Here’s the text of the amendment filed with e-laws earlier this month, designating “the area, within the area described in Schedule 1, that is within five metres…” So, it sounds like the five-metre security zone was actually inside the fence, not outside, as we were led to believe.

So, what’s up with our Chief and Police telling us that the five-metre zone was outside the fence? According to the Chief earlier today, he was “trying to keep the criminals out.”

Nice.

What does the Public Works Protection Act, actually say? Here is the full text, but, the gist is that any person “entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto” can be required “to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise” and that the guard “may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work.”

If the person refuses, they are guilty, because “the statement under oath of an officer or employee of the government, board, commission, municipal or other corporation or other person owning, operating or having control of a public work, as to the boundaries of the public work is conclusive evidence thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 4.”

I guess it doesn’t matter, then, whether the five-metres was inside or outside the fence, you could still be arrested for ‘approach’ to the fence, and you would be guilty based on the word of the person who arrested you.

Sigh. I’m going to have a nap. Maybe it’s all a dream.

Or, then again, maybe what we need to do is look at where else this Act has been applied (airports?) and question whether we are cool with forfeiting our civil liberties in the name of ‘security’.