Will you accept the CBC’s estimate, or they in cahoots with the oppressors? In any case, CBC says there were “4,000 to 10,000” people there. I stand uncorrected.
Police act on behalf of the common man to protect us from burglary of homes and commercial premises, car theft and related unauthorised road use offences, and violent conduct ranging from assault, to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, by shitstains such as you.
You’ll need to find an unbiased source like The Anarcho-Communist Weekly Standard before I’ll accept a cite. :rolleyes:
Pity the police penned in a large group this evening. I realize that penning is an effective way to mop up the remnants of a mob, but I think they might have been over-eager in trying to press the unscheduled protests to a conclusion, rather than let the protests wind down over a longer period. As a result, I expect that too many people who should not have been detained or arrested might have been detained or arrested.
At least the weekend is pretty much over with no serious injuries to anyone, and property damage kept to a minimum relative to the size of the event. No burnt out buildings like in Ottawa recently.
I’ll tell you this: thank God that Julian Fantino isn’t the police chief anymore. He’d have had the cops using flame throwers and artillery.
Okay, notwithstanding any trespass, there is still ss. 322-334 of the Criminal Code. That’s theft, and taking those garden rocks etc. from privately-owned property was theft.
How do you excuse this criminal act?
Take TTC. 
Spoons, didn’t you learn anything from that fine upstanding Ottawa doper SmashTheState? According to anarcho-syndicalists, the Canadian state as it is today has no legitimate authority, and once anarcho-syndicalism is established here, there will be no such thing as personal property. Either way, there is nothing wrong in taking garden rocks.
The same way I excuse the property damage caused by the stolen objects.
(I didn’t. I just objected to the word ‘trespass’ but have since had my mistake been corrected.)
Riot police surrounded and penned a group of peaceful protesters in the Queen and Spadina intersection, blocking all exits. “The only way out is to be arrested; you will all be arrested for conspiracy to commit mischief.” There was no evidence of any property damage at all from this group, according to embedded reporters from 680 News.
This is a flagrant violation of section 2 of the CCRF. Civil rights have been suspended. Right now. In your country.
D’oh! :smack: Yes, of course, ol’ Smashie was absolutely correct. If only he had taught my law school courses!
I’m being facetious here, Muffin, but you make a good point–there is no reasoned debate with Smash and his ilk; they simply will not accept, or even consider, any other view than their own. And no matter how wrong or illegal their view is, they find some way to justify it.
Could you please elaborate on this? Cites to relevant provincial/federal legislation and caselaw would be most welcome. You need not cite the Charter; as a lawyer, I am more than familiar with that document.
He extended his heading the OPP so that he could handle the G8. Take a look at how many OPP officers there are in the G20 pics and vids.
One of my friends, now deceased, was a Chief Superintendent of the OPP. He told me he had originally been hired because he was very large and fit, so he could handle himself in bar brawls in northern Ontario. When I was researching the unions’ riots in Sudbury, I asked him why at one of the riots in '61 the police deliberately penned in the two opposing rioting groups and did not let them escape. He said that the concern was not for what the two groups would do to each other (they beat the hell out of each other), but rather that the riot should not move through the surrounding streets. I then asked him about why the police beat the hell out of so many of the rioters. He said that it was better to knock the heads of rioters than be injured themselves. When I asked him if there was concern for innocent people caught up in the riot, he said that they should have known better than to be there in the first place. For better or worse, that’s the way things were. I think that things have changed a lot for the better since then in Ontario, but at its heart, there is a fundamental common sense appeal to the old approach that protects the community and protects officers, so it would not surprise me if police were to get heavy handed, particularly with old guard such as Fantino at or near the helm.
Thinking about all this, I’m recalling the anti-nuclear protests of the early 1980s. Due to the popularity and the plot of the film War Games, a popular anti-nuclear slogan was “The only way to win is not to play.”
Perhaps today’s protestors would do well to remember what their forebears chanted in the past. If you if you want to win, which I’d suggest is going home at the end of the day rather than being arrested, just don’t play. Al least, not to the point where you get arrested.
Civil rights are not “suspended” every time someone’s arrested on a pretext you don’t agree with (and why should I believe your version of events, anyway?) Otherwise, we’ve never had civil rights; there will always, in a country this big, be people arrested for the wrong reasons. That’s why we have a legal system, and a Constitution, and courts; to sort this kind of shit out. The entire system, indeed the system of any civilized nation, accounts for this sort of thing and accepts that law enforcement can never be perfect and that sometimes corrections must be made after the fact. If anyone was significantly wronged they’ll have their day in court. If that means we have no civil rights, nobody will ever have civil rights.
If you sincerely believe this is a country lacking in civil rights I can only assume you have no experience with any other country. Even more other democracies would have reacted to the protests with VASTLY more force than was the case in Toronto, and in semi-democracies like Russia… well, we would have seen automatic weapons fire, I’d think. I can think of few countries that have ever existed in the entire history of the modern nation-state that are MORE tolerant of dissent and protest than Canada is today.
Yes. They have arrested peaceful protesters for a criminal offense which, if convicted, is at least on their record for three years and comes with a possible sentence of life in prison, without any indications from impartial observers within the crowd that violence or vandalism were likely or even considered.
I don’t expect many of these people will even be formally charged, and none of them will get anything worse than a summary conviction, but they will all be intimidated and possibly be less willing to protest in the future. And that kind of intimidation is an infringement on their right to freedom of assembly.
Excellent post, RickJay. I’ll just add that if it turns out that there are no charges to be laid; well, then the person will be let go. No harm, no foul, here are your belongings, have a nice day. That seems to have happened a great many times, according to the news.
Hmmm, you say that like it would be a bad thing!
I remember when we did riot control exercises in the military. Essentially, it was with fixed bayonets and the Lieutenant had a sharpshooter next to him which he could use as needed to shoot anyone he felt needed shooting. I always wondered why we trained that way when I’ve never seen it implemented.
I would agree with you if the protesters had been allowed to dissipate peacefully, having been warned that these arrests would take place. According to 680 News, that was not the case. The protesters had been moving up Spadina Street when they abruptly found themselves boxed in on all four sides at the intersection of Spadina and Queen. With no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been, or was about to be, committed by these people, they were arrested, and not just for the catch-all ‘breach of peace’ or even something about ‘unlawful assembly’ (which might be more of a stretch than conspiracy to commit mischief).
It’s possible there are nuances here that I’m not grasping. Because from my point of view it looks like these arrests and charges have no bearing on any facts.
Cite, please, to the applicable section of the Criminal Code.
“On their record for at least three years”? Where did you get this information? A criminal record is for life, unless the convicted person is a young offender. Even a pardon does not expunge a record; it just buries it deeper.
“Life in prison”? What was their crime? Murder? Kidnapping?
Bingo. I thought so. There are, in most cases, no formal charges being laid. Your first point is thus invalid–without formal charges, how are these people facing any sanctions at all? Even those who are facing charges–as you say, on summary conviction (which can go to trial if the accused wishes; it is not a kangaroo court)–will get nothing more than a maximum 2 years in prison and/or a $5000 fine. And that maximum is extremely unlikely–I’ve been in criminal courts and done plenty of legal research, and I’ve never seen it before. Not to say it cannot be applied, especially in the case of a recidivist, but I’ve never seen it.
I doubt very much that those “legal advisors” that you spoke of earlier in the crowd were lawyers. They got you thinking about your “rights” but did not finish the story. They got you scared of what might happen, with maximum sentences. But they did not give you the straight dope on the situation, on your liability, on what really could happen if…
BTW, still waiting for those cites to bolster your assertion that “This is a flagrant violation of section 2 of the CCRF. Civil rights have been suspended. Right now. In your country.”
Bah, you’re all The Man - how can anyone trust anything you say? You’re too busy keeping young Freedom Fighters down, man.
Spadina Avenue. You sure you’re a Torontonian? 