Does this look like Canada to you?

[Wilber]

Cops, if they don't have their last name on the front of their shirt, will have their badge number on their shoulders. The problem is that when you're being beaten and tasered, you're not exactly in any shape to be memorizing a 6-8 digit number that might be on top of the cop's shoulder that's standing on your head.

They certainly will have either their name or badge number somewhere on their uniform but I doubt they have personal riot gear and that may obstruct the identification on their uniforms when they are wearing it.

Frankly, don't think cops should have their names on their uniforms, only their badge numbers so they can be identified if necessary. They have families to and no one should have to put up with being harassed at home or have their family in danger in order to do their job.

[GostHacked]

But of course they will whine like little bitches when it is they who have their rights violated.

Unfortunately, that is what it takes to have people take notice of this kind of thing. You see it, I see it. We try to make people aware of it so people don't have to witness it first hand.

[Evening Star]

Do you have any evidence that the Order-in-Council extended the Public Works Protection Act to "big chunks of downtown Toronto"? The only, oft repeated statement made by the Cabinet about that order is that it applied solely to a five metre area just inside the fence surrounding the secure area in the CBD.

OK, so "big chunks" wasn't fair. It was every sidewalk in this area, more or less:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=Front+St+W+%26+Blue+Jays+Way,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario+M5V&daddr=Front+Street+West+and+windsor+st+to:Windsor+Street+and+wellington,+toronto+to:Wellington+Street+West+and+bay+st,+toronto+to:Canada+(Toronto+Union+Station)+to:york+st+and+bremner+blvd+to:bremner+and+lower+simcoe+to:lower+simcoe+and+lake+shore+blvd+to:Roger%27s+Centre+Tour+Experience,+Blue+Jays+Way,+Toronto,+Ontario+to:Bremner+Boulevard+and+navy+wharf+court+to:Blue+Jays+Way+and+front+st+w&hl=en&ll=43.642302,-79.386799&spn=0.007717,0.014999&sll=43.643622,-79.38534&sspn=0.007717,0.014999&geocode=FQDymQId65VE-yl9AGJ71zQriDErD7guV3YIjA%3BFSjzmQId-5pE-yn7gXEU1zQriDG_lah1-ol5bg%3BFWH4mQId15hE-yl5UptL1zQriDFJ1fyiqWvsqg%3BFXYBmgIdFMNE-yk7xJAwLcvUiTGI3VEfzU6_ag%3BFfP5mQId5r5E-yGTIkdn3orMhQ%3BFSTwmQIdE7xE-ykVZULB1DQriDE9pYTGeKBQcw%3BFRLumQIdZLJE-ynJAKNN1DQriDEqDexuJEtr8g%3BFSXnmQIdyrRE-yn7hzOc1TQriDFmhU_fT3vEFQ%3BFXnqmQIdLJ5E-yFjzmWLo4wmFA%3BFcjnmQIdzZRE-yk_5HL_1zQriDHrL23nWBAuUA%3BFQDymQId65VE-yl9AGJ71zQriDErD7guV3YIjA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16

(more than five metres)

plus everything with 5m of the lines drawn in Schedule 2 of the regulation:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2010/elaws_src_regs_r10233_e.htm

Edited June 28, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

G_bambino, why do you think the Ombudsman criticized the ON government for how they passed this order-in-council?

[cybercoma]

Frankly, don't think cops should have their names on their uniforms, only their badge numbers so they can be identified if necessary. They have families to and no one should have to put up with being harassed at home or have their family in danger in order to do their job.

I agree with you. We need to protect police from retaliation when they do their jobs legally. We also, however, need to find a way to make cops more accountable for what appears to be (it might not necessarily be) an escalation in the amount of abuses that are happening.

[GostHacked]

I agree with you. We need to protect police from retaliation when they do their jobs legally. We also, however, need to find a way to make cops more accountable for what appears to be (it might not necessarily be) an escalation in the amount of abuses that are happening.

What do you think about the threat of arrest from an officer when filming a public servant (ahahaha 'public' servant) out in the public?

They have no problem using cameras and tactics on us, when we turn that camera towards them, they tend to get hostile.

[Wilber]

I agree with you. We need to protect police from retaliation when they do their jobs legally. We also, however, need to find a way to make cops more accountable for what appears to be (it might not necessarily be) an escalation in the amount of abuses that are happening.

Is there an escalation in general or are they just different events? I have already noted that the Vancouver police were heavily criticized for being too heavy handed during the 94 Stanly Cup riot but the only criticism levied at the time of this years riot was that they were not pro active enough, whereas their actions during the one Olympic riot were praised for being just right.

Point being, events themselves can be a big factor in the way the same force will, or have to react in different situations.

[cybercoma]

What do you think about the threat of arrest from an officer when filming a public servant (ahahaha 'public' servant) out in the public?

They have no problem using cameras and tactics on us, when we turn that camera towards them, they tend to get hostile.

Yeah, that's a stupid law. If you're arresting someone in public, you're open to being filmed by the public. Such is life. If it's illegal to film a cop carrying out an arrest, I want any businessperson that has surveillance running during an arrest to be arrested as well.

[cybercoma]

Is there an escalation in general or are they just different events? I have already noted that the Vancouver police were heavily criticized for being too heavy handed during the 94 Stanly Cup riot but the only criticism levied at the time of this years riot was that they were not pro active enough, whereas their actions during the one Olympic riot were praised for being just right.

Point being, events themselves can be a big factor in the way the same force will, or have to react in different situations.

This is why I say it seems like there is an escalation in the number of police violence cases. I don't know that there necessarily is more or that police are being more violent. It could be the case that the incidents are just reported more and since everyone's cellphone has a digital camera built in nowadays, they're more likely to be caught on tape and broadcast in the media. In other words, we could just be seeing an escalation in the number of times that the national media reports on these events.

I suspect, however, that it's a combination of more frequent reporting and a bit of an escalation in the amount of violence and force used by police. I believe the place of a police officer in society is no longer a social one, where they get to know people in the community and interact in a friendly manner with the public as a true public servant. Instead, there seems to be this notion in general in society that the cops or some sort of legal enforcers, there simply to bust skulls. Instead of looking at it like they're entrusted with power by the community, the community and some police officers now look at it like the power is theirs to use however they want.

[Wilber]

I suspect, however, that it's a combination of more frequent reporting and a bit of an escalation in the amount of violence and force used by police. I believe the place of a police officer in society is no longer a social one, where they get to know people in the community and interact in a friendly manner with the public as a true public servant. Instead, there seems to be this notion in general in society that the cops or some sort of legal enforcers, there simply to bust skulls. Instead of looking at it like they're entrusted with power by the community, the community and some police officers now look at it like the power is theirs to use however they want.

Unfortunately most of the social interaction police have in this day and age concerns the worst individuals in our society. The day of the beat cop who knew most everyone on the street only applies to some inner city areas, they simply don't have the resources for anything other than the bad guys. When you look at the amount of desk work and court time police officers now spend on getting a charge and conviction, you wonder sometimes that there are any of them on the street at all.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Wilber

[Wilber]

This is why I say it seems like there is an escalation in the number of police violence cases. I don't know that there necessarily is more or that police are being more violent. It could be the case that the incidents are just reported more and since everyone's cellphone has a digital camera built in nowadays, they're more likely to be caught on tape and broadcast in the media. In other words, we could just be seeing an escalation in the number of times that the national media reports on these events.

I'm wondering if the reaction to the latest Cup riot isn't to a large degree, a result of the cameras being trained on the perps instead of the police for a change. Nice to see it working both ways for once.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Wilber

[William Ashley]

I'll assume you're talking about the Public Works Protection Act. It was not passed by "they" (by which I assume you mean the Cabinet); the Cabinet cannot pass laws. It was passed by the legislature in 1939 and last amended in 1990. It permits those guarding public works to:

It does not state where one may or may not protest.

An Order-in-Council made the fence around the secure area and the area within five metres of the inside of the fence a public work. There is nothing illegal about doing so."

It is unconstitutional because it is an arbitrary detention and does not relate to fundamental justice.

"Public works are the construction or engineering projects carried out by the state on behalf of the community"

Unfortunately air is not a public work it is a work of god. It wouldn't stand up to a constitutional test. Sidewalk is problematic.. it is very much saying people on grass can't be arrested (and they were) but people on sidewalk can be.. it is idiocy.

Better dig up the concrete so your standing on dirt boys.

It is misimprison.

Sidewalk is not a facility. "The responsibility for repairs generally fall on the homeowner or adjacent property owner, "

COSTS OWING — The difference between the cost of restoring the street to its

pre-construction condition and the amount of the municipal road damage deposit

where the cost of restoration exceeds the amount of the municipal road damage

deposit. [Added 2006-05-25 by By-law No. 462-2006]

DAMAGE — Harm or injury to the street, including without limitation, harm,

injury, disturbance, cracking, gouging or displacement of or to the pavement, curb,

boulevard, boulevard landscaping or sidewalk resulting from use of the street to

access the work such that, in the sole opinion of the General Manager, the street is

not in its pre-construction condition. [Added 2006-05-25 by By-law No. 462-2006]

It wasn't "defaultive" property of the province it was municipal property, unless the right steps to turn it into provincial control, unfortunately there was no act to "turn municipal property into provincial property, it would be the municipalities act that would need to be enforced. I find the whole premise NOT applicable. As the context is not the intent of the act.

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — A project as defined by the Planning Act,2

which is the subject of review and approval through the site plan review process,

prior to reaching the building permit stage. [Added 2006-05-25 by By-law No.

462-2006]

Was the street annexed from the city of Toronto at some point or a permit obtained?

Unfortunately the public works act is a provincial act not a municipal act, and there were no known overides legally conducted. While municpalities can fall under provincial jurisdiction, the area that was "annexed" was not provincial jurisdiction for the work, as it was not a public work under the jurisidiciton of the province.

Only kings highways are.

http://www.thekingshighway.ca/intro.html

Unforunately the province did not have "right" as they weren't actually provincial public works nor can they "annex" land by act of cabient. There is no mechanism to do so - there are certain provinsions in the municipalities act but as far as I can tell TOTALLY ILLEGAL. no jurisdiciton - no right.

Municipalities due have certain capacities to enter or bar vehicles for example however. Arbitrary arrest is not one of those things.

Actually the minicpalities act doesn't apply due to

"7.1 (1) This Act does not apply to any of the following, except as otherwise provided by another provision of this Act or of the City of Toronto Act, 2006:

1. The City of Toronto, a local board of the City (including a joint local board of the City) or a city corporation.

2. Members of the council of the City, members of a local board of the City (including a joint local board of the City) or directors or members of a city corporation.

3. Officers, employees or agents of the City, of a local board of the City (including a joint local board of the City) or of a city corporation. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 9 (2).

Same

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the power of another municipality to enter into an agreement or undertake an activity jointly with the City of Toronto. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 9 (2).

Same

(3) Unless the context requires otherwise, the terms “municipality”, “local municipality” or “single-tier municipality”, when used in any other Act or regulation, include the City of Toronto and, when defined in any other Act or regulation as having the same meaning as in the Municipal Act, 2001, include the City of Toronto. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 9 (2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 7.

Definition

(4) In this section,

“city corporation” means a corporation established by the City of Toronto in accordance with section 148 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 2006, c. 11, Sched. B, s. 9 (2)."

There are also dislciamers like "Notice

(6) No action shall be brought for the recovery of damages under subsection (2)

unless, within 10 days after the occurrence of the injury, written notice of the claim and of the injury complained of has been served upon or sent by registered mail to,

(a) the city clerk; or

( if the claim is against the City and one or more municipalities jointly responsible for the repair of the highway or bridge, the city clerk and the clerk of each of the other municipalities. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 42 (6)."

To get back to the point though.. the arbitrary arrest is CLEARLY unconstitutional.

The POWER Transfer is also disclaimed"

No responsibility for acts of others

(9) Nothing in this section imposes any obligation or liability on the City for an act or omission of a person acting under a power conferred by law over which the City had no control unless,

(a) the City participated in the act or omission; or

( the power under which the person acted was a by-law, resolution or licence of the City. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 42 (9)."

FACT:

1.City Sidewalk is city sidewalk

2. There was no jurisdiction since the city would forfeit jurisdiction, and the province has no power to default assume jurisdiction in Toronto due to not being part of the municipalities act entitling transfer of power.

3. It is unconstitutional to arbitrarily arrest.

Effectively it is federally prohibited because of the constitution, (and provinces determine fundametnal justice due to having power of administration of justice

it is provincial non allowance because the province cannot assume power in toronto as that capacity isn't legalized (and toronto is excluded from the municipalities act)

toronto does not have the powers in bylaws.

End of story it was illegal.

Only the notwithstanding clause and emergencies act could have legally produced that or reserve powers.

"Restriction re: delegation of legislative and quasi-judicial powers

21. (1) Sections 7 and 8 do not authorize the City to delegate legislative and quasi-judicial powers under any Act except those listed in subsection (2) and the legislative and quasi-judicial powers under the listed Acts may be delegated only to,

(a) one or more members of city council or a council committee;

( a body having at least two members of whom at least 50 per cent are,

(i) members of city council,

(ii) individuals appointed by city council,

(iii) a combination of individuals described in subclauses (i) and (ii); or

© an individual who is an officer, employee or agent of the City. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 21 (1); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 5 (1)."

"Listed Acts

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the listed Acts are this Act, the Planning Act, a private Act relating to the City and such other Acts as may be prescribed. 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s. 5 (2)."

Arbitrary arrest isn't in there at all.

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/9.asp

Edited June 28, 2011 by William Ashley

[g_bambino]

It is unconstitutional because it is an arbitrary detention and does not relate to fundamental justice.

An Order-in-Council is a governmental procedure, not an arbitrary detention, and there's nothing to say that an Order-in-Council that doesn't relate to "fundamental justice" is automatically unconstitutional.

[g_bambino]

G_bambino, why do you think the Ombudsman criticized the ON government for how they passed this order-in-council?

I don't know that it particularly matters. Orders-in-Council are made every day. Does the Ombudsman complain about all of them?

[g_bambino]

OK, so "big chunks" wasn't fair. It was every sidewalk in this area, more or less

The area within the security fence, yes.

[ToadBrother]

An Order-in-Council is a governmental procedure, not an arbitrary detention, and there's nothing to say that an Order-in-Council that doesn't relate to "fundamental justice" is automatically unconstitutional.

An order-in-council is either based off of an application of the Royal Prerogative, or one granted to the Government via an Act of Parliament or of a Provincial legislature. It is no different than executive instruments found in most countries. I'm sure, in this case, the appropriate Act was invoked. I have no idea where all the "secret legislation" nonsense came from, myself.

[cybercoma]

they simply don't have the resources for anything other than the bad guys.

Indeed, I take your point, but I would say, "we simply don't give them the resources for anything other than the bad guys."

[Evening Star]

The area within the security fence, yes.

OK, I'll rephrase my earlier statement:

So they didn't technically pass a new bill in secret but they passed a regulation that extended the Public Works Protection Act or at least made it applicable to the area within the security fence as an order-in-council without publishing it? And while it may in fact be true that Orders-in-Council are passed all the time in this manner, the issue is just that this one had a direct impact on the liberties of a large number of people who were unaware of it?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Evening Star

[Tilter]

What do you think about the threat of arrest from an officer when filming a public servant (ahahaha 'public' servant) out in the public?

They have no problem using cameras and tactics on us, when we turn that camera towards them, they tend to get hostile.

The context of this tells me where you were in the G20 riot---

Hope you end up paying for the rest of your life.

[g_bambino]

[T]he issue is just that this one had a direct impact on the liberties of a large number of people who were unaware of it?

You mean the people inside the security fence?

[g_bambino]

I have no idea where all the "secret legislation" nonsense came from, myself.

Bad journalism, mostly.

[Evening Star]

You mean the people inside the security fence?

Wait, I was assuming that the other areas listed in Schedule 2 of the regulation were protest zones? If I'm wrong, then has the ON government really not done anything they're being accused of?

[ToadBrother]

Bad journalism, mostly.

Some sort of hysteria, certainly. I can well imagine a claim of, say, police being given effectively illegal orders, but someone is going to have to explain to me how in our country you could get a secret law passed. Passed by who? The only people that could pass laws are Parliament or the legislative assemblies, and no matter how many in camera committee sessions you might have on a bill, the vote and the assent are public ceremonies.

[g_bambino]

Wait, I was assuming that the other areas listed in Schedule 2 of the regulation were protest zones? If I'm wrong, then has the ON government really not done anything they're being accused of?

What's outlined in the entire body of the Order-in-Council is the area of downtown that was fenced off. Queen's Park, up at midtown, was the designated protest area.

The Ontario government did nothing wrong with this Order-in-Council. The error seems to fall squarely into the lap of those in charge of the integrated security force, who said publicly that the Public Works Protection Act, and the search and arrest powers it gave, had been applied to five metres outside the fence. Whether or not others interpreted it as applying to other parts of the city isn't entirely clear.

[eyeball]

What do you think about the threat of arrest from an officer when filming a public servant (ahahaha 'public' servant) out in the public?

They have no problem using cameras and tactics on us, when we turn that camera towards them, they tend to get hostile.

Make the cops wear the cameras. Besides keeping them honest it would make gathering evidence a lot easier and knowing this should deter all but the truly loaded and obtuse.

Where we really need to start applying sousveillance or inverse surveillance however is in the political and executive domains where the mismanagement that precedes these riots emanates from.