G8/G20 June 2010 Protest Watch

[Michael OLeary]

Regardless, two Godwins does not make a Reich.    ;D

 

[armyvern]

Regardless, two Godwins does not make a Reich.    ;D

Your comment touches on all the Reichs marx. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security talks about it today:

(....)
Meeting No. 29
Monday, July 12, 2010
3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Room 253-D, Centre Block

Orders of the Day

Meeting Requested by Four (4) Members of the Committee to Undertake a Study of the Issues Surrounding Security at the G8 and G20 Summits

(....)

More on the procedural nitty-gritty here at CBC.ca.

 

[George Wallace]

So?  The "Public" who complained so much about the $1 Billion price tag, has no qualms about spending another $1 Billion to have an (or several) inquiry into the whole thing. 

I would suggest that the people demanding this, do it themselves au gratus, and we will then file the Report away with all the others.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

We will be reassured that Canada is not a police state.

Seriously, where do you live?  Are you kidding me?  WTF would EVER suggest that Canada is anything that barely resembles a police state?!? Because the police in Toronto had to apply sections of the Ways & Means Act to make sure the city got through relatively unscathed?  They did the best with what they had.  You cannot possibly suggest there is some systemic issue when these actions were done for a couple of days in a situation of extreme crisis.  Take the leash off the lads the first day.  If Toronto hadn't have been so bloody soft handed, they could have averted lots of damage. 
But no.
They don't let the units do what is right and these clowns get emboldened to cause more and more damage.  Lighting a cruiser on fire with an officer in it for instance. 
So people got checked and ID'ed.  Big fracking deal.  How bad can it be? Does it happen every day? No. 
Seriously guy, get over it.  If these idiots don't like how it works, they can either not show up, do something in the face of blatant criminality or be prepared for a hickory massage. 
And guess what?  If it went to a simple vote, most Canadians would chose to see all the black class arse-clowns getting stomped by the horrible police you are so quick to denigrate.  There may be a massive air of tolerance all around, but all over the place I meet and talk to people who are simmering just below the surface.  A few more of these things, a few more violent actions with almost no repercussions, the scale is going to tip.  Then, some right wing politician is going to suggest some really kick azz legislation and actually maybe hold people accountable for their actions (horrifying a concept for some).  Then tubesteaks like you can look back at what you brought about by supporting idiocy and think "gee, I guess things were not that bad back then". 
[/rant]

Spending one more cent on this fiasco beyond prosecuting all the idiot children is pointless. 

 

[57Chevy]

Given the above, it's not necessary to prove that there was police misconduct to justify an inquiry.  There just needs to be a strong enough suspicion that the police were out of line.

Now Isn't that exactly what the anarchists want. A little more weakening of security forces. So the
next time there is a riot for any reason whatsoever, they can go about freely detroying all sorts of
private/public property. And if the cops try to do anything to stop them, Then the "police brutality"
cries become even louder.
Hey everybody............The police were out of line!!!!!!.......I think not.
I think it's outta line just suggesting an inquiry.

 

[George Wallace]

I am interested to see how the first anarchist (from SOAR) to go to trial today fairs in court with his defence.

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


Man detained for allegedly inciting violence at G20 faces Toronto judge
Tue Jul. 13 2010 7:16:28 AM
The Canadian Press


LINK

TORONTO — A man accused of orchestrating violence during the G20 protests will face a judge today.

Peter Hopperton is one of 20 people being investigated by police for their alleged role in planning violence during the recent summit.

Police say Hopperton is a member of the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance.

Yesterday, the court released two people accused of sparking violence over the summit weekend.

Montreal-based activist Jaggi Singh was granted release on $85,000 bail.

But he remains under house arrest and has agreed not to participate in demonstrations while on bail -- conditions he calls "humiliating."

=====================================================


Two more people arrested in G20 protests granted bail
Mon Jul. 12 2010 1:44:01 PM
The Canadian Press


LINK

TORONTO — Two more people arrested in the G20 protests have been granted bail in Toronto today.

Jaggi Singh turned himself in to police on July 6, after an arrest warrant was issued for him following the demonstrations.

He was granted release with $85,000 bail and must adhere to several conditions, including house arrest.

Amir Khadir, a provincial politician with the Quebec Solidaire party, is one of Singh's three sureties.

Patrick Cadorette was granted $47,000 bail and will be subject to similar conditions as Singh.

About 20 people have been identified as part of a police investigation into activities of people planning violent G20 action.

 

[PMedMoe]

But he remains under house arrest and has agreed not to participate in demonstrations while on bail -- conditions he calls "humiliating."

:crybaby:

:

 

[Kat Stevens]

Who gets to be in charge in an anarchist group?

 

[57Chevy]

Who gets to be in charge in an anarchist group?

I think it's some kind of warped "co-op" of sorts ;D

 

[Fusaki]

I would prefer to see that money go to keeping the arenas and pools open for the kids living in this city. To the children's breakfast clubs. The women's shelters, etc.

When you think of how much good work that money already spent in Toronto could have done:
http://www.breakfastclubs.ca/clubs.php

Protecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is more important than women's shelters, breakfast clubs, and most other things the government could be spending money on.

We live in a country that stays criminal charges if the police use to much force. As it should...

...Many people, even cops, want our way of life to continue. I love my freedoms. When I see assholes abuse those freedoms It bothers me intensely.

We have some common ground, then.

I don't see what else in your post is relevant to the discussion though.  If there are widespread allegations of police misconduct, why should they not be investigated?

WTF would EVER suggest that Canada is anything that barely resembles a police state?!? Because the police in Toronto had to apply sections of the Ways & Means Act to make sure the city got through relatively unscathed?

Yes, actually.

Since when are the police allowed to ignore the law because they feel the ends justify the means?

 

[57Chevy]

Well maybe when you are being provoked to act in a certain way, or outright attacked, while any
one of his anarchists friends are filming the whole little episode. Finding out later that you have been elected a yourtube star for "police brutality". ;D

But really....We charge someone for breaking the laws pertaining to "The Charter" and then they
turn around and use "The Charter" to protect themselves from prosecution.
First........THEY BROKE THE LAW!!!
So they should be tried for breaking the law, convicted, heavily fined, and sent to jail, etc..etc.
The police who allegedly so happen to seem to have gotten a little frustrated over some of the
endless vicious attacks of a screaming mob.........I'd say.......a slap on the wrist should be fine.
And why?.......simple.......they will learn from it. But those anarchists just can't wait to do the
same thing again and again
time 

 

[observor 69]

I agree that the police dealt with a difficult/challenging situation with an element of unknown factor on what they would encounter.
At the same time I see nothing wrong with investigating the many comments of people who were on the way to or from work or were in the area observing but got swept up by the strong police force at work.

 

[Container]

Protecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is more important than women's shelters, breakfast clubs, and most other things the government could be spending money on.

We have some common ground, then.

I don't see what else in your post is relevant to the discussion though.  If there are widespread allegations of police misconduct, why should they not be investigated?

Yes, actually.

Since when are the police allowed to ignore the law because they feel the ends justify the means?

Wonderbread,

While I have enjoyed your posts so far on this thread and you've given me pause once or twice I am starting to feel like you are ignoring my points.

I have already stated that it is fine to question the police actions during the protests. You as a free citizen should be able to find out everything your heart desires. Thats something every Canadian has the right to expect. However, just because you disagree with the answers you recieve does not mean that the police infringed on anyones "charter" rights. You must be prepared to get answers you dont like from the police AND the courts.

I've explained that the police do not need to see you break a law to arrest you. They need only have reasonable belief that you are about to break the law.  If their reasonableness is determined to be unreasonable at a later time you can expect a big cash reward. That is how the system works.

If you do not like the system you are free to vote in politicians who will assist you in overhauling police powers. That being said- you must be prepared for the results.

The lack of clarification on the "new sweeping arrest powers" I have admitted was poor PR and police action in general.

Inquiries have no legal binding anything. All they can do is make "recommendations" to avoid future similar problems. They cost MILLIONS of dollars and in the end get some very political words and then everyone is free to go about business as usual. There is no real power in an inquiry beyond feeling good.

The formal police complaint system, including the SIU in Ont, does however have power to go after individual officers who did something untoward. So if somebody was the victim of a police "infringement" they do have recourse. Of course the individuals who call for inquiries because they were victims have mostly avoided the actual police complaint system. Mostly because they are vets of public system and know where the easy juice is- media and shouting over actually using the mechanisms in place.

Of course there are LEGITIMATE complaints, I am positive, and those officers who did the wrong actions should be held to account.

The "rest of my post" was relevent because you have introduced the idea that we are in danger of a police state. I provided several examples of what would be acceptable conduct in a police state that is NOT acceptable conduct in our society.

I do not believe that the police can just roll up their sleeves and "do what needs to get done" and have the law be damned. But unforunately for the people who found themselves in the middle of it in Toronto- disturbing the peace is an offence, so is mischief, the police can arrest you before you commit a crime, and if they have good intel they can detain you for the purposes of investigation. Such as bringing your backpack to a protest (if there is intel that someone has concealed a weapon to bring to protest- and matches your description) or using unauthorized "alternative press" passes.

Over and above this-once arrested I have 24 hours to figure out what to do with you, and/or bring you before a Justice, and if I cant get it done within that time because of the sheer volume of prisoners I can take even longer.

These are not new rules. They are OLD rules. 

So feel free to ask questions of police conduct. But don't be surprised when you dont like the answers. Like it or lump it civilians are not experts in use of force or police tactics. You can not like something and Ill explain why it is that way. You can suggest alternatives and if they are good I would use them but if they aren't you expect them to be used. In just the same way that politicians sticky fingers in the day to day application of military operations is doomed- so is the civilian suggestion of water/sandwiches/ and hugs for police tactics.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you pointed out that you knew police before you really began to describe your distaste for their tactics in the same way that someone points out how many friends of a certain race they have before they say something off color.

But I admit that it could just be the internet. I'd rather be having this talk over a couple of hours in pub than over weeks on the internet.

Respectfully submitted.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

And let us not forget, the Charter is not the be-all/end-all.  There are more than enough cases where it was decided that the Charter could be violated if it was in the best interests of greater society.  So did some people get approached unnecessarily?  Probably.  Does it ACTUALLY matter? No.  Did they survive to tell their horrid tale of derring-do or are they still in a Brampton torture camp? Jaysus man, get over it! 
I would also be interested in how many people went deliberately into the hot zones looking like they are there to cause problems for the sole reason of being stopped by an officer and get "harassed"  : There are a great many idiots with too much time on their hands. 

So how many people got stopped on their way to work today and sorted out unfairly in your mind?  Let it go.  Everyone who matters has. 

 

[bdave]

And let us not forget, the Charter is not the be-all/end-all.  There are more than enough cases where it was decided that the Charter could be violated if it was in the best interests of greater society.

This makes no sense.
The charter is based on unalienable universal human rights.
By violating the charter, you:

1 - Show the charter is actually useless, since apparently any legal body in power can violate it at its discretion.
2 - Open up the possibility of abuse.

Best interests of greater society is a very vague term and is subject to a wide range of opinions.
The charter of rights doesn't work on opinions. It works on objective statements that ensure equality.
They are meant to be absolute.

 

[57Chevy]

Yeah......I find it all little off.
The Charter is designed to protect everyones' rights from being abused but can also
be applied to protect the guilty partys' rights after he abuses the rights of another.
I suppose looking at the right to free speech doesn't mean free screeming and yelling at the top
of ones' lungs.
And the right to protest.....I'm sure......doesn't mean the right to provocation, burning, and otherwise
destroying public and private property.
If a person is found guilty of a violation to The Charter, then he should not be able to use the same
in his defence. Similar to a "don't tread on me" clause, where violators of the Charter would
automatically find themselves. (charged for treading on the charter)
Then it would be absolute.

 

[bdave]

Yeah......I find it all little off.
The Charter is designed to protect everyones' rights from being abused but can also
be applied to protect the guilty partys' rights after he abuses the rights of another.
I suppose looking at the right to free speech doesn't mean free screeming and yelling at the top
of ones' lungs.
And the right to protest.....I'm sure......doesn't mean the right to provocation, burning, and otherwise
destroying public and private property.
If a person is found guilty of a violation to The Charter, then he should not be able to use the same
in his defence. Similar to a "don't tread on me" clause, where violators of the Charter would
automatically find themselves. (charged for treading on the charter)
Then it would be absolute.

As the saying going "The freedom of swinging your fist stops at my face".
Destroying property that isn't yours is illegal, but it doesn't mean you should not be given a fair trial.
The modern world is founded on Human Rights. If someone breaks the law or violates someone else's rights, it doesn't mean we should just throw the rule book out. We don't do the "eye for an eye" thing anymore; for good reason.

 

[Container]

an example of limit to freedom is going to prison. This is an charter allowed infringement on someones liberty.

The individual rights in the Charter are not absolute and can be curbed for the good of society. Such as prison- or the idea of entering into sexual relationships with children. Even consenting ones.