Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[brihard]

Wrong.

30 April, McGill asks police to intervene and dismantle the encampment
10 May, Calgary acts, Montreal doesn't, Mcgill encampment still exists
Quebec PM Legault reiterates call for dismantlement of encampment, goes unheeded

Thanks, I stand corrected- I had not seen that McGill had made that ask of police, it may have been buried by the coverage of the failed attempt by students to get an injunction.

On digging a bit more, looks like the SPVM position is the "no crime is being committed" at this time but that they'll be prepared to enforce a court order should the university seek and obtain an injunction. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...tinian-encampment-enters-fourth-day-1.7189054

We're now a week and a half later, I'm surprised we've seen no talk of McGill itself asking for an injunction if they actually want to see the camp removed and police act. Sorta feels like the university doesn't want to wear the responsibility of initiating likely forceful action by police.

I can assure you that if higher levels at SPVM reach a point where they decide the camp will be cleared- it will be cleared. The front line members of that police service are very capable and willing to wade into a public order situation.

 

[TacticalTea]

Thanks, I stand corrected- I had not seen that McGill had made that ask of police, it may have been buried by the coverage of the failed attempt by students to get an injunction.

On digging a bit more, looks like the SPVM position is the "no crime is being committed" at this time but that they'll be prepared to enforce a court order should the university seek and obtain an injunction. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...tinian-encampment-enters-fourth-day-1.7189054

We're now a week and a half later, I'm surprised we've seen no talk of McGill itself asking for an injunction if they actually want to see the camp removed and police act. Sorta feels like the university doesn't want to wear the responsibility of initiating likely forceful action by police.

I can assure you that if higher levels at SPVM reach a point where they decide the camp will be cleared- it will be cleared. The front line members of that police service are very capable and willing to wade into a public order situation.

I have no doubts about much of the frontline.

The problem resides in the bureaucracy. The municipal administration, the police "leadership" (named by the former), and the collegiate administration are all derelict in their duties.

The notion that no crime has been committed is a bit orwellian and blatantly false. It hardly matters, however, as the last few years have shown that, though cynics knew international law didn't really exist, neither does domestic law. It's all power, and the powers that be have decided that these protestors are friends. You can hand this one to the post-modernists, they certainly turned out to be right about this dynamic.

In a de-nationalized society, one ought not to be surprised when tribal behaviour returns and human interactions are better analyzed through the lens of "Friend/Enemy distinction".

It's IFF all the way down.

 

[Kirkhill]

Wrong.

30 April, McGill asks police to intervene and dismantle the encampment
10 May, Calgary acts, Montreal doesn't, Mcgill encampment still exists
Quebec PM Legault reiterates call for dismantlement of encampment, goes unheeded

Same situation in the UK.

People forget that we elect politicians to judge the situations that we encounter. We can eject them.

We don't get to eject the police, the judges or the bureaucrats. They are not answerable.

The politicians are.

I don't want to live in a nation of lawyers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Same situation in the UK.

People forget that we elect politicians to judge the situations that we encounter. We can eject them.

We don't get to eject the police, the judges or the bureaucrats. They are not answerable.

The politicians are.

I don't want to live in a nation of lawyers.

Because you're an 'outlaw' by heritage?

Border reivers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Because you're an 'outlaw' by heritage?

Border reivers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm what you get when you cross the Reivers with these guys.

Covenanters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[brihard]

Oh, and here we go. McGill is now seeking a police-enforceable injunction to dismantle the camp. They’re citing lack of access by university staff and the fire department to ensure safety. Court will hear it Monday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-university-injunction-pro-palestinian-1.7201220

 

[McG]

McGill could ask SPVM; they’re perfectly capable of handling this stuff too. The issue isn’t police willingness to act, but the preferences and appetites of individual universities to make the ask.

McGill University seeks court order to dismantle pro-Palestinian encampment | Globalnews.ca

McGill University says it's seeking the injunction despite ongoing talks with campers. Activists denounced the court order request by the school as a "shameful move,"

globalnews.ca

 

[TacticalTea]

Oh, and here we go. McGill is now seeking a police-enforceable injunction to dismantle the camp. They’re citing lack of access by university staff and the fire department to ensure safety. Court will hear it Monday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-university-injunction-pro-palestinian-1.7201220

Why couldn't they just say "you're tresspassing, begone", on day one?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why couldn't they just say "you're tresspassing, begone", on day one?

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”

 

[daftandbarmy]

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.”

I do like a good Cromwell quote early in the morning

 

[brihard]

Why couldn't they just say "you're tresspassing, begone", on day one?

I cannot speak to what they did or didn’t choose to do or why. I can say that police decisions regarding large scale use of force are more nuanced than simply ‘is there a law in place?’ Almost always, there is. However, for decades now the public have expected us to be more nuanced and restrained than that. In public order settings where a situation is annoying but not really presenting any public danger or greatly interfering with the rights of others, generally there’s a greater expectation that the parties with a lawful interest in the particular patch of grass move through a few more legal hoops before we commit ourselves to a situation that could easily turn into the swinging of batons or worse.

Legally could SPVM have gone in forcibly early on, relying on a trespass by McGill, and arguably criminal mischief if McGill administration would be willing to show up in court? Yes, probably. Would the juice be worth the squeeze and the actions defensible if serious injury resulted and other off-ramps were ignored first? That’s tougher.

What I’ve seen over the years is that a lot of people are wildly inconsistent about when they’re ok with or expectant of us to go in with sticks and shields. It usually has to do with their personal beliefs about the underlying cause of whatever protest is in play. The courts are a more neutral arbiter of the early stages of this, so in cases where the time and space exists to work with (not always the case), I’m generally cool with a more restrained approach that holds off until there’s a court order in place and being ignored, or things have already otherwise gotten manifestly criminal on a larger scale.

But that’s just me as the guy who will swing the baton or put the cuffs on when the time comes, and may have to explain himself in court subsequently, as I expect to be doing this week.

 

[RangerRay]

I’ll admit I’ve consistently favoured mounted Cossacks with truncheons for all public order incidents. But I usually talk out of my ass on such things too.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I cannot speak to what they did or didn’t choose to do or why. I can say that police decisions regarding large scale use of force are more nuanced than simply ‘is there a law in place?’ Almost always, there is. However, for decades now the public have expected us to be more nuanced and restrained than that. In public order settings where a situation is annoying but not really presenting any public danger or greatly interfering with the rights of others, generally there’s a greater expectation that the parties with a lawful interest in the particular patch of grass move through a few more legal hoops before we commit ourselves to a situation that could easily turn into the swinging of batons or worse.

Legally could SPVM have gone in forcibly early on, relying on a trespass by McGill, and arguably criminal mischief if McGill administration would be willing to show up in court? Yes, probably. Would the juice be worth the squeeze and the actions defensible if serious injury resulted and other off-ramps were ignored first? That’s tougher.

What I’ve seen over the years is that a lot of people are wildly inconsistent about when they’re ok with or expectant of us to go in with sticks and shields. It usually has to do with their personal beliefs about the underlying cause of whatever protest is in play. The courts are a more neutral arbiter of the early stages of this, so in cases where the time and space exists to work with (not always the case), I’m generally cool with a more restrained approach that holds off until there’s a court order in place and being ignored, or things have already otherwise gotten manifestly criminal on a larger scale.

But that’s just me as the guy who will swing the baton or put the cuffs on when the time comes, and may have to explain himself in court subsequently, as I expect to be doing this week.

Any protest that does not block traffic, directly intimidate peoples movement or block access I am ok with. If they want to move from one location to the next and need to block streets for a couple of minutes while they move, I can live with that.

But if you purposely block traffic, not ok with it and I fully support the rights of drivers to throw non-harmful liquids on them and/or drag them off the road.

 

[Kirkhill]

I cannot speak to what they did or didn’t choose to do or why. I can say that police decisions regarding large scale use of force are more nuanced than simply ‘is there a law in place?’ Almost always, there is. However, for decades now the public have expected us to be more nuanced and restrained than that. In public order settings where a situation is annoying but not really presenting any public danger or greatly interfering with the rights of others, generally there’s a greater expectation that the parties with a lawful interest in the particular patch of grass move through a few more legal hoops before we commit ourselves to a situation that could easily turn into the swinging of batons or worse.

Legally could SPVM have gone in forcibly early on, relying on a trespass by McGill, and arguably criminal mischief if McGill administration would be willing to show up in court? Yes, probably. Would the juice be worth the squeeze and the actions defensible if serious injury resulted and other off-ramps were ignored first? That’s tougher.

What I’ve seen over the years is that a lot of people are wildly inconsistent about when they’re ok with or expectant of us to go in with sticks and shields. It usually has to do with their personal beliefs about the underlying cause of whatever protest is in play. The courts are a more neutral arbiter of the early stages of this, so in cases where the time and space exists to work with (not always the case), I’m generally cool with a more restrained approach that holds off until there’s a court order in place and being ignored, or things have already otherwise gotten manifestly criminal on a larger scale.

But that’s just me as the guy who will swing the baton or put the cuffs on when the time comes, and may have to explain himself in court subsequently, as I expect to be doing this week.

Brihard - could you contrast the situation in Montreal and Ottawa with that at U of Calgary?

No snark.

Is there merit to showing up heavy and early?

 

[brihard]

Brihard - could you contrast the situation in Montreal and Ottawa with that at U of Calgary?

No snark.

Is there merit to showing up heavy and early?

Sorry, I lack the info to do that. I don’t mind speaking to generalities but I don’t want to second guess specifics where I’m not well informed. I’ve been on the other side of that coin more than a few times.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry, I lack the info to do that. I don’t mind speaking to generalities but I don’t want to second guess specifics where I’m not well informed. I’ve been on the other side of that coin more than a few times.

Fair enough.

 

[dimsum]

 

[KevinB]

Oh that guy isn’t picking a side at all

He likes to add some inflammatory content where there wasn’t any.

 

[Jarnhamar]

SPVM getting onboard with the self-checkout cashier approach.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I hope a lot more of these DEI resignations start to occur:

U of A associate dean resigns over removal of student protesters from campus

The associate dean of equity, diversity and inclusion in the University of Alberta's faculty of arts resigned Monday over the removal of student protesters from the school's campus, citing an inability to do the job.

edmonton.ctvnews.ca