Derek 2.0

Right, but the usage of “Marshall Law” in a democratic society is hardly new and is a reactionary response to civil unrest….akin to a “declaration of a state of emergency”, which doesn’t result in a hurricane or earthquake…. As to the 3 officers "found out" I haven't a clue.......in the cited example in Quebec (several pages ago), one officer was charged.

Why is that a bad thing for the police? I would think it would be tho their benefit.

Cite? And that confirms my point……..during APEC, Sgt. Pepper and his band of merry men used force against protestors that attempted to breach security protecting various World leaders, yet during Occupy no such force was required………is this a reflection of policing or the actions of the protestors? Policing at its very core is reactionary, so that leaves me to believe that those protestors that behave like animals are going to get seasoned and tenderized by police, inversely (as demonstrated in the various examples cited) those police officers that take it too far will face legal recourse………..

How did the Ontario Government deceive the public? Before said laws were passed, was a portion of the public under the impression it was a-ok to torch banks and cop cars? As I said prior, I don't deny some police behaved improperly, as a result, several officers have been charged.........If we were in the makings of a police state, wouldn't said officers face zero legal action as a result?

But isn't that the intent of some of these protests? In that some protesters intent is to "disrupt, discredit and potentially prevent free speech" of the groups they're protesting? I revert back to Occupy Vancouver, in that for its size and scope (and duration) very few protestors were detained (let alone charged) and as a response, very few police officers were required to observe and monitor their demonstrations, and for the most part, the police presence was one of traffic control… Government and local businesses weren’t affected, regular people could carry on with their regular lives and the city functioned with some level of normalcy. Inversely, the protestors were allowed to protest for weeks on end, received media attention and were only shut down (By the Fire Marshal) when their encampment became a public health and safety concern (with open flames, ODs, public defecation and garbage). So I’m forced to ask, what was the difference between protestors at Occupy and at the G20 in Toronto, and in turn, the reactionary response by police? Maybe, just maybe, if G20 protestors had of remained in public parks and played bongo drums and smoked dope, and not torching stores, banks, cop cars (well interfering with the media reporting on it) the police would have refrained from bashing skulls……….

Your OP would tend to counter this most recent passive aggressive assertion.....whatever floats your boat.

Exactly, and from what is known of this case, it doesn't match the legal definition of terrorism.

Only so far as to confirm or deny that such Acts fit the definition, found within the Criminal Code, on what is (or isn’t) “terrorist activity”: I would assume in this case, it does not fit the definition of terrorism as found within the Criminal Code.......so why do you claim this a "non terrorist terrorist act"? Do you have some information that is not in the public sphere?

Sure, but how is that anti-democratic? Like I said before, I don't see the difference between that and other undercover operations/stings etc... Again your point of view is predicated on one viewing the overall action being morally wrong……i.e. countering rioters and providing security or the invasion of Iraq.

That's with the assumption that police intended to organize "anti-democratic operations".......or just provide security. I did answer your question.......to clarify, I can separate the overall intent of the police action, and be "ok with it", but not be "ok" with the actions of those officers that allegedly broke the law.

It’s very apt in this case…….Your cited “expert” served (and investigated the post mortem) during the largest intelligence failure, and resulted largest terror attack, in Canadian history. As per the Major commission, the failure of CSIS to share information (and later destroyed said signals intelligence days after the bombing) with the RCMP was highlighted as one of largest failures in the entire affair…… Of course C-51 is intended to expand the sharing of information between Government agencies, as such, an “expert” that was involved in the aftermath of the Air India bombing, lacks creditability on discussions encompassing the sharing of intelligence information and its utilization in combating terrorism……..unless of course we are to examine the failures of said “expert” and utilize them as an litmus on what not to do.

Not a supposition at all, but a request for proof on a statement by another member..........a silly supposition would be if I said most Muslims are terrorists sans supporting evidence.......

Expert opinion or sour grapes? Your cited "expert" left CSIS in 1988 after he (and fellow officers) bore the brunt of intelligence failures associated with the Air India bombing……up to and the inclusion of destroying evidence to avoid having to testify in court.

What published papers, videos and news reports? Do these contain data demonstrating police get away with breaking the law more often than the general public as you claimed?

Why? By all means, explain the recourse for a person who feels their rights were violated by others...

The problem with baseless and blanket statements........they sound good until you have to prove them

Why? If I feel my rights are being violated (or not) is that not an opinion? Of course legal validation is then required to confirm (or deny) my personal opinion......

So your assertion that many of the police get away with crimes is not supported by any firm data……..I’m shocked!!

Ahh but it is a matter of personal perspective…….I don’t consider opened packages by the CBSA as an infringement of my rights to privacy, likewise the RCMP receiving information on individuals, from our International partners, involved in international terrorism. What is part of the system?

No, again it’s a case of differentiating actions and accountability……Case in point, Occupy Vancouver, little to none of the protestors were detained, let alone charged, by police over several months, though they might have ruined a City square, they didn’t torch police cars nor smash windows at Starbucks ……..versus the Toronto G20.

A more apt statistic would be a citation of what percent of police officers break the law…… until then, the presumption of innocence is King. I don't suppose you can prove that....

Certainly..........Of course the key is to ensure that the police have no requirement to work against you.

I don’t see it like that……with the several cited examples, we have several police officers charged with breaking the law during policing actions comprised of tens, hundreds and thousands of other police officers, as such, I can differentiate the actions of the majority of the officers and those that broke the law……. With additional measures brought forth, I would fully expect a minority of officers to continue to break current or future laws as it happens presently and in turn, those officers to also face legal repercussions……hardly the makings of a fascist police state, but a realization that police are not infallible and that some individual members will break laws, be it by mistake or malfeasance.

If proven to be true, then good......a clear indication that are laws work.

And of course a small percentage of said groups, those for example that spike trees or blow-up pipelines, should be treated as terrorists......fore that is the clear intent of their crimes.