Update Tuesday Oct 20, 8:45 pm — Bayshore Broadcasting report
Update Tuesday Oct. 20, 8:10 am: Michael Schmidt was released by police this morning after police took his fingerprints by force. So the bail hearing earlier planned for today is no longer happening because Michael has already been released from police custody. Michael posted the following this morning on FB:
“Michael released in the early morning hours after three officers forced him to be fingerprinted and photographed.
Arrested without charged.
released without being charged
This prevents a public bail hearing today, which might have been too much for bureaucrats.
No Bail Hearing today.
Next court hearing October 26. 2015 in Walkerton at 9.30 am”
Editor’s note: We thought that Michael had been charged with theft under $5,000 for not turning over the cameras to the police when they asked. However in his latest post on FB, Michael seems to be saying he was arrested without being charged? We’re awaiting clarification.
According to a report posted Monday Oct. 19th, at about 10 pm by Liz Reitzig:
“Michael Schmidt was detained this evening (October 19, 2015) by the West Grey Police. He has bail hearing tomorrow, October 20, 2015 at the Walkerton Court House at 1:30pm. He is asking for supporters to be there in peaceful solidarity…”
As predicted, this would seem to have been timed to be eclipsed by Canada’s federal election coverage, which will likely dominate the news for the next day or so.
Gwen Jacobs commented, also on FB: “Preliminary news from the front lines indicates they are detaining Michael because he refused to be fingerprinted.”
Event listing for tonight’s march to the Police Station (from FB):
“Michael Schmidt has been charged with theft and mischief and has been summoned to appear for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act at 7:00 pm on Monday October 19, 2015. He will be fingerprinted and his photograph taken. A warrant for Michael’s arrest may be issued immediately to have him detained as is set under his current bail conditions regarding the sheep trial.
Please plan to meet us Monday October 19, 2015 at 6:30 pm sharp! Park at the West Grey Public Library at 240 Garafraxa Street, N (which is Hwy 6) in Durham. It’s a 2 minute walk from there to the police station at 153 George Street. We will be walking together, with Michael, in protest against authorities who go beyond guidelines when it comes to your privacy.
Google Map link to location: http://tiny.cc/azau4x
Vote during the day and join us in the evening to make tomorrow dedicated to democracy! We need you there to peacefully express your disapproval of this action.
We need to show the media, police and authorities that:
* there is a great deal of support behind Michael
* we will not tolerate surveillance
* these charges are another form of unreasonable harassment
Dress warmly! The police station is not open at this time and we’ll not be able to go inside. Bring your family! Bring your friends! You can make signs that act as your voice or simply gather with us silently. Showing up to be present is most critical. This is an important action that gives farm owners and the public a choice opportunity to demonstrate that protecting one’s privacy is a right that we are not willing to ignore.
Two surveillance cameras were found on trees in the ditches on either side of Glencolton Farm in late July. Michael reported these cameras to be found and the police demanded that they be handed in. It was clearly outlined to the police and to the municipal council that these cameras are of public concern and they would not be returned until the public was made aware of who the cameras belonged to, and what their purpose was. The police threatened to charge Michael with theft… and now they have done so.
Read the Sun Times (Owen Sound) article:http://tiny.cc/yyeu4x
Federal government guidelines for the use of video surveillance under the Privacy Act
We believe that the guidelines (see quoted sections below) have not been properly followed.
“The public should have a right to know about the video surveillance system that has been adopted.
Police forces and public authorities should recognize that individuals will want information about video surveillance systems. They may seek to know, for example, who has authorized the recording, whether and why their images have been recorded, what the images are used for, who has access to them, and how long they are retained. Police forces and public authorities should be prepared to provide this information
Public consultation should precede any decision to introduce video surveillance.
Public consultation should be conducted with relevant stakeholders, including representatives of communities that will be affected. “Community” should be understood broadly; it should be recognized that a particular geographic area may have several distinct communities, and one community should not be presumed to speak for the others.
The public should be advised that they will be under surveillance.
The public should be informed with clearly written signs at the perimeter of surveillance areas, which advise that the area is or may be under surveillance, and indicate who is responsible for the surveillance, including who is responsible for compliance with privacy principles, and who can be contacted to answer questions or provide information about the system.””