Strange how the CPF calls these people rioters when the state and media call them gathering protestors and demonstrators. As the Americans have it, once a protester breaks (or disobeys) the law they become a rioter. I guess it is a labelling thing…
I mean our Gathering Act clearly illustrates ‘riot damage’. A demonstration is 1-15 persons, a gathering is more than 15 persons. Our law doesn’t cover rioters, only conveners (a-hem, generals in this case) and persons, and the abovementioned riot damage. I don’t see the Gathering Act being applied here in strength, neither any other Act accompanying the Gathering Act under these circumstances.
As I have it, thanks to the university protests and the result, protesters (actually, the conveners) may not be criminalised anymore as parts were declared unconstitutional. I don’t know how the unconstitutional parts will be ignored here, but the conveners may only be imposed by civil liability. Section 17 was very loosely applied here, I mean these university conveners not only instigated criminal acts but some also participated therein and parts within the Act was declared unconstitutional. Then they say it is the criminal elements (or 3rd Force)… I don’t always understand the interpretation our country makes when dealing with riotous masses.