Thread by @DavidAnber

🧵I wanted to elaborate a thread on this point for those who were interested.

https://twitter.com/DavidAnber/status/1530570552561254402

I wrote “The problem with our present situation — particularly in 🇨🇦 & very particularly in Ontario — is we have some laws which apply to everyone but which are very broad & thus rarely enforced (because to do so would capture tons of conduct) but they can be used selectively.”

Take for example the Trespass to Property Act. There’s all sorts of annoying human conduct which we (properly) put up with. The owner of a property (say a shopping mall) may not care for people with blue hair; ppl who have bad breath; people who talk loudly; ppl in large groups

But those people are allowed to be present on the private property. But all of a sudden, the owner of that mall can decide (even arbitrarily or whimsically) to not allow the person and the person must leave. This is true whether or not other people exhibit that annoying behaviour

As long as the reason isn’t related to race/religion etc the owner of the property has full discretion. And the police are required to enforce that discretion. There are certain down sides to this way of society operating but they are outweighed by private property interests.

But what happens when public property is the location? We saw this when @TheMenzoid kept reporting on @patrickbrownont’s apparently unethical use of a #Brampton arena during COVID measures. In the end the TPA was enforced and I had to go to court to get the charge dropped.

In the case of @CarymaRules (and I don’t know all the details) it appears that, although a private venue, it was the location of a political event by our premier @fordnation. I even read that Caryma had an invitation. She only became an unwanted guest at the premier’s whim.

In my view, the TPA became improperly used at that point. Like the case involving @TheMenzoid, she was involved in s.2 activity (free expression) &thus could not be excluded/arrested under the TPA which doesn’t apply to persons “acting under a right or authority conferred by law”

But that claim to the Charter right is interpretive, intangible and not something the police need (or at least not something they think they need) to sort out at the time. Later, in court, the person may be vindicated, but the improper use of the TPA will accomplish its goal…

…by removing a person right away. The Liquor Licence Act is also used this way allowing police to be present in a place with hundreds or even thousands of visibly intoxicated people and not act unless a specific person is called out for an arbitrary reason.

The LLA can then be used to detain or even arrest that person. Mischief provisions and “Cause Disturbance” provisions under the Criminal Code can also be used in this way. A loud protest may be protected under the Charter but if the powers that be decide they’ve had enough…

…like @JimWatsonOttawa did during the #FreedomConvoy2022 all of a sudden arguments can be made that the people are blocking a sidewalk, or shouting or swearing (things which happen all the time without enforcement) and thus are committing offences.

And so, it’s not that the laws are used politically where not such power exists; rather the power exists but laws are deliberately broad to capture lots of behaviour and the authorities use their judgment to NOT enforce them in most instances.

This, and the availability of resorting to the Charter only long after the exercise of state authority, makes these laws highly problematic in our society, particularly where they are used at the urging of politicians.