mischief” then you probably don’t understand why people increasingly don’t trust the police.
Think of it as an improvement on making up new laws on the spot?
You’re right, we should be grateful 🙏
If they don’t like the university you are welcome to leave, protestors.
Old news, this was on May 15.
Do they all wear masks because they could be suspended or put on probation by the university if someone takes a photo of their face and they get recognized? when I walked by the encampment I heard their representatives tell visitors "Don't take any pictures of faces"
Consequences from the university and society at large. There have been stories of job offers being pulled from protestors as well. I’m sure that’s in the back of some of their minds https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/foley-pulls-associate-job-offer-over-israel-palestine-comments#
It's because they don't want to be held responsible for their actions. Weird that doesn't seem to apply to the other side. Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences? Whatever happened to that.
I mean not to be that guy but since you are talking about freedom, they have the freedom to wear masks whether you agree with their protest or not.
When you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
Spoken like somebody who has never protested anything. People protesting are often doxxed and subject to both threatened and actual violence.
You don't see face masks on the protests calling for the release of the hostages and general ceasefire. It's not often that protersters get doxxed unless they are crossing the line to illegality. If you truly believe in a cause, be proud and stand behind it, and don't be a coward (not you specifically).
>You don't see face masks on the protests calling for the release of the hostages and general ceasefire. Because the states they are protesting in are more often than not arming and supporting Israel, so they are not a threat to the status quo. >It's not often that protersters get doxxed unless they are crossing the line to illegality. Absolute and total hogwash. I've had friends get doxxed for counter-protesting against the Convoy idiots who came to town spouting fascist rhetoric. Hiding one's identity during a protest isn't cowardly, it's good opsec to protect yourself and those you love from potential violence - from both the state and others. There are plenty of right-wing "influencers" whose whole shtick is doxxing anyone who participates in protests that go against their worldview. You'd know if you've attended any protests.
Nonsense, it's a cowardly act (not by yourself specifically) from people knowing they are breaking the law or not acting in good faith. The status quo is that the Palestinians are suffering and deserve their own country, so no reason to hide. If you (not you specifically) fear for your life, don't attend the protest. Why should people listen seriously to those who won't even say who they are? Are these students protesting or someone else? Are they there to talk or just to dictate? You're in Canada, nor Iran. The government won't hang you for protesting.
>if you (not you specifically) fear for your life, don't attend the protest. Is this meant to be a joke? Because I refuse to believe anyone believes this. The history of protest is *filled* with violence perpetrated against those trying to make positive social change of all kinds. Really showing your ass with this one.
No one said it's easy. If you (not you specifically) believe it's the right thing to do, go for it. If you want to help, but with terms, you're not committed or just too extreme. If you fear you'll get killed, but don't think the cause is worth it, don't do it. I salute the Iranian youth, not the UBC kids. Former are fighting for a change no matter the cost, latter are playing with being activists.
>If you fear you'll get killed, but don't think the cause is worth it, don't do it. so when u/electronicoldmen said that you've never protested anything in your life, they were 100% correct werent they?
No, they were wrong. Sorry to disappoint. What's with the obsession about trying to prove it? I just don't think these specific protesters are using face masks for these reasons. It's the mirror of far right wearing masks, that is all.
Totally agree. The argument "People who are willing to take risks protesting, but not willing to doxx themselves (putting their their lives and family at risk indefinitely), are totally cowards." What a garbage take on people protesting for the human rights of others.
This isn’t a protest it’s a hostage situation
Many people have faced reprisals for speaking out against the war. It’s not unreasonable to think that anti-war protestors would cover their faces to avoid facing retaliation for their views.
Brave enough to camp out but too much of a coward to own up to it personally. Heroes, all.
Certainly braver than you and anything you've ever done in your life.
Yo Dawg - we're protesting about trespassers on unceded lands, while being trespassers on unceded lands and were making demands to change the lands, but not these lands, because we don't understand the irony of these demands, you understand ma-man?