G20 Protester Clash with Police
[gallery]
NEWS | TORONTO G20 SUMMIT
Man arrested under ’secret law’ plans Charter challenge
A protester arrested under the “secret law” to detain people near the security zone plans to challenge its legality.
First ‘secret law’ arrestee plans Charter challenge
Lawyers say law’s creation is reminiscent of a ‘police state’
Published On Fri Jun 25 2010
A tourist places his camera through a small opening the in the security fence to take a photo of mounted officers in riot gear as they prepare to go on patrol Friday.
TANNIS TOOHEY/TORONTO STAR
More about
Toronto G20 Summit»
Reaction to police special powers
Noor Javed and John Goddard
Staff Reporters
The first protestor arrested under the “secret law” that gives police the right to apprehend anyone near the G20 security zone who refuses to identify himself has announced he’s launching a Charter challenge to the law.
“I take my civil rights seriously,” Dave Vasey, 31, said at a news conference at Allan Gardens Friday night. “I’ll be filing a lawsuit to challenge constitutionality of this dangerous police state law.” He said he planned to do so Monday.
Vasey was arrested Thursday afternoon while exploring the G20 perimeter with his friend and was questioned by an officer at York St. and Bremner Blvd.
When he refused to identify himself, he was held under the Public Works Protection Act, taken to the Eastern Ave. detention centre, a former movie studio serving temporarily as a prisoner holding pen, and charged with refusing to comply with a peace officer under the act. He is to appear July 28 to face the charge.
“I believed at all times I was acting legally,” Vasey said, adding he was unaware of the new law passed without publicity by provincial cabinet June 2.
Anyone convicted under the regulation could face up to two months in jail or a fine of $500.
“Our argument is that this regulation contravenes the charter of rights,” his lawyer, Howard Morton, said earlier in the day. “The charter under section guarantees people freedom of assembly, the freedom of communication, and this clearly violates that.”
The new regulation gives police sweeping powers to interrogate individuals, search without warrant, and deny entry to those deemed to be suspicious who come within five metres of the security fence.
A day after Vasey’s arrest brought the new regulation to light, lawyers across the city said both the sweeping police powers and the way the regulation was enacted are reminiscent of a “police state.”
“It doesn’t cast our country in a very good light, that we would go to such drastic measures to suppress basic civil liberties, like the right to protest,” said Paul Burstein, president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.
“It isn’t just the invasiveness of the power that is so troubling, but that it was done in secret so that by the time we can do something about, it will have run its course,” he said.
“We are trying to present this image of peacekeepers and all that . . . but here we are, we turn ourselves into a police state to host the world. It’s embarrassing.”
For the past few weeks, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, it has been in talks with police to clarify the rules in and around the security zone: What are the rights of citizens, what search powers are police entitled to, and what should protestors be told before they go out to protest. They were told of a number of requirements, rules and laws that could be invoked.
But the Public Works Protection Act never came up, they said. Not once. Not even when the CCLA sent the police a version of the “Know Your Rights” brochure to review before handing it out to protestors as they geared up for the summit.
“They replied to us, but nowhere was this legislation even mentioned,” said Abby Deshman, a project manager with the CCLA — making it too late for the CCLA to do anything about it.
“We would have had to file weeks ago to be able to get into court to get an injunction,” Deshman said.
This is the first time such a “disturbing” regulation has been put in place in Canada, said professor Robert Diab, of Capilano University in British Columbia, who has written extensively on public order policing in Canada.
“Usually major powers and restrictions on our rights are not brought into law through a regulation,” said Diab. “They are usually debated in a legislature and debated on in an open and transparent fashion,” he said.
“There ought to have been some debate on this, and there was none. This was a law that was crafted behind closed doors and passed without any public discussion whatsoever.”
The closest example was employed during the Vancouver Olympics, when the city passed a bylaw allowing for creation of security zones and searches of people moving in and out of those zones, he said. But that law was debated in council, was made public and challenged by citizens.
The Public Works Protection Act was consolidated in 1990, and defines a “public work” as anything from railway to a bridge to a provincial building. The act says any other building, place or work can be designated a public work by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The act was challenged in Hamilton in 2005, after a woman was charged with trying to enter a courthouse, a public works building, and found to be in possession of marijuana. Her lawyers tried to argue that a search was warranted only if police had probable grounds and obtained a warrant. But the Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the search, claiming courthouses are “potential targets” that need to be kept safe.
This time around, Diab believes Vasey has a much stronger case — especially if the police and Crown follow through with charges under this law.
If he is fined and prosecuted for an offence committed under that Act, Vasey can challenge its constitutional validity. Even if he isn’t charged, he could seek damages for the violation of his rights.
“He has options, and I think many would agree that he has quite the case to make,” Diab said.
“In addition, this is not consistent with the rule of law in Canada. We don’t make laws secretly and we don’t arrest and detain people for laws that were made secretly. These are police state tactics.”
