The "Occupy" Movement

[Redeye]

I suppose the police and their detainees could have just sat down and waited for the protesters to clear an exit route for them...however many days it took.

And I am trying to watch it to see if there's more to the story, which I wouldn't be surprised by particularly.

 

[a_majoor]

In most of the word, these people would have been met with deadly force should they try to surround police or security forces, so they should really be counting themselves lucky they only got pepper sprayed (tasered in some jurisdictions).

This should be something to consider for people who advocate for eliminating the ability of the police to respond with less than deadly force.

 

[a_majoor]

Circling back a bit to the State serving breakfast, here is an example of why this sort of thing isn't an "investment", it is an invitation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebecs-7-a-day-daycare-program-faces-corruption-probe/article2257235/

'Quebec's corruption squad adds daycare to its list of probes
The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, Dec. 01, 2011 5:38PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Dec. 01, 2011 9:41PM EST

Quebec's $7-a-day public daycare program, considered a landmark piece of legislation in the province and a potential model for the rest of the country, is being probed for possible corruption.

The province's new anti-corruption body issued a statement on Thursday saying it plans to examine the program.

The province's auditor general has reported irregularities in the awarding of contracts for 18,000 subsidized daycare spaces. So an investigative body created to examine the province's scandal-plagued construction industry is turning its magnifying glass onto those responsible for cookies and naptime.

“The integrity of the public system is at the heart of my mandate as anti-corruption commissioner,” unit boss Robert Lafreniere said in Thursday's statement.

“The auditor general's findings are troubling enough that I'm asking my team to gather and analyze pertinent information to determine whether there's enough to investigate under the (province's) anti-corruption law.”

The public daycare program created a decade ago by the previous Parti Quebecois government is a source of pride to many policy-makers in the province.

It inspired an ill-fated attempt by Paul Martin's federal Liberals to create a similar system across Canada several years ago.

The logic behind it was simple: lower the cost of daycare so all children have access to quality education from early on, while eliminating a barrier for parents hoping to enter the job market.

But for years there have been complaints about long waits, lack of available spots and the notion that families with the means to pay for child care were taking up spaces.

In recent months, the program has become a source of increasing controversy.

The man once responsible for administering the system, ex-cabinet minister Tony Tomassi, has been slapped with unrelated fraud charges.

Tomassi had, in the weeks before he was forced to resign from cabinet, also been accused of cronyism in the awarding of contracts.

The opposition had been raising alarms about lucrative daycare contracts going to Liberal party donors.

The system provides daycare operators with $35 to $52 per child per day, while parents kick in $7. Some contracts went to people with no demonstrable history of working with children — but with a history of donating to the governing party, the opposition said.

Tomassi was forced to resign over unrelated allegations that he used a personal credit card supplied by a private company that received government business.

But it was this week's auditor general's report about the performance of the program under Tomassi's predecessor, Michele Courchesne, in 2008 that triggered the involvement of the anti-corruption unit.

The report cited irregularities at every step, from ignoring bureaucrats' advice about who should get contracts to the awarding of spots to the wrong places.

Some areas that had enough daycare spaces got more, while others lacking spaces didn't get any new ones.

The leader of a popular new political party demanded that the premier explain why bureaucrats' advice was overruled.

“Mr. Charest needs to tell us: Is he the person who demanded those changes?” said Francois Legault, the leader of the Coalition For Quebec's Future, which has been leading recent polls.

The less the State has access to the fewer opportunities exist for corruption.

 

[vonGarvin]

Any "thing" involving humans willl see corruption at some level.  I doubt that a national feeding program would be inherently corrupt, but rather some would try to take advantage of it. 


As for the video of the police and the use of OCS, it's fairly simple what happened.
The police go to an "occupy" camp and announce that they are going to dismantle it (as had been announced the day or so previous)
They warned that anyone who opposed or resisted them would be detained.
They clear the camp, and there are a few detained.
They move the detainees to a central area, awaiting the arrival of the Paddy Wagons
The crowd forms a circle around the police taunting them, effectively telling the police that they will "let them go" if they release the detainees.
At one point a number of the crowd block the route of the police (the "sit in")
The officer tells each person there, individually, that the use of force will be employed if they don't open a path.
It's clear what the police are going to do, and then OCS is used.

I found it ironic that the crowd would see the police as the "enemy".  They tell them to leave and never come back.  I wonder if that would apply if a thug were to break the law on campus and the sheep would once again need protection?

I'm sorry, but if a police officer tells you to do "x", he's saying so with good reason.  It's best to comply.

 

[aesop081]

Chris Rock said it best in his vodeo "How to not get you ass beat by police"

#1: Obey the law

 

[Container]

Police are mistaken in their authorities on a daily basis somewhere.

I can tell you what I would do If I was subject to a cop ******* up- Id let him arrest me. "Yes sir" "no sir" and then followup after I was released. Police forces load up the money cannon on a regular basis- the mild inconvenience of the Canadian legal system isnt worth getting into a dick measuring contest at the height of adrenaline- Thats a fools errand.

To each his own I suppose. Ive been told to leave places before and Ive never been peppery for refusing.

 

[vonGarvin]

Police are mistaken in their authorities on a daily basis somewhere.

I can tell you what I would do If I was subject to a cop ******* up- Id let him arrest me. "Yes sir" "no sir" and then followup after I was released. Police forces load up the money cannon on a regular basis- the mild inconvenience of the Canadian legal system isnt worth getting into a dick measuring contest at the height of adrenaline- Thats a fools errand.

To each his own I suppose. Ive been told to leave places before and Ive never been peppery for refusing.

And I take it that you've often been mistaken in what you are trying to say?  I'm trying to de-cipher your post, but I'm failing.

 

[OldSolduer]

Update from Winterpeg:

Its -23 C here this morning with a windchill of -30 C. A tent was burned down in the camp. There's not many of the"occupiers" left.

When an occupier goes into severe hypothermia - who will they ask for help?

 

[jasonf6]

Any "thing" involving humans willl see corruption at some level.  I doubt that a national feeding program would be inherently corrupt, but rather some would try to take advantage of it. 


As for the video of the police and the use of OCS, it's fairly simple what happened.
The police go to an "occupy" camp and announce that they are going to dismantle it (as had been announced the day or so previous)
They warned that anyone who opposed or resisted them would be detained.
They clear the camp, and there are a few detained.
They move the detainees to a central area, awaiting the arrival of the Paddy Wagons
The crowd forms a circle around the police taunting them, effectively telling the police that they will "let them go" if they release the detainees.
At one point a number of the crowd block the route of the police (the "sit in")
The officer tells each person there, individually, that the use of force will be employed if they don't open a path.
It's clear what the police are going to do, and then OCS is used.

I found it ironic that the crowd would see the police as the "enemy".  They tell them to leave and never come back.  I wonder if that would apply if a thug were to break the law on campus and the sheep would once again need protection?

I'm sorry, but if a police officer tells you to do "x", he's saying so with good reason.  It's best to comply.

Agreed with all of the above.  But what I found hilarious was when they went from being "protesters" to "students".  Which is it?  Are you occupying to "protest" Wall Street and/or High Tuition or are you students blocking the path of police effectively detaining them.  Not a bright move if you ask me.

And like mentioned above, if this happened in say Syria what do you think the outcome would have been? 

 

[Container]

And I take it that you've often been mistaken in what you are trying to say?  I'm trying to de-cipher your post, but I'm failing.

I cant see whats difficult to understand. With the way law and rules around authority drifts police often commit errors when it comes to their authority. "Often" being one of the tens of thousands of police officers is mistaken somewhere at somepoint and makes case law or a group of officers are operating under a mistaken belief.

The point is that the side of the road is not the time to educate the officer. If he is operating under a mistaken belief it can be remedied in court or through the complaints process. Not when he believes he is in the right and you are wrong. Because when he acts in good faith and drags you in to jail generally speaking he's covered and youre not.

 

[Robert0288]

The point is that the side of the road is not the time to educate the officer. If he is operating under a mistaken belief it can be remedied in court or through the complaints process. Not when he believes he is in the right and you are wrong. Because when he acts in good faith and drags you in to jail generally speaking he's covered and youre not.

Exactly, if you believe that you are right, go get yourself arrested peacefully and fight it out in the court system and/or file complaints.  Jumping up and down and yelling about how what their doing is against the law and resisting arrest is a good way to get yourself tasered or pepper sprayed. 

 

[CountDC]

LOL Sorry but reading this for some reason made me think of the police strike in Halifax.  People went hog wild downtown....until the RCMP entered the scene.  Nothing like a bunch of RCMP walking up the street telling everyone to get their butts out of there and if you were one of the ones that didn't move quick enough a smack with the billy club sure got the message through.  Didn't take long for downtown to be clear and calm again.

Sorry folks but in my books cases like this one needs more of that action vice the pepper spray.  To me you take police prisoner then they can use whatever force they have available to protect and free themselves.  Problem is everyone "knows" they can do what they want and the police hands are tied as far as action goes.  I am surprised that this entire video made it out instead of edited to make the police look bad.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

It's downloading very slowly on my shitty connection, I've watched about the first 7 minutes so far, I'm hoping there's something shocking that justifies the use of OC on passively resisting individuals. You'll have to forgive my skepticism.

No I won't.  Maybe I'll just sit at the foot of your bed tonight and watch you and the Missus go at it, obviously you won't mind that, since you don't think that when it's legally time to go then it's legally time to go.......and maybe I'll just urinate in your dresser drawers also and I know you won't mind that either cause "I got something to say, I'm not sure what it is, but when I find out........"

They got OCed because its the most humane way of "persuading" folks that its time to do something different today.  If you had even bothered to do a little research before opening your yob you might have read this.....

[and just curious, how would you remove me from your room?]

 

[a_majoor]

A curious paradox here

The Police are agents of the State, and exercise power on behalf of the State (enforceing laws and protecting people from criminal activity)

#occupy wants the power of the State to rapidly expand to include the "equitable" distribution of pay and benefits according to whatever formula they deem "equitable" (i.e. renumeration would be set by law and not the market)

#occupy would need to dramatically increase the powers of the police in order to track down "hoarders and wreakers" who are unequally taking the division of the spoils. (i.e. people working the black and grey markets, "under the table" payments, concientious objectors to the redistribution program and people who have "gone Galt" and refuse to contribute to the pool).

Yet #occupy disputes the right of the police to enforce the laws and protests when the police do so....

Hmmm.

 

[OldSolduer]

#occupy wants the power of the State to rapidly expand to include the "equitable" distribution of pay and benefits according to whatever formula they deem "equitable" (i.e. renumeration would be set by law and not the market)

#occupy would need to dramatically increase the powers of the police in order to track down "hoarders and wreakers" who are unequally taking the division of the spoils. (i.e. people working the black and grey markets, "under the table" payments, concientious objectors to the redistribution program and people who have "gone Galt" and refuse to contribute to the pool).

Hmmm.

So - it sounds a lot like Communism here - except as about 300 million or so Eastern Europeans found out it don't work all that well.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A curious paradox here

The Police are agents of the State, and exercise power on behalf of the State (enforceing laws and protecting people from criminal activity)

#occupy wants the power of the State to rapidly expand to include the "equitable" distribution of pay and benefits according to whatever formula they deem "equitable" (i.e. renumeration would be set by law and not the market)

#occupy would need to dramatically increase the powers of the police in order to track down "hoarders and wreakers" who are unequally taking the division of the spoils. (i.e. people working the black and grey markets, "under the table" payments, concientious objectors to the redistribution program and people who have "gone Galt" and refuse to contribute to the pool).

Yet #occupy disputes the right of the police to enforce the laws and protests when the police do so....

Hmmm.

:goodpost:

And when the worst perps are rounded up, the next to go (based on how revolutions past have worked) will be those without quite enough #occupy zeal to take the steps needed to crush the "hoarders and wreakers"....

 

[OldSolduer]

:goodpost:

And when the worst perps are rounded up, the next to go (based on how revolutions past have worked) will be those without quite enough #occupy zeal to take the steps needed to crush the "hoarders and wreakers"....

Don't forget the intelligentsia who don't TOE (not tow) the line.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I am amazed that we still are talking about these losers.  They're like Julian Assange.  Narcissistic leeches that don't seem to get it when their 15 minutes of fame has flamed out.

 

[McG]

As the monetary minimum wage has been thoroughly discussed now ...

The problematic inequality is very narrowly focused: mainly on the celebrity CEOs. There is not significant problem with, for example, super-rich entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or with super-rich inherited wealth holders like the Rockeffelers - both are super rich but both are productive.

About 50 years the ratio of CEO salary (and bonuses) to unionized factory worker salary was about 40:1; that was not a problem, nor was 50:1 or 70:1. A ratio of 100:1 is a bit hard to justify by 60,000:1 (Disney's Michael Eisner circa 1995) is impossible to reconcile with any sane definition of "value." The Eisners and the Blankfeins (Goldman sachs) and the Fulds (Lehman Bros.) of this world are the face of the real inequality problem.

What if minimum wage were instead a percentage of any given company's CEO's salary & bonuses?  Small businesses/backyard businesses with modestly paid CEOs would have access to low paid unskilled labour.  The celebrity CEOs would disappear as the resultant cost across a company's workforce would be unaffordable (thus the face of wage inequity would disappear). 

... but, I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to find a way around whatever legal mechanisms that create such a system and then reestablish celebrity CEOs.

 

[tomahawk6]

The minimum wage is an entry level.Once job experience is earned you move up the ladder.The minimum wage for a Private may be $1000 as he gains experience and time in service his pay increases.CEO pay doesnt go to someone out of college,its usually the apex of one's career,read the result of experience.