bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 What are the Liberals afraid of? They're afraid of a Harper majority; they're afraid of their own weakness; they're afraid they're not currently the "natural" governing party of Canada. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and thus clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - - - H.L. Mencken Namely "hidden agenda" and duck hunters. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and thus clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - - - H.L. Mencken Namely "hidden agenda" and duck hunters. And criminal gangs and terrorists. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Shwa Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 Excellent direction myata, but I am having a hard time as seeing the G20 as any more important to human rights than Trudeau calling up the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970. That was significant, the G20 was unfortunate, but currently under investigation. This is beyong the point though. And the point is that, just like in Algeria: 1) The governments feel competent and authorised to shut down peaceful democratic dissent as opposed to protecting citizen's rights to it as could only be the case in a true democracy; Was the government competent to shut down peaceful democratic dissent when windows were being smashed and cars burned? Was the government authorized to prevent any further occurances of such acts. What concerns me the most - about the smashing windows and burning cars was whether there was some baiting going here to allow for the justification of ramping up the police forcefulness. 2) Just like in Algeria, police uses excessive brital force to suppress peaceful expression of opinion by people without legal or moral justification; g_bambino answers this correctly in my mind. We can argue over due dilligence with regard to handling crowds that could potentially turn violent and cause property damage. However, the idea that damage or violence could happen at a G20 conference didn't materialize out of thin air. There was prededence. and,3) Just like in Algeria (in its bad days) the society is numb about what's going on. No, I don't think so. Society is displaying those actions in our media and in government investigations and inquiries. That is the way it should be. Also, we are discussing this on an open forum and I am sure the Toronto G20 is getting lots of play in the public. The rest is minor details and variations, marking various points in the descending progression. Yes, Algerian "security forces" may be (put qualifier here) nastier in treating those who dared to ignore governments prohibition and insist on their rights. How much does it matter though, in the big picture? If like a wordless herd we're moving to the condition where "one should stay home" if the government says so? This is your key point I think and well taken. No, we shouldn't "stay home" or, in the case of hundreds if not thousands of employees and workers, find someplace else to sit and do your job. I agree that the police situation was way over the top, the money spent was way over the top and the actions of a few ought to be brought to justice. However, not ALL of it is worthy of condemnation. Get it finally. What we are is not because it's written somewhere on a sheet of paper, etc. It's what we do (or don't, when needed). The kicker is, from my point of view, that window smashing and car burning should not constitute permission for the denial of protest and should not constitute permission to bring violence against people. But are we in a minority over that? And where does one draw the line from propery damage to violence against persons? Quote
Saipan Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 And criminal gangs and terrorists. Yes, they always register their guns. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Yes, they always register their guns. My point--since I agreed with your Mencken quote--is that the populace is to be kept "alarmed" by "menacing" it so that our brave leaders can escort us to safety. You know, like our current government, with its alarmism about crime and terrorism. Oddly, you think the government is right...and Mencken is wrong. So why quote him? Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 You know, like our current government, with its alarmism about crime and terrorism. That was mostly Wendy Cukier and Allan Rock under Liberals, and their hoplophobe suporters. Very reason they decided to register and confiscate. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) That was mostly Wendy Cukier and Allan Rock under Liberals, and their hoplophobe suporters. Very reason they decided to register and confiscate. I'm not defending the Liberals. Only one os us seems reluctant to criticize a certain Party, and it isn't me. Edited February 27, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 I'm not defending the Liberals. Only one os us seems reluctant to criticize a certain Party, and it isn't me. Hmmm, maybe we agree. I don't like lot of stuff at CPC. I'm not even Christian. But when the dust settles I still see it as the only alternative to some imaginary ideal. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 Allowing masses to assemble wherever they want whenever they want is actually counter to the conduct of a democratic society; even the hallowed Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly outlines at its opening that rights (which would include that to assemble) are "subject... to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." [sp] Your definition of reasonable is much too broad. It's unreasonable to say that people cannot gather wherever and whenever they want in protest. That's kind of the point of being "free and democratic", no? The fundamental freedoms include freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association. If these the foundations of our rights and freedoms, then condemning people for assembling wherever and whenever they want in order to exercise those freedoms is completely antithetical to a "free and democratic" society. Thus, the limitation you're prescribing is not reasonable nor justified. Quote
Smallc Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 Your definition of reasonable is much too broad. It's unreasonable to say that people cannot gather wherever and whenever they want in protest. So, inside the offices of the CSEC then? The 13th floor of DND? Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 So, inside the offices of the CSEC then? The 13th floor of DND? I think we can take it for granted that he refers to public grounds, commons, city streets, etc. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Smallc Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 I think we can take it for granted that he refers to public grounds, commons, city streets, etc. The point I'm making is that there are areas that need to be secured. A building with more than 20 world leaders inside counts as one of those areas. I don't think that all the measures that were taken were necessarily....necessary though. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 The point I'm making is that there are areas that need to be secured. A building with more than 20 world leaders inside counts as one of those areas. I don't think that all the measures that were taken were necessarily....necessary though. No...there seems to be unusually high agreement on that point. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Scotty Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 My point--since I agreed with your Mencken quote--is that the populace is to be kept "alarmed" by "menacing" it so that our brave leaders can escort us to safety. You know, like our current government, with its alarmism about crime and terrorism. Far be it for me to say good things about the intelligence of the average voter, but there are some who have carefully thought out reasons for their dissatisfaction with crime and justice, and who worry about the broad nature and scale of the unprincipled religious nutjobs opposed to us. For example, does anyone really question that right this very second there are millions of people who would be overjoyed to see a nuclear bomb go off in New York or London? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 27, 2011 Report Posted February 27, 2011 The point I'm making is that there are areas that need to be secured. A building with more than 20 world leaders inside counts as one of those areas. I don't think that all the measures that were taken were necessarily....necessary though. No one is questioning them securing the buildings. Heck, they even built a giant fence around them all. But explain how they set up Queens Park as a 'free speech zone' for demonstrators to gather, then attacked the demonstrators there.... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 But explain how they set up Queens Park as a 'free speech zone' for demonstrators to gather, then attacked the demonstrators there.... That is indefensible, you're right. I'm just not fond of the way that people are using this as an excuse to attack the Harper Government. That wasn't their thing. Quote
Saipan Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 If these the foundations of our rights and freedoms, then condemning people for assembling wherever and whenever they want in order to exercise those freedoms is completely antithetical to a "free and democratic" society. Thus, the limitation you're prescribing is not reasonable nor justified. It's been said; 'Freedom of one man ends where freedom of another begins'. So, if bunch of people 'peacefully' assemble in front of my driveway I lose money since I can't drive to work. If it's in front of my store I lose even more (never mind broken window) Quote
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/02/27/g20-report.html "The many violations of civil liberties that occurred during the summit, such as illegal detentions and searches and excessive uses of force, cannot have simply been the actions of a few bad apples," the report states."Rather, given the scope and severity of the violations of rights that occurred during the G20, it is difficult to view this situation as anything other than a failure of policy and training." It's also a failure of using special powers that were never granted to the police in order for those illegal detentions to take place. Quote
g_bambino Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 It's unreasonable to say that people cannot gather wherever and whenever they want in protest. That's kind of the point of being "free and democratic", no? No. What you describe is a mob using the power of its mass to override the right of others to use public spaces for their intended purpose, or that of owners to regulate who has and does not have access to their private property. A road is for everyone to drive on, not for a crowd to hijack in the name of their cause du jour. An office building is paid for and maintained by a company for the conduct of business, not for a throng of protesters to voice their opinion. The "free" in "free and democratic" shouldn't apply only to whomever belongs to the biggest crowd, otherwise there is no democracy. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 The public can't use public spaces for public protests. Got it. Sounds ludicrous. But if you think that's reasonable and justified, I'm just glad you're not sitting on the SCC to decide these things. Quote
g_bambino Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 The public can't use public spaces for public protests. Got it. No, you don't got it. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 No. What you describe is a mob using the power of its mass to override the right of others to use public spaces for their intended purpose, or that of owners to regulate who has and does not have access to their private property. A road is for everyone to drive on, not for a crowd to hijack in the name of their cause du jour. An office building is paid for and maintained by a company for the conduct of business, not for a throng of protesters to voice their opinion. The "free" in "free and democratic" shouldn't apply only to whomever belongs to the biggest crowd, otherwise there is no democracy. You just described the G20 leaders. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 28, 2011 Report Posted February 28, 2011 The public can't use public spaces for public protests. Got it. Sounds ludicrous. But if you think that's reasonable and justified, I'm just glad you're not sitting on the SCC to decide these things. So much for exercising your rights. Free Speech Zones do nothing for free speech. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.