i can't find it, and i'm giving up.
as mentioned, i initially did this research in relation to some questions posed by some food not bombs protesters at city hall.
food not bombs is an anarchist soup kitchen that attempts to get the christians out of the process and get directly at the lumpenproletariat. it's essentially a ploy to talk to homeless people about anarchy. i didn't get much out of it, because nobody stopped to talk.
we had a choice between "serving" at the city hall or across the street, and i heard a lot of kind of populist fallacy common sense type rhetoric about reclaiming the city hall for the people. but, i remembered from one of the cases i had studied (i don't remember this, either) that this was actually backwards - you actually have less rights on public property, for the reason that your constitutional rights are so intrinsically tied into property in the first place.
i tracked down the precise laws, and i wrote up a summary and i posted it in some local activist spaces. there was a debate, but i think i got my point across - be careful bringing drugs into public spaces. you might think you have greater protections in public spaces, but you're actually not protected at all!
i can't find them. and, i'm giving up.
it was anti-terrorist legislation written in about 1980 or so, but it's still on the books. but, it hasn't been tested, and it would get struck down if it was.
iirc, the way the law is written is almost a direct negation of the relevant charter right against illegal searches. it's literally something like "the police have the right to search you without a warrant or probable cause if you are engaging in suspicious behaviour on provincially owned property", and it explicitly defined a rail link as a protected area.
i'm going to give up fairly soon. i wish that google wasn't so useless nowadays :\.
food not bombs is an anarchist soup kitchen that attempts to get the christians out of the process and get directly at the lumpenproletariat. it's essentially a ploy to talk to homeless people about anarchy. i didn't get much out of it, because nobody stopped to talk.
we had a choice between "serving" at the city hall or across the street, and i heard a lot of kind of populist fallacy common sense type rhetoric about reclaiming the city hall for the people. but, i remembered from one of the cases i had studied (i don't remember this, either) that this was actually backwards - you actually have less rights on public property, for the reason that your constitutional rights are so intrinsically tied into property in the first place.
i tracked down the precise laws, and i wrote up a summary and i posted it in some local activist spaces. there was a debate, but i think i got my point across - be careful bringing drugs into public spaces. you might think you have greater protections in public spaces, but you're actually not protected at all!
i can't find them. and, i'm giving up.
it was anti-terrorist legislation written in about 1980 or so, but it's still on the books. but, it hasn't been tested, and it would get struck down if it was.
iirc, the way the law is written is almost a direct negation of the relevant charter right against illegal searches. it's literally something like "the police have the right to search you without a warrant or probable cause if you are engaging in suspicious behaviour on provincially owned property", and it explicitly defined a rail link as a protected area.
i'm going to give up fairly soon. i wish that google wasn't so useless nowadays :\.