• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hamas invaded Israel 2023

  • Thread starter Thread starter McG
  • Start date Start date
brihard said:
More police than civic. Police operational decision makers are well shielded form civic political whims when it comes to specific operational decisions like how to respond to an individual protest. The entirety of Ottawa's civic government could have been screaming in the face of the chief of OPS and it would have been entirely the police service's call. My understanding from what I've heard is that part of the issue was that the municipal police chief was stepping too heavily on his operational commanders filling the role of the Critical Incident Commander. Even the chief of police generally isn't making operational calls; their job is to run the department. Ops get delegated.
Click to expand...
On a macro scale, I get the reason why police have opted for a light touch on public order incidents since the Toronto G7 fiasco. Having plain-clothes liaison officers trying to resolve issues with groups is probably better than sending in the mounted Cossacks swinging truncheons.

But I just can’t help but think that these groups are now taking advantage of the light touch and are now taking a mile when given an inch. We’ve seen it with the indigenous protests on the transportation system and vandalism of statues, the “freedom convoys” in Ottawa and the border, and now the Team Hamas protests.

I don’t know what the solution is, but the law has to be seen to be enforced, but people need to have their rights to protest protected. Other people’s rights need to be protected when the protesters infringe on them.
 
RangerRay said:
On a macro scale, I get the reason why police have opted for a light touch on public order incidents since the Toronto G7 fiasco. Having plain-clothes liaison officers trying to resolve issues with groups is probably better than sending in the mounted Cossacks swinging truncheons.

But I just can’t help but think that these groups are now taking advantage of the light touch and are now taking a mile when given an inch. We’ve seen it with the indigenous protests on the transportation system and vandalism of statues, the “freedom convoys” in Ottawa and the border, and now the Team Hamas protests.

I don’t know what the solution is, but the law has to be seen to be enforced, but people need to have their rights to protest protected. Other people’s rights need to be protected when the protesters infringe on them.
Click to expand...
I do believe that various groups are taking advantage of the 'light touch' that Canadian police generally take to public order events (at least outside of Quebec. They're just different there.)

I don't know what the answer to that looks like. Public safety, officer safety, the safety of lawful protesters amid disruptive events all need to be taken into consideration. The law is clear about our constraints on using force, and generally speaking our law strongly supports the right to free expression, to the extent of tolerating a fair bit of disruption and inconvenience (but not violence). It's challenging to decide on overall strategic and narrower tactical approaches that are legally defensible, that are reasonably consistent, and that meet the expectation of the broader public (which is often fractured depending on the issue du jour). I'm just a dude who's out there on the front line sometime when called away form my regular duties. I don't envy the big picture decision makers.
 
mariomike said:
Protestors face off against the skaters at Nathan Philips Square.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1744129204525109714
https://twitter.com/x/status/1744096719271346307
https://twitter.com/x/status/1744119768502678008

Fair size turnout at Union Station.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744095895321210931
Click to expand...

Happy Jerry Seinfeld GIF



Meanwhile in the real world:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744137773991252076
 
brihard said:
I do believe that various groups are taking advantage of the 'light touch' that Canadian police generally take to public order events (at least outside of Quebec. They're just different there.)

I don't know what the answer to that looks like. Public safety, officer safety, the safety of lawful protesters amid disruptive events all need to be taken into consideration. The law is clear about our constraints on using force, and generally speaking our law strongly supports the right to free expression, to the extent of tolerating a fair bit of disruption and inconvenience (but not violence). It's challenging to decide on overall strategic and narrower tactical approaches that are legally defensible, that are reasonably consistent, and that meet the expectation of the broader public (which is often fractured depending on the issue du jour). I'm just a dude who's out there on the front line sometime when called away form my regular duties. I don't envy the big picture decision makers.
Click to expand...
I think something to do with freedom of movement would be worth looking at: interurban highways, border crossings, and other chokepoints should be protected.
 
Remius said:
People are free to support or not support whatever they like. But they should’t expect to be free of consequences when they wade in. Several businesses in Ottawa found that out the hard way.

These guys are about to as well…

thecjn.ca

UJA has filed a legal claim against two Toronto bus contractors for damages, and alleged human rights violations over refusal of service to Jews—but lawyers still haven't found the subcontractor identified as 'Prestige Worldwide'

The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto has filed a legal claim against the contractor and subcontractor who failed to deliver 17 of the 70 the buses hired
thecjn.ca thecjn.ca
Click to expand...

In one of the articles I read about this it said the organizers warned the bus company that failing to provide the buses would be considered antisemetic.

That mindset almost seems like a self-fulfilling axe to go around holding over peoples heads.
 
The more I see protests, of all types and spectrums, the more I lean towards the UK example.

Designated protest locations only available (city zoning issue) and legislation preventing blocking highways, national infrastructure etc.

As I understand it the protest locations are chosen to be visible, multiple entrances (no caging in), near public transportation, and have no vehicle access permitted.

Here's a link to the National legislation:
 
foresterab said:
The more I see protests, of all types and spectrums, the more I lean towards the UK example.

Designated protest locations only available (city zoning issue) and legislation preventing blocking highways, national infrastructure etc.

As I understand it the protest locations are chosen to be visible, multiple entrances (no caging in), near public transportation, and have no vehicle access permitted.

Here's a link to the National legislation:
Click to expand...
or perhaps buy one of those shield walls that the Paris police use very effectively. They close off a street wall to wall with interlocking shields and just start walking forwards until they have forced the protesters to move into the space where they want them and they can't interfere with bystanders or traffic
 
quadrapiper said:
I think something to do with freedom of movement would be worth looking at: interurban highways, border crossings, and other chokepoints should be protected.
Click to expand...
There is a law directly for it, Intimidation under the criminal code. It goes broader than just critical roadways and makes blocking any of them illegal. Just because the police refuse to use it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
 
Jarnhamar said:
In one of the articles I read about this it said the organizers warned the bus company that failing to provide the buses would be considered antisemetic.

That mindset almost seems like a self-fulfilling axe to go around holding over peoples heads.
Click to expand...
To me it read more like they wanted to be sure a similar incident to what happened earlier in Washington didn't happen, rather than a threat.
 
And they were required to pay in full up front. So if the warning came after they were told to pay in advance, that would make a big difference.
 

RangerRay said:
On a macro scale, I get the reason why police have opted for a light touch on public order incidents since the Toronto G7 fiasco. Having plain-clothes liaison officers trying to resolve issues with groups is probably better than sending in the mounted Cossacks swinging truncheons.

But I just can’t help but think that these groups are now taking advantage of the light touch and are now taking a mile when given an inch. We’ve seen it with the indigenous protests on the transportation system and vandalism of statues, the “freedom convoys” in Ottawa and the border, and now the Team Hamas protests.

I don’t know what the solution is, but the law has to be seen to be enforced, but people need to have their rights to protest protected. Other people’s rights need to be protected when the protesters infringe on them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely they are. Toronto PS is informed by their memory of the G7/G20 protests. No doubt Ottawa takes into account its initial (lack of) response to The Convoy. The OPP is guided by a policy document called The Framework for Police Preparedness for Indigenous Critical Incidents. It's a public document available on their website, but its preamble clearly states that it is a policy "that relies heavily on dialogue, communication and relationships for effectiveness" and is applicable to both indigenous and non-indigenous events. It arose out of the Ipperwash incident where a protestor was killed. They are deathly afraid of that happening again so confrontation is the absolute last resort.

Eaglelord17 said:
There is a law directly for it, Intimidation under the criminal code. It goes broader than just critical roadways and makes blocking any of them illegal. Just because the police refuse to use it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
It becomes a matter of 'when rights collide' Legislation has to be considered in light of court rulings around it. I'm not that familiar with a lot of it, but the SCOC has recognized that a disruption, delay, blockage of public space, etc. is inherent in labour protests and protected. I don't know if there are rulings that specifically carry that to non-labour actions, but it would seem reasonable that it would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jarnhamar
    • Wow
    • Like
    • Sad
Government now says new human rights chief did disclose key information about controversial social media posts
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
SeaKingTacco
SeaKingTacco
Edward Campbell
    • Wow
    • Like
    • Sad
PAK National Arrested in QC Plotting Attack in NYC
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Haggis
Haggis
The Bread Guy
    • Like
Survey: "Two-thirds say inconsistent treatment from authorities favours some groups over others"
Replies
0
Views
2K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
J
    • Like
Should Canada Stay in the U.N.? (split fm Hamas invaded Israel 2023)
2
Replies
28
Views
13K
Good2Golf
Good2Golf
Kirkhill
Active Protection Systems
Replies
6
Views
6K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top