G20: so many arrests, so few convictions

[myata]

Anybody who's been following stories about the events during and following G20 summit in Toronto can't but ask themselves this question. Among arested were children, elderly, journalists. Outrageous tactics of prosecution. Stories upon stories of completely unwarranted frivolous arrests. If I heard it correctly from CBC report yesterday, the highest number of arrests after war crisis in Quebec.

Now let's do a reality check: we aren't talking (at least nobody has seen with their eyes) anything like mob revolts of the 60-s or Los Angeles, etc. No Molotov coctails, wire sticks or mass throwing of rocks at police (other than maybe by agent-provocateurs?).

No, what everybody has seen and numerous accounts reported was a by far peaceful action by citizes interrupted in isolated localites by a very small group bent on violence. BTW where is this group, and who are they? Good question! When they actually brought to the court, if it's going to happen some day, we'll know. Not yet though, not with all those billions spent on security and tens of thousand of police around the place.

Anyways, what we see from this reality check cannot be qualified other than suppression of legitimate and peaceful democratic protest. In other places it may have caused some stir in politics. But not here no. Government told us that it did not like the protests and the government got its way as it always does. Business as usual. Isn't that what first symptoms of onset of a police state would look like?

[Keepitsimple]

I saw enough police cars destroyed and hoodlums smashing windows - right on TV - to know that there were at least 50 or 60 people directly involved in disgusting, civil disobedience.....and if some people decided to cheer them on....they did so at their peril. The cops did a crummy job - they should have come down fast and furious agianst all the punks - right from Day 1....but that does not excuse the criminals inthe midst of the demonstration from the consequences they must now face. And yes, I acknowledge that some innocent bystanders were caught up in the web....but many of those "innocents" were not so angelic...they were "enthisiastic onlookers" and will know better the next time.

[Rick]

Well it wasn't quite the "Army in your streets" that the Liberals several years ago warned Canadians about what life under a Harper government might look like.

But it wasn't too far off.

What it was though was a sheer waste of our tax dollars to hold that event in the downtown core of Toronto when they should have held it in a secure remote military base or at the very least, remote resort.

I mean it's not as though the press needed to have direct access to the particpants since the press were pre-occupied with relaxing by their fake lake to report on anything.

[GostHacked]

There were many arrests under a stated emergency law that never existed in the first place.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

People that break the law deserve to be punished. If those arrested were involved in breaking the law, then they deserve what they get.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Interesting how so many on the left are so quick to defend HRCs and government intrusion in everything from 100% state funded healthcare to forced social laws such as SSM because it works for them but express shock and outrage when their own heavy handed governments do something they are opposed to.

Where is the Liberal outrage that anti abortion protesters can be locked up for wearing a T-shirt objecting to abortion in a bubblezone? Oh ya....they support a woman's right to choose so then it is OK.

Where is the left wing outrage when the Liberal government jailed a group of prairie farmers for donating grain to a 4H club in Montana instead of selling it to them? Oh ya......they support Quebec and Ontario farmers in that prairie grain growers should not have the right to compete so then it is OK.

We reap what we sow.

[bloodyminded]

I saw enough police cars destroyed and hoodlums smashing windows - right on TV - to know that there were at least 50 or 60 people directly involved in disgusting, civil disobedience.....and if some people decided to cheer them on....they did so at their peril. The cops did a crummy job - they should have come down fast and furious agianst all the punks - right from Day 1....but that does not excuse the criminals inthe midst of the demonstration from the consequences they must now face. And yes, I acknowledge that some innocent bystanders were caught up in the web....but many of those "innocents" were not so angelic...they were "enthisiastic onlookers" and will know better the next time.

Then they should have been charged with "enthusiastic onlooking," rather than for things they didn't do.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

People that break the law deserve to be punished. If those arrested were involved in breaking the law, then they deserve what they get.

Exactly. The complaint here is about the incidents when directly the opposite happened.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Lets not worry about one partisan faction or another. At the heart of the issue is personal choice. That is a right that needs to be considered. To each their own, and to all a home from which to do battle with those who would oppose our right to speak or choose as we please. That should be the essence of government, to protect the individual citizens from those who would seek to eliminate choice.

[bloodyminded]

Interesting how so many on the left are so quick to defend HRCs and government intrusion in everything from 100% state funded healthcare to forced social laws such as SSM because it works for them but express shock and outrage when their own heavy handed governments do something they are opposed to.

In my experience, it is mainstream, establishment liberals--centrists, in other words--who are most supportive of the HRC's. The left, not so much. (You can read Ezra Levant's brief interview with Noam Chomsky to see where his type stands on the issue: not only opposition, but astounded disbelief.)

And SSM isn't a "forced social law"...having it illegal is.

So why would you support such a "forced social law," as you call it, if such things are to be opposed?

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[PIK]

Lets look at what could have happened if the cops were not out there in force. Could the destruction have been alot worse if the loons were not clammed down on, to see someone business who they probably have thier whole life into destroyed by people looking for some thing to do. IMO most of these people had no idea what they were protesting.Freedom to speech or to express your self should cost someone their abilty to work or run thier business.

[GostHacked]

People that break the law deserve to be punished. If those arrested were involved in breaking the law, then they deserve what they get.

What laws were broken? The Toronto chief of police told us that people would be arrested under some emergency powers granted to the police, after the summit, we find out there were no emergency laws put into place.

What do you conclude from that?

[bloodyminded]

.Freedom to speech or to express your self should not cost someone their abilty to work or run thier business.

Someone's ability to run their business should not cost others their freedom of speech.

[Bonam]

Someone's ability to run their business should not cost others their freedom of speech.

So you contend that freedom of speech includes the right to damage or destroy other people's private property? That's what we're talking about here, the "speech" of these protesters was nothing more than mindless destruction of the property around them. Or have you forgotten the videos from the protests that we all saw?

[bloodyminded]

So you contend that freedom of speech includes the right to damage or destroy other people's private property? That's what we're talking about here, the "speech" of these protesters was nothing more than mindless destruction of the property around them. Or have you forgotten the videos from the protests that we all saw?

No, and no. This thread was specifically about protesters not engaged in such activity getting arrested. They're no more responsible for the destruction than you are.

I decidedly do not believe that "freedom of speech includes the right to damage or destroy...property"...and of course, I've never alluded to such a preposterous notion.

But the idea that owning and running a business trumps free speech rights is quite explicitly fascist.

Edited October 14, 2010 by bloodyminded

[The_Squid]

So you contend that freedom of speech includes the right to damage or destroy other people's private property? That's what we're talking about here, the "speech" of these protesters was nothing more than mindless destruction of the property around them. Or have you forgotten the videos from the protests that we all saw?

That's such BS. Most of those arrested had nothing to do with any vandalism. The cops ignored the vandals and "cracked down" the next day on people there who did nothing wrong.

[Bonam]

No, and no. This thread was specifically about protesters not engaged in such activity getting arrested. They're no more responsible for the destruction than you are.

I decidedly do not believe that "freedom of speech includes the right to damage or destroy...property"...and of course, I've never alluded to such a preposterous notion.

But the idea that owning and running a business trumps free speech rights is quite explicitly fascist.

The statement you were quoting when you made the post I quoted quite obviously referred to protesters damaging or destroying property. That was the context of PIK's post.

[guyser]

Lets look at what could have happened if the cops were not out there in force.

Why say that?

The cops WERE out there , and took a seat with a thousand others and watched the few idiots burn and torch things. I guess they were scared.

Ahh, but when presented with peaceful protesters, in a designated protest zone, the macho tough guys come out and arrest the wrong people.

Kind of like a bully who looks for the timid one.

[myata]

No, and no. This thread was specifically about protesters not engaged in such activity getting arrested. They're no more responsible for the destruction than you are.

The main concern isn't so much about what happened. Things do happen. But our reaction to it. In other places, there're violent confrontations between mobs and police. Here we have violent suppression and intimidation of a by far peaceful protest. And hardly anybody notices ("democratic" opposition, hello-ooooooo?).

Yes and we have yet to see a conviction of those "hooligans". For now it's more like desperate attempts to get anything going (in one story, prosecutor reduce charge to $50 fine. A guy had to take a day off to go from Montreal to Toronto, so he pleaded guilty. What is it? A triumph of democracy!)

Well, if this is not a wakeup call for all of us who are in a happy illusion about the state of our democracy, wait for a day when peaceful protest would only be allowed north of Arctic Cirle on the 21 st of January. As they do in other managed democracies.

[bloodyminded]

The statement you were quoting when you made the post I quoted quite obviously referred to protesters damaging or destroying property. That was the context of PIK's post.

No it wasn't. Given this thread, PIK was making an "argument" that nobody was disputing.

His "context" was that we should support the police no matter what they do.

I suppsoe he'd hold a different view if Harper wasn't the PM.

[bloodyminded]

The main concern isn't so much about what happened. Things do happen. But our reaction to it. In other places, there're violent confrontations between mobs and police. Here we have violent suppression and intimidation of a by far peaceful protest. And hardly anybody notices ("democratic" opposition, hello-ooooooo?).

Yes and we have yet to see a conviction of those "hooligans". For now it's more like desperate attempts to get anything going (in one story, prosecutor reduce charge to $50 fine. A guy had to take a day off to go from Montreal to Toronto, so he pleaded guilty. What is it? A triumph of democracy!)

Well, if this is not a wakeup call for all of us who are in a happy illusion about the state of our democracy, wait for a day when peaceful protest would only be allowed north of Arctic Cirle on the 21 st of January. As they do in other managed democracies.

Agreed and agreed.

[Argus]

I saw enough police cars destroyed and hoodlums smashing windows - right on TV - to know that there were at least 50 or 60 people directly involved in disgusting, civil disobedience

So they should have been arrested

And the other 1000 people arrested? You're okay with that?

[Argus]

People that break the law deserve to be punished. If those arrested were involved in breaking the law, then they deserve what they get.

And if they weren't in any way involved? Do the police who arrest them deserve to be punished? How about Officer Bubbles? Is he a good example of what you consider to be democratic law enforcement?

[Argus]

Lets not worry about one partisan faction or another. At the heart of the issue is personal choice. That is a right that needs to be considered. To each their own, and to all a home from which to do battle with those who would oppose our right to speak or choose as we please. That should be the essence of government, to protect the individual citizens from those who would seek to eliminate choice.

Well in this case that would be the Toronto Police Department.

[Argus]

Lets look at what could have happened if the cops were not out there in force. Could the destruction have been alot worse if the loons were not clammed down on, to see someone business who they probably have thier whole life into destroyed by people looking for some thing to do. IMO most of these people had no idea what they were protesting.Freedom to speech or to express your self should cost someone their abilty to work or run thier business.

I have no difficult with police arresting people who were breaking the law. I DO have a problem with arresting people who happened to be walking down a street doing nothing illegal, or people sitting in a park which was perfectly legal, or people whose crime was they happened to be on the same block as some individuals the police suspected were troublemakers.