Special Powers for the Police at the G20

[GostHacked]

It's very mysterious that they weren't arrested when donning masks, or before. The police and CSIS have been badmouthing and harassing anarchists for months ... but they didn't arrest them ... ??? Very strange.

Quite right, we did hear a lot about the anarchists before the summit, not much after.

Of course, it is possible that the ones donning masks were all police agentes provocateurs. Let's not forget ... the ONLY 'protester' at the Quebec summit (2001?) who threatened and tried to instigate trouble was ... wait for it ... a black clad undercover RCMP.

They were not RCMP (I think), but they were part of the Montebello PD. Which was later admitted by the Montebello PD chief.

Yes, it will be a very 'mysterious' thing if none of the troublemakers, the so-called Black Bloc Anarchists were arrested and charged.

Very 'mysterious' indeed!! (NOT!)

Catch and release.

[Moonbox]

Ahh, that makes much more sense. And I agree with you on all your points. Like a billion dollar security budget was not enough to save a couple police cruisers or shop windows. Overprepared, but not effective in stopping any of the violence when it happened. Instead the heavy hand was thrown down the next day and this is where we see most of the protesters being arrested.

I highly doubt the $1B budget was meant to protect the odd shop window or anything like that. Rather, I think it was meant to make sure that Canada wasn't embarrassed by having VIPs from other countries harrassed or hurt or scared.

[bjre]

I highly doubt the $1B budget was meant to protect the odd shop window or anything like that. Rather, I think it was meant to make sure that Canada wasn't embarrassed by having VIPs from other countries harrassed or hurt or scared.

I think they merely want to increase their (cops, court, legal system industry, and police equipment manufactures) revenue with any kind of reason they can find.

And the cop Union may satisfy with this too.

Edited July 8, 2010 by bjre

[GostHacked]

I highly doubt the $1B budget was meant to protect the odd shop window or anything like that. Rather, I think it was meant to make sure that Canada wasn't embarrassed by having VIPs from other countries harrassed or hurt or scared.

Well, the leaders of each country would have brought their own security to the G8 G20 events. The POTUS does not go anywhere without a fairly large security group.

And no the billion did not cover any damage to shops or police cars. I recall some news outlet saying that the shops were pissed that the shops would not be covered by that billion dollars. The G20 disrupted business, so they lost sales and now had to repair their shops.

[Smallc]

Well, the leaders of each country would have brought their own security to the G8 G20 events.

And those security forces have aboslutely zero power in Canada.

[bjre]

And those security forces have aboslutely zero power in Canada.

And with that "aboslutely zero power", they can mass strip search females without a reason and without been charged.

And I think you have the potential to become a politician because of the above quoted sentence.

Edited July 8, 2010 by bjre

[GostHacked]

And those security forces have aboslutely zero power in Canada.

I believe they do have power, it might be slightly neutered, but I dare you to challenge the security that any leader brings with them and see how much power they do have. I don't have a site or source (still looking).

Actually , we can look at the Bilderberger meeting here in Ottawa a few years back. Local Ottawa Police and RCMP were allowed on the hotel/resort grounds to be part of the security, but I am guessing they took orders from the security the Bilderbergers has in place. So it does not seem much of a stretch to say that these foreign security contingencies have some power while visiting Canada.

Edited July 8, 2010 by GostHacked

[Smallc]

It was reported before the summit that the security forces have no power. It was in the article about the CSIS Intelligence Officer visiting the native protestors. It's the same reason that the RCMP is responsible for the security of the US Embassy outside of the fence.

[bjre]

The authority keeping lots in secret, they make charged fear of talking to media, they don't want people to know truth, let alone let most people to decide. This is so called democracy.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/834632--delays-are-excruciating-for-parents-of-g20-accused?bn=1

Most parents avoided speaking to reporters, fearful of saying anything that might make matters worse for their child, as though the law, and the power of the state, were both fickle and vengeful. But some couldn’t resist.

Defence lawyer Leitold then intervened, insisting he and others were grateful for the media’s presence.

His client, Syed Hussan, was released on Thursday on $55,000 bail. A Pakistani native, he has no family in Canada. Bail conditions include residing in the homes of two York University professors acting as his sureties, an 11-p.m.-to-6-a.m. curfew, a surrendering of travel documents, a ban on attending — or planning — public protests or demonstrations, and a ban on any contact with people known to him as members of Anti-War @ Laurier or the Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance group (SOAR).

In the run-up to the G20 summit, Hussan was described in media reports as spokesperson for the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, which helped co-ordinate various protest groups. He is also an activist with No One is Illegal, which calls for a more open immigration policy. As a condition of bail, he can continue to work at York University’s Centre for Feminist Research.

“He’s excited about being released,” Leitold said. “Mr. Hussan is eager to return to his work in the community, and he’s also eager to answer these baseless charges in a court of law.”

Yet to appear for bail hearings are Amanda Hiscocks, Leah Henderson, Alex Hundert and Peter Hopperton. They were arrested in Toronto prior to the June 26 riot, which saw black-clad protesters set fire to police cruisers and smash store windows — despite the presence of 20,000 police officers downtown.

At their court appearance on June 26, Crown Attorney Vincent Paris told the Star’s Francine Kopun the four are allegedly executives of SOAR. Paris said they were arrested as a result of an ongoing police investigation that began in April 2009. He alleged the group had a list of targets, including Metro Hall, City Hall, banks, Goldman Sachs, The Bay and the U.S., Russian and Indian consulates.

The joint investigation, carried out by the RCMP, the OPP, Toronto police and others, involved two undercover agents infiltrating groups in Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo and Toronto.

The infiltration raises an obvious question: If undercover agents knew so much about the plans of the groups that allegedly orchestrated the violence, how come thousands of police on the streets of Toronto couldn’t prevent it?

The Toronto Police Services Board this week announced a civilian review of how police conducted summit security. But Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty — whose government secretly gave police extra powers for the summit — continues to reject calls for a provincial inquiry.

[42OtterBC]

The police are to serve and protect the public.

Unfortunately this is not really why the Police are here. Their purpose is to:

A: Keep the peace

B: Protect PRIVATE property

C: Act as liaisons between parties that cannot find an agreement

They are most certainly NOT here to protect the public - they are ruled by LAWS, which are fallible by their very own design - and on purpose to keep lawyers employed - remember, laws are made by lawyers.

The police uphold these laws and beyond that are not responsible.

Nowhere does it specify what the police "Serve and protect"

[GostHacked]

Time to bump this thread up some.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/01/21/g20-police-officer-youtube.html

"You haven't opened up your bag, so take off," the officer says to the man.

When the man refers to being in Canada, the officer replies: "This ain't Canada right now."

Abusing special powers in the end never granted to them in the first place. If this kind of thing is not stopped, then expect more of this to happen. Many might not think it is a problem, but it's that slippery slope. How much are people willing to put up with?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Abusing special powers in the end never granted to them in the first place. If this kind of thing is not stopped, then expect more of this to happen. Many might not think it is a problem, but it's that slippery slope. How much are people willing to put up with?

Errr...the "slippery slope" began long before this....see "October Crisis". How many people "put up with" that?

[Saipan]

When the man refers to being in Canada, the officer replies: "This ain't Canada right now."

And those are the kind of "officers" our lefties want to run our gun "control" with unlimited resouces.

[charter.rights]

Free speech behind protest at slain cop's funeral

It is getting real bad when a guy gets arrested just because the police don't like what he has to say.

[kimmy]

Free speech behind protest at slain cop's funeral

It is getting real bad when a guy gets arrested just because the police don't like what he has to say.

I don't feel much sympathy for the professional rioters who went to G20 with the intent of destroying things. It's an exceptional circumstance.

But arresting a guy for holding a sign is unacceptable.

Ever since the circumstances of Robert Dziekanski's death became known I've felt a growing sense of disgust for our police. Were it just the case of "one bad apple", I could understand that, but here we have one bad apple who fired the tazer repeatedly without cause, 3 more bad apples who helped each other fabricate a story to make it seem like the killing was justified. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who cleared the officers of any wrongdoing and put them back on duty after a short "investigation" that was obviously a whitewash. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who tried to prevent the public from ever seeing the video of the incident. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who tried to spin the incident by attempting to portray Dziekanski as an alcoholic. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who collaborated to keep evidence from reaching the Braidwood inquiry.

Clearly, we're not talking about one bad apple, we're talking about a culture where a whole bunch of bad apples think that protecting their own is more important than protecting the public or respecting the law.

And clearly the only reason we know any of this is that one citizen happened to make a cell-phone video of it.

So we just had another incident here in BC where a guy gets on his hands and knees as the RCMP officer tells him, and the RCMP officer gives him a soccer-kick right in the face.

Just one bad apple?

Well, his partner is standing right there watching. Did she make a report about him afterward? Or is she another bad apple?

It turns out the same officer was already under investigation for beating up a different suspect last summer in pretty similar circumstances. The guy didn't file a complaint for 3 months afterward, so maybe there's some reason to be suspicious. But the complaint was filed 2 months before this latest incident, and that it's the same officer involved is a fascinating coincidence. I wonder what the officer's partner at the time thought about it.

When asked why the officer wasn't pulled off duty after the first incident, the RCMP's response is, basically, that the video recording was the difference this time:

When asked why Mantler wasn't pulled off active duty after the first complaint, RCMP spokeswoman Cpl. Annie Linteau said the first incident was crucially different from the second, in that there was no visual recording available.

"What's happened is right there," Linteau said of the Jan. 7 incident. "There's no question — the video is a valuable piece of evidence."

I think we all know that she's understating it. It's not just that the video recording is "a valuable piece of evidence", it's also the only reason the RCMP is taking this seriously at all.

Is it getting to the point where we as a public need to take out our cell-phones and start recording video as soon as we see a police officer approach a member of the public? Is that what it's going to take to show them they can't get away with this crap?

-k

[Esq]

What gets me in all this, and I would hope the G20 might learn from it, and any other major groups is.

For the amount of money embezzled or spent on security a small city could be built on a remote island or one of many islands and the overall cost would be considerally less, with much fewer security issues.

Tapei 101 cost $1.8 Billion to build

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101

They could build one of these things on Say Anticosti Island and house the whole G20.. and be done with it.. why enrage and disrupt local communities with this nonsense.

There are many to choose from but what about wolfe island?

Why not collect the funds for this from all the members then host there each year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfe_Island_%28Ontario%29

It doesn't even need to be as big as Taipai 101

[guyser]

But arresting a guy for holding a sign is unacceptable.

Unacceptable and somewhat common on this continent.

Clearly, we're not talking about one bad apple, we're talking about a culture where a whole bunch of bad apples think that protecting their own is more important than protecting the public or respecting the law.

And clearly the only reason we know any of this is that one citizen happened to make a cell-phone video of it.

That has , to me anyway, been coming a long time.

I believe that in the past we all were prepared to look the other way on minor digressions the police made in the pursuit of bringing one to justice. But it seems that those werent minor digressions, they seem to be the norm and becoming well known by the public.

Police culture needs to be reined in and fast. We merely have to look at the former Police Chief of T.O. , one who I make no bones about my disgust for, Julian Fantino. Fantino has made remarks whereby the Charter was a pain in his ass, it didnt allow him to "demand videotapes" without a warrant.(Holly murder case) It does not take long for the sentiments of the chief and his open disregard of the Charter to filter down to cop on the beat. The police union is run by what bny all accounts is a street thug in a suit. A well known coke head and former strong armer of the entertainment district, not to mention a Police Chiefs son.

I think we all know that she's understating it. It's not just that the video recording is "a valuable piece of evidence", it's also the only reason the RCMP is taking this seriously at all.

Is it getting to the point where we as a public need to take out our cell-phones and start recording video as soon as we see a police officer approach a member of the public? Is that what it's going to take to show them they can't get away with this crap?

-k

Most people of a certain age recall reading years ago any number of allegations made by criminals and non-criminals of police brutality and we all rolled our eyes (pre -Youtube and cell phones)

Yeah sure buddy, you got beat up for nothing....ok ,cough cough.

I now think plenty of them had a valid beef what with the rise of video showing just how stupid some police can be and the subsequent violation of rights and abuses to the public trust.

It may be very near in the future , some surely are equipping themselves now,whereby cars come with video and audio up;oaded and sent a server in real time in an effort to protect oneself from the Police.

No sense having the video on you when they come calling, they merely confiscate and destroy.

Dont forget, it is not a crime to video tape police in action. But you best have someone secretly taping you taping the police.....or you;re toast

[TwoDucks]

I don't know if there's going to be an easy resolution. First steps need to be taken to change police culture, but a lot of that evolves from the situations they have to deal with. On the other hand, we could require them to be more closely monitored, maybe a black box of sorts to record audio when responding. That has plenty of downsides as well.

And those are the kind of "officers" our lefties want to run our gun "control" with unlimited resouces.

Well his authoritarian disregard to civil liberties sounds a bit more in line with Conservative values towards law and order. Aren't straw man arguments great?

[Esq]

First steps need to be taken to change police culture

You are never going to get anywhere with that premise.

The first steps needs to be

1. Transparent laws and honesty about those laws.

You don't go around saying - you are protected.. then say... well atleast you are covered for around $500 if we totally walk all over your supposed rights.

The problem is people think they have rights, what they have is a 5 year long court process and maybe some legal costs and a few hundred dollars for hundreds of hours of wasted time, and knowing you have made enemies of the people who are suppose to help you when the 'bad guys' come after you.

The only rights people have are the ones they make for themselves and uphold for themselves.

Cops are just part of a political process that protects their own.

All the fancy smansy illusion of rights is just to facilate willingness in an otherwise powerless and enslaved population subjugated by a police state.

The first step as stated is for people to wake up and realize this.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Esq

[Esq]

Errr...the "slippery slope" began long before this....see "October Crisis". How many people "put up with" that?

That was via law made in parliament - the War Measures Act.

The law the police supposedly were execising under was an executive council order of Ontario.

[Esq]

That was via law made in parliament - the War Measures Act.

The law the police supposedly were execising under was an executive council order of Ontario.

It is problematic to beleive that the government of Ontario can suspend Canadian constitutional rights in Canada - that require a majority of provinces and the federal government to agree on.

[Esq]

It is problematic to beleive that the government of Ontario can suspend Canadian constitutional rights in Canada - that require a majority of provinces and the federal government to agree on.

The issues in say Quebec of this sort of exercise is problematic if say a Bloc Quebecois provincial government opted to suspend constitutional rights by an executive council order of the province of Quebec.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Esq

[Saipan]

Quebec legislation wouldn't be a problem. Denis Lortie would fix that

[TwoDucks]

1. Transparent laws and honesty about those laws.

I think that's a given to expect that. And aside from this fuck-about with Ontario allowing or not allowing special police powers for the G20 summit, I think we have it pretty good compared to a significant chunk of the global population in terms of transparency. Could things be better? Sure, and we should strive for that.

I was referring more to the situations in BC, where the police very clearly acted outside of what the law allowed them to do.

The only rights people have are the ones they make for themselves and uphold for themselves.

Cops are just part of a political process that protects their own.

I definitely agree people need to be more willing to stand up for their own rights. I also agree that police seem to see themselves in an Us vs. Them situation. And well I don't think it's good, it's certainly understandable why they would act that way. There needs to be more accountability, independent oversight or something to that nature.

[GostHacked]

I don't feel much sympathy for the professional rioters who went to G20 with the intent of destroying things. It's an exceptional circumstance.

I am thinking it was another attempt by police to incite riots. We can look back the the SPP summit in Montebelo Quebec where it was later found out that the 3 people caught trying to incite violence were actually undercover police officers. It was denied, denied, denied.

But arresting a guy for holding a sign is unacceptable.

Agreed.

Ever since the circumstances of Robert Dziekanski's death became known I've felt a growing sense of disgust for our police. Were it just the case of "one bad apple", I could understand that, but here we have one bad apple who fired the tazer repeatedly without cause, 3 more bad apples who helped each other fabricate a story to make it seem like the killing was justified. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who cleared the officers of any wrongdoing and put them back on duty after a short "investigation" that was obviously a whitewash. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who tried to prevent the public from ever seeing the video of the incident. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who tried to spin the incident by attempting to portray Dziekanski as an alcoholic. Plus more bad apples at the RCMP who collaborated to keep evidence from reaching the Braidwood inquiry.

It sure was not one of their better moments. It could have been handled a lot different.

Clearly, we're not talking about one bad apple, we're talking about a culture where a whole bunch of bad apples think that protecting their own is more important than protecting the public or respecting the law.

That is the impression I get. They usually like to protect their own.

And clearly the only reason we know any of this is that one citizen happened to make a cell-phone video of it.

So we just had another incident here in BC where a guy gets on his hands and knees as the RCMP officer tells him, and the RCMP officer gives him a soccer-kick right in the face.

Just one bad apple?

Well, his partner is standing right there watching. Did she make a report about him afterward? Or is she another bad apple?

This kind of thing seems to be happening all over. Even here in Ottawa, a couple officers are under investigation from abuse at the police station against a couple people who were charged/detained.

It turns out the same officer was already under investigation for beating up a different suspect last summer in pretty similar circumstances. The guy didn't file a complaint for 3 months afterward, so maybe there's some reason to be suspicious. But the complaint was filed 2 months before this latest incident, and that it's the same officer involved is a fascinating coincidence. I wonder what the officer's partner at the time thought about it.

Kind of disgusting is it not?

When asked why the officer wasn't pulled off duty after the first incident, the RCMP's response is, basically, that the video recording was the difference this time:

I think we all know that she's understating it. It's not just that the video recording is "a valuable piece of evidence", it's also the only reason the RCMP is taking this seriously at all.

Usually it's their word against yours, however in most cases the video does not lie.

Is it getting to the point where we as a public need to take out our cell-phones and start recording video as soon as we see a police officer approach a member of the public? Is that what it's going to take to show them they can't get away with this crap?

-k

Seems like the way to protect yourself is to start capturing video and pictures when you can. This is the best weapon to defend yourself. The videos go online, sometimes viral, and then we start to see the police get a little nervous.