Poor Code Pink

[Topaz]

Let go back a couple days before this happened. Didn't we see on TV how the US security were showing how easy it was to WALK across the border and anyone could get in especially any terrorists???? Then we see these women trying to get in legally and were turned away? If they were the kind of people to break the law they would have walked across "those areas" on the border! The US president himself had to get speical permission from the Canandian gov't to visit because he can't come across because of his DUI and neither can Cheney!

[ScottSA]

Sounds like Canada had good reason not to let them in.

And yes, the U.S. army is ALL volunteer, do these women not know that or do they just willfully ignore it?

Steyn had a good article on that. In view of a distinct lack of draft to snivel about, the anti-war crowd has taken to calling the soldiers "kids." Girls are "women" when it comes to deciding to abort at 14 without parental permission, but boys are "kids" when they volunteer at 18. The argument of Code Pink seems to revolve around an imputed moral authority by virtue of motherhood. They are mothers, but their kids are adults; not 'little Johnny' anymore, and they have no more moral authority to speak to the issue than anyone else.

[ScottSA]

Let go back a couple days before this happened. Didn't we see on TV how the US security were showing how easy it was to WALK across the border and anyone could get in especially any terrorists???? Then we see these women trying to get in legally and were turned away? If they were the kind of people to break the law they would have walked across "those areas" on the border! The US president himself had to get speical permission from the Canandian gov't to visit because he can't come across because of his DUI and neither can Cheney!

That argument simply has no merit. In fact there's no argument being presented; just a lot of mud slinging. Are you saying that they should be let across because they didn't try to sneak across?

[kuzadd]

Yes a 50 fine, misdemeanor is certainly a good reason (not) and soon, we can stop people with parking tickets?

There was no reason for them to be on the FBI watch list, for peaceful protesting and trying to present a petition.

The US is allegedly a free country , inc. a freedom to protest.

Therefore their placement on the FBI watchlist was obviously politically motivated and is extremely reminiscent of a dictatorial state.

As to Canada's role?

pure nonsense.

Lacking commonsense or independance.

[kuzadd]

In my case, the border guard pulled up a file showing that I had been arrested at the US Mission to the UN where, on International Women’s Day, a group of us had tried to deliver a peace petition signed by 152,000 women around the world,†says Benjamin. “For this, the Canadians labeled me a criminal and refused to allow me in the country.†“The FBI’s placing of peace activists on an international criminal database is blatant political intimidation of US citizens opposed to Bush administration policies,†says Colonel Wright, who was also Deputy US Ambassador in four countries.

“It’s outrageous that Canada is turning away peacemakers protesting a war that does not have the support of either US or Canadian citizens,†says Benjamin.

We in Canada and our gov. at the time, did NOT support the attack on iraq, I certainly do not now, nor never have.

We should not enforce politically motivated watch lists.

[geoffrey]

We should not enforce politically motivated watch lists.

Agreed! We shouldn't let anyone in with criminal records!

[Drea]

Agreed! We shouldn't let anyone in with criminal records!

I agree... what I disagree with is what will "get" one a criminal record.

Committing a crime -- robbery, assault, murder, dui, forgery, selling drugs.... all are crimes. But are we (or the US in this case) to label protestors as criminals? Should chaining onself to a tree or fence (for example) really be enough to get one a criminal record for life?

While it may be against the law to do so, doing so should not result in a criminal record -- just as speeding is against the law but does not result in a criminal record.

[fellowtraveller]

I agree... what I disagree with is what will "get" one a criminal record.

Committing a crime -- robbery, assault, murder, dui, forgery, selling drugs.... all are crimes. But are we (or the US in this case) to label protestors as criminals? Should chaining onself to a tree or fence (for example) really be enough to get one a criminal record for life?

While it may be against the law to do so, doing so should not result in a criminal record -- just as speeding is against the law but does not result in a criminal record.

Perhaps their crimes were minor. Maybe they should seek pardons, which would allow them to travel more freely.

I have an acquaintance who was caught with a couple of joints 25 years ago. The whole process: from apprehension to an appearance in front of a Justice of the Peace took less than 90 minutes. His penalty was a $25 fine plus $4.75 costs.

He cannot travel to the US, ever. That's the law, that's the consequence.

[Drea]

Why doesn't he just get a pardon?

My issue is with what constitues a criminal record... buying and selling joints (sigh) are criminal offenses (bigger sigh) which result in criminal records (shouldn't tho, biggest sigh).

My question... Is protesting a criminal offense? Should the result of being arrested for protesting a criminal record?

I think not. Not in a free country at least...

"If you stand against the government, you will be arrested and charged with a crime". That smacks of fascism IMO.

[geoffrey]

They weren't arrested for protesting. They were arrested for interfering in the lives of thousands that use a bridge they effectively closed.

Here, let me give you a similar case. Go rent a big camper and park it across 3 lanes of the 401 for a few hours and tell me that you shouldn't be charged with anything.

They had a permit to protest when it wouldn't impact as many people's livelyhoods (some people actually do have to be at work at a certain time). They chose to infringe on other's liberty.

I see no difference in a person chaining me up in a cellar and someone blocking my car on the highway. What they did was wrong.

[jefferiah]

They weren't arrested for protesting. They were arrested for interfering in the lives of thousands that use a bridge they effectively closed.

Here, let me give you a similar case. Go rent a big camper and park it across 3 lanes of the 401 for a few hours and tell me that you shouldn't be charged with anything.

Let's add an ambulance with a patient in critical condition.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jefferiah

[geoffrey]

Let's add an ambulance with a patient in critical condition.

Some just aren't willing to be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

If the patient died, would society be willing to lock 'em up for murder?

[betsy]

They weren't arrested for protesting. They were arrested for interfering in the lives of thousands that use a bridge they effectively closed.

Here, let me give you a similar case. Go rent a big camper and park it across 3 lanes of the 401 for a few hours and tell me that you shouldn't be charged with anything.

They had a permit to protest when it wouldn't impact as many people's livelyhoods (some people actually do have to be at work at a certain time). They chose to infringe on other's liberty.

I see no difference in a person chaining me up in a cellar and someone blocking my car on the highway. What they did was wrong.

Quite true!

And taking over an office.....that's invasion!

[betsy]

Let's add an ambulance with a patient in critical condition.

Or a woman in labor!

Or firemen responding to an emergency call.

Or paramedics rushing to a child from choking....or drowning....

Or cops responding to a domestic disturbance or other crimes.

These so-called peace-makers (who should aptly be called "shit-stirrers") are lucky they're not sitting in jail!

If they are so rabidly anti-war, they should be doing their protests in places of war! Go to Iraq or Afghanistan! Just sign a waiver that our own military are not responsible for their well-being!

[old_bold&cold]

Lets face it, most protests have an upside and a down side. For every good thing that these people wish for, there are many bad things that their protesting will cause. The fact that they were charged with criminal charges, says that these people did things beyond peaceful protesting. So yes, it gave them the criminal record and yes the fatc of that being restricted travel to Canada. It should not have come as a surprise. And especially today where you can pretty much expect a records check happening when you cross the border, whether into or out of Canada. I am amazed that these people do not realize that we here in Canada do not want their types here, and more then the USA would want them there.

[margrace]

They weren't arrested for protesting. They were arrested for interfering in the lives of thousands that use a bridge they effectively closed.

Here, let me give you a similar case. Go rent a big camper and park it across 3 lanes of the 401 for a few hours and tell me that you shouldn't be charged with anything.

They had a permit to protest when it wouldn't impact as many people's livelyhoods (some people actually do have to be at work at a certain time). They chose to infringe on other's liberty.

I see no difference in a person chaining me up in a cellar and someone blocking my car on the highway. What they did was wrong.

Does this mean that all the people who protested the shipping of Toronto garbage to Kirkland lake and the farmers who blocked traffic on major highways to get attention to their plight are criminals and legally should not be allowed to cross the border.

[margrace]

Lets face it, most protests have an upside and a down side. For every good thing that these people wish for, there are many bad things that their protesting will cause. The fact that they were charged with criminal charges, says that these people did things beyond peaceful protesting. So yes, it gave them the criminal record and yes the fatc of that being restricted travel to Canada. It should not have come as a surprise. And especially today where you can pretty much expect a records check happening when you cross the border, whether into or out of Canada. I am amazed that these people do not realize that we here in Canada do not want their types here, and more then the USA would want them there.

Funny, I thought peaceful protester were my Democratic Right, are you saying there in no Democracy in North America?

[old_bold&cold]

Funny, I thought peaceful protester were my Democratic Right, are you saying there in no Democracy in North America?

As it has already been said, protesting and blocking roads and the general flow of people and things, is not a democratic right. One would only have to see what you have a democratic right to, is not what protesters want. Your right to protest can and is done every day here in Canada and through out the USA. You see them carrying signs and walking with the flow of the pedestrians and they are there protesting, but not interfering in any way. But as I am sure you know, that is not the purpose of most demonstrators. They believe that to interupt the natural flow of traffic and pedestrians, is the best way to get on the news. And yes, it is because now that they have broken laws, and arrests are made, the news carries their story and they get all that free advertising. But among all those arrested will be the few who get charged with inciting civil disobedience or organizing an unlawful gathering, etc.. This is where you will see criminal charges being laid. Of course they then scream loudly about how unjust it all is. Lets face it, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. You can legally give someone a push to save them from getting hit by a car, but you can not push them for no reason.

I do not know about most of the members here, but when I see a peaceful protest done with out interrupting people and traffic, I take that extra bit of time to actually read the signs and see what it is all about. Now I am not saying I will agree with them, but rather I do give thema chance to convince me of their issue. The others that seems to want to interupt and block everything, I do not bother reading the signs or give them any chance to explain. I will make sure that any police officer I see, knows that I am making a foraml request that he make the protesters obey the laws and stop the blockages. Which is my democratic right. In my time I have been on both sides and yes it did not take me long to see the people who organize all these disrupting protests, are never the ones who put their freedom on the line. They are cowards who think they have a cause, but are not willing to put their freeom up to that cause. I am much older now and yes I can see that we were wrong back then. Not because the cause was wrong but our methods were wrong.

[kuzadd]

Agreed! We shouldn't let anyone in with criminal records!

LOL, the tresspassing charge was obviously politically motivated, as was the placement on the list.

I agree about criminals. VIOLENT offenders.

I truly don't give a hooey, for this type of nonsense.

[kuzadd]

They weren't arrested for protesting. They were arrested for interfering in the lives of thousands that use a bridge they effectively closed.

Here, let me give you a similar case. Go rent a big camper and park it across 3 lanes of the 401 for a few hours and tell me that you shouldn't be charged with anything.

They had a permit to protest when it wouldn't impact as many people's livelyhoods (some people actually do have to be at work at a certain time). They chose to infringe on other's liberty.

I see no difference in a person chaining me up in a cellar and someone blocking my car on the highway. What they did was wrong.

No that is not what they were arrested for, why don't some of you get your story straight?

Permits to protest? This is just more LOL garbage, I cannot even believe people buy into this garbage??? Where are your thinking caps??

You do not need a permit to protest, it is your democratic right, as a person/populace!

All the STATE has to do is deny the permit, and you have NO RIGHTS.

So what will the STATE do?

Issue NO 'permits' to protest, and then NO ONE will have the right, effectively taking away a democratic right of the populace.

Is this lost on some of you?

Apparently it is?

I have never heard or read so much nonsense in my life.

Edited October 14, 2007 by kuzadd

[old_bold&cold]

No that is not what they were arrested for, why don't some of you get your story straight?

If they had criminal trespass charges, then they did break the law. Evidently they decided to go on private property and disrupt things there, which is not their democratic right, now isn't it?

Permits to protest? This is just more LOL garbage, I cannot even believe people buy into this garbage??? Where are your thinking caps??

You do not need a permit to protest, it is your democratic right, as a person/populace!

If you are going to have marches or slow moving blockades then of course you need to get a permit. Yes they do issue permits for this. Like when the farmer came with their tractors on public roads to parliament hill, did in order to be compliant to the laws.

All the STATE has to do is deny the permit, and you have NO RIGHTS.

So what will the STATE do?

Issue NO 'permits' to protest, and then NO ONE will have the right, effectively taking away a democratic right of the populace.

The state or in this case municipal government, will issue permits to protest, within the guidelines for those protests. They will not allow Blockades, but a slow moving march to get from a to b will be permitted and then be legal. These permits are issued every day and anyone who says they are with held just does not know what he is talking about.

Is this lost on some of you?

Apparently it is?

I have never heard or read so much nonsense in my life.

I think this is lost on you. Have you ever attempted to geta protest permit? If so then where and why was it turned down, if it was. I would bet if it was refused it was because your protest was going to break some laws, as they will never turn downa legal protest, as long as it stays within the rules.

[Argus]

“It’s outrageous that Canada is turning away peacemakers protesting a war that does not have the support of either US or Canadian citizens,†says Benjamin.

We in Canada and our gov. at the time, did NOT support the attack on iraq, I certainly do not now, nor never have.

We should not enforce politically motivated watch lists.

You don't get arrested for "trying to present petitions", unless that involves trespassing or blocking people from leaving or entering the building.

No one is suggesting these people are dangerous. But that is not our criteria for allowing people to visit. Just as you yourself exclude people who, while not criminals, might be troublemakers and general pains in the ass from attending a party at your home, so too do we as a nation exclude people who are likely to be general pains in the ass. You have no right, as a foreigner, to enter Canada. We can exclude you on a whim. It's our home and we can keep anyone out we want for whatever reason we want.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Argus

[geoffrey]

Does this mean that all the people who protested the shipping of Toronto garbage to Kirkland lake and the farmers who blocked traffic on major highways to get attention to their plight are criminals and legally should not be allowed to cross the border.

No, but blocking traffic there isn't illegal. Apparently it is on this bridge, which is why they needed a permit for this specific occassion... which they got. And then ignored.

You do not need a permit to protest, it is your democratic right, as a person/populace!

It's also my lawful democratic right to kick the shit out of anyone that illegally holds me against my will. If they block my car, I can use reasonable force to remove them. If I tossed them off the bridge, would you feel as sympathic to me, defending my liberty?

You see, civilized people see a balance. They have a right to protest, I have a right to get to work on time. If they impede my right, they lose theirs.

It's something lost on the protest happy hippies.

All the STATE has to do is deny the permit, and you have NO RIGHTS.

Challenge it in court. They got their permit by the way... and then ignored the terms of it.

Protest, like I said, is ok when reasonable. Would you be ok with someone protesting public health care by blockading the entrances of all publically funded hospitals? Probably not. At least I hope not.

I have never heard or read so much nonsense in my life.

It's all about competing liberties and finding a fair balance so that protestors can get their message out and people can still enjoy their own liberty to move about as they please.

[kuzadd]

I am amazed at the unadulterated nonsense, this topic has brought out.

Get a permit to protest, because it is that "state" that endows that right??

Good thing many movements in the past that advanced the human cause, didn't get a "permit" hence "permission" from the state, to challenge the state!

How many rights that we have now, do you think we'd have?

How many wrongs would have been corrected had everyone got permission from the 'state'?

hey soon, maybe the "state" will force us to get a permit to have kids!!

yah, and if you have any with out your permit, you can get in trouble.

Sounds pretty tyrannical to me!

[kuzadd]

You see, civilized people see a balance. They have a right to protest, I have a right to get to work on time. If they impede my right, they lose theirs.

Clearly you don't see a balance. IMO, you have just spouted alot of nonsense, about nothing.

This incident has nothing to do with a bridge, first of all

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?...pe&type=328

Ann Wright, retired U.S. army colonel and former diplomat who quit in opposition to the Iraq war, and Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK and founding director of Global Exchange, tested Canada's policy towards US peace activists on Thursday. They were on their way to Toronto at the invitation of the Toronto Stop the War Coalition but were denied entry into Canada due to previous arrests he women were questioned at Canadian customs about their participation

in anti-war efforts and informed that they had an FBI file indicating

they had been arrested in acts of non-violent civil disobedience.

Both Ann and Medea have previously visited Canada for anti-war meetings, sometimes at the invitation of Canadian activist groups or political parties. As recently as August, Medea had been admitted into Canada without problem.

Do you know how many peace activists have small petty charges against them, politically motivated, of course?!

That even charging these people for acts of civil disobedience, is nothing more the politically motivated punishment for challenging the "state"???

By these same actions do you know Martin Luther King could not have come in our country???

Clearly civilized, and I would add, coherently THINKING people, would see the imbalance in a state ,empowering itself through random politically motivated charges, against it's own population.

Edited October 15, 2007 by kuzadd