Jump to content
C2045

B.C. Teen Arrested for Photographing Mall Takedown

Recommended Posts

A B.C. teen who aspires to be a journalist says his rights were violated when he was set upon by security guards and then arrested by police after photographing an incident at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C.

Jakub Markiewicz ,16, said he was in the mall in September and took a picture of what he thought was a newsworthy event — a man being arrested by security guards.

hi-bc-121026-metrotown-takedown-4col.jpgSecurity guards pin a man at Metrotown mall in an incident that led to a confrontation with the photographer. (Jakub Markiewicz)

But Markiewicz said the guards quickly turned on him, demanding he delete the photo, which he couldn’t do because he was shooting on a film camera.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...st.html?cmp=rss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most important quote for us in this report is

Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metrotown seems to be overly concerned with photographs taken on their property. I have only been there a few times while on vacation, but I recall 2 times when I have been approached by security while taking photographs in the area.

One time I literally walked 1 foot away onto the public city sidewalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawyer Douglas King, of Pivot Legal in Vancouver, agrees, saying that private mall security guards and police have no right to try to seize someone’s camera or demand that photos be deleted — even on private property.

And if I recall correctly, this goes for anywhere in Canada, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if I recall correctly, this goes for anywhere in Canada, right?

Correct. In Winnipeg, I take photos around the city all the time, without anyone harassing me or telling me to delete them, except the occasional bus driver who has no idea that he's driving one of the last 800-series or the dwindling Classics, therefore thinking I'm taking pictures of him. -sigh-

Calgary was the same, I've heard that Southcentre and Chinook Centres ban photography, but using my camera there before, I've never been approached. Same with Calgary Transit, ETS, West Edmonton Mall and YEG/Edmonton Intl. Airport. I just can't believe theres places in this country where people can't be able to take photographs, which happens to be in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under "Freedom of Movement" or "Freedom of Expression". I didn't know this was Nazi Germany... and if it is, I'll meet you with a D40 somewhere in a Northern European socialist country, free from such censorship garbage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this doesn't surprise me. For good reason - I work in the mall this incident happened in. Security has always had issues with power tripping. But it's only because of their job, catching shoplifters. And protecting the staff and merchandise. As soon as they have a reason, they go all out. There is always two sides to a coin, but from what I see. Security caught an aggressive shoplifters. And possibly assumed that the kids was a relative. Like I said, when they get a chance to catch someone they will go for it. But they still stepped out of line.

-Bryan "Goggles"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't believe theres places in this country where people can't be able to take photographs, which happens to be in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under "Freedom of Movement" or "Freedom of Expression". I didn't know this was Nazi Germany...

Um, no. A few misguided transit employees and mall security guards telling you not to take photos are a far, far cry from the inhuman atrocities of Nazi Germany.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, no. A few misguided transit employees and mall security guards telling you not to take photos are a far, far cry from the inhuman atrocities of Nazi Germany.

+10

How the hell does anything involving photography compare to Nazi Germany?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as photography is still legal by law they can't do anything. But you can press charges if they damage you or your property.

agreed he just may have a case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I was referring to the forced censorship from the security guards and police, telling him to delete it and when he couldn't, he'd get physically attacked, has his bag cut from him, and a whole bunch of other tactics. Boy, does that sound familiar...

But agreed, they've done much, much worse in Nazi Germany, which makes this look like nothing. And since I'm very much on the left, you could also say the same about Mao Zedong, Erich Honecker and Joseph Stalin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh you do know that commies are leftists?

Did you read the rest of my post? Those three leaders weren't exactly innocent to atrocities themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. In Winnipeg, I take photos around the city all the time, without anyone harassing me or telling me to delete them, except the occasional bus driver who has no idea that he's driving one of the last 800-series or the dwindling Classics, therefore thinking I'm taking pictures of him. -sigh-

Calgary was the same, I've heard that Southcentre and Chinook Centres ban photography, but using my camera there before, I've never been approached. Same with Calgary Transit, ETS, West Edmonton Mall and YEG/Edmonton Intl. Airport. I just can't believe theres places in this country where people can't be able to take photographs, which happens to be in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under "Freedom of Movement" or "Freedom of Expression". I didn't know this was Nazi Germany... and if it is, I'll meet you with a D40 somewhere in a Northern European socialist country, free from such censorship garbage!

...I was referring to the forced censorship from the security guards and police, telling him to delete it and when he couldn't, he'd get physically attacked, has his bag cut from him, and a whole bunch of other tactics. Boy, does that sound familiar...

But agreed, they've done much, much worse in Nazi Germany, which makes this look like nothing. And since I'm very much on the left, you could also say the same about Mao Zedong, Erich Honecker and Joseph Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump

Honestly because of stuff like this, I stopped caring about people like that. I just immediately go "You want to make an issue over this? Then go ahead and charge me, but I'll be seeing you in court as I will be disputing it". People usually back down pretty quickly if you take that stance. If they don't and they do charge me, then I will take it to court! I don't care, as court is fun anyway, since you get to prove your point, which I like to prove my point. I find this is easier then trying to say "It is allowed", as it either shuts them up quicker, or it ends it with me being fined sooner. Either way I know in the end, after court is done, I will win no matter what. Luckily I haven't gotten to the point that I need to take this to court, as most people just back down.

I've taken this stance ever since a driver threatened to charge me for taking "his photo". I was like "Go ahead! I ain't doing anything wrong, bring the constables here". The special constables actually ended up being on my side in that situation (which was nice to have the law enforcement on my side for once). So I found that it worked very well there, so I've been using it ever since. It also really speed up the situation as I was done with them within 5 minutes, and was allowed to continue to take photos (even though that photo that started it was actually going to be my last photo of the night, as it was too dark).

Oh and now the City of Ottawa has finally clarified the meaning of "personal photography" here, and it is indeed "non-commercial photography". This was because they reviewed the bylaw but found no changes were necessary, but clarification was necessary. This was in response to the latest youtube "sensations", which the photo bylaw came into question during that period, which now appears to be over with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump

Honestly because of stuff like this, I stopped caring about people like that. I just immediately go "You want to make an issue over this? Then go ahead and charge me, but I'll be seeing you in court as I will be disputing it". People usually back down pretty quickly if you take that stance. If they don't and they do charge me, then I will take it to court! I don't care, as court is fun anyway, since you get to prove your point, which I like to prove my point. I find this is easier then trying to say "It is allowed", as it either shuts them up quicker, or it ends it with me being fined sooner. Either way I know in the end, after court is done, I will win no matter what. Luckily I haven't gotten to the point that I need to take this to court, as most people just back down.

I've taken this stance ever since a driver threatened to charge me for taking "his photo". I was like "Go ahead! I ain't doing anything wrong, bring the constables here". The special constables actually ended up being on my side in that situation (which was nice to have the law enforcement on my side for once). So I found that it worked very well there, so I've been using it ever since. It also really speed up the situation as I was done with them within 5 minutes, and was allowed to continue to take photos (even though that photo that started it was actually going to be my last photo of the night, as it was too dark).

Oh and now the City of Ottawa has finally clarified the meaning of "personal photography" here, and it is indeed "non-commercial photography". This was because they reviewed the bylaw but found no changes were necessary, but clarification was necessary. This was in response to the latest youtube "sensations", which the photo bylaw came into question during that period, which now appears to be over with.

That's actually a pretty good idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty pathetic. I find a lot of the problem is the fact that security guards have very little screening or education to make it where they are. Same goes for police officers, really. Extensive character checks and anti-oppressive trainings are a must to help prevent these power-tripping nutbars from occupying jobs like this. And there needs to be a way to mitigate these people from letting their power, and stressful situations getting to their heads over the course of their careers. Because apparently, "no one is above the law" doesn't seem to be understood by some, like these. The law being that they cannot order him to delete photos or take away his camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been there yet, I plan to go their next summer but I know my rights, I know what's legal and not. Security guards are not police and do not have the right touch me or my property, let alone stop me! (with the exception of theft *that they saw took place*, from which they can engage in a citizen's arrest.) Unless specifically prohibited by a sign or a security guard on behalf of the property owners request you desist, you're are legally allowed to photograph anywhere that is accessible to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...