G20 police aggression

[jacee]

" The only organized or collective physical aggression at that location that evening was perpetrated by police each time they advanced on demonstrators,” Justice Melvyn Green ruled on Thursday. He was referring to a demonstration at Queen St. and Spadina Ave. on Saturday, June 26, 2010. Green stated police criminalized political demonstration, which is “vital” to maintain a “viable democracy.” Green’s stern words echo widespread criticism of police during the G20 ..."

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/article/1038347--aggression-during-g20-rally-perpetrated-by-police-judge-rules

I repeat ... "POLICE CRIMINALIZED POLITICAL DEMONSTRATION" ... in Canada.

I wish we could find out what the hell was going on with the chain of police command. WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?!!!!!!

My impression, from reading a lot of accounts, is that police tolerated demonstration ONLY until one or a few protesters showed any aggression - annoyed the police - and then all protesters were demonized, criminalized, dehumanized debased, abused and

incarcerated, even uninvolved citizens in the 'wrong place-wrong time' and anyone filming police actions. Over 100 police officers do not 'spontaneously' decide to illegally remove their badge numbers: WHO IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND CONDONED THAT?!??

Toronto Police Services?

OPP?

RCMP?

G20 Security Committee?

CSIS?!?

HARPER?!!!!!!

How do we get the answers?

How do we make sure it NEVER happens again??

Edited August 19, 2011 by jacee

[g_bambino]

He was referring to a demonstration at Queen St. and Spadina Ave. on Saturday, June 26, 2010.

There's one thing I've wondered about for some time, since before the G20, perhaps back to when the Tamil demostrators occupied University Avenue: Is it lawful for a mob to take over a public street at will, even if the leader(s) personally define it as "democracy" and "free speech"? To my mind, it's illegal; there are more who would like to use those streets for their intended purpose: transportation. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[sp]

Edited August 19, 2011 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

Go to Syria and protest. We have it good here. Once can insult the most powerful people in the land and still walk free with out fear of imprisonment or injury..Canada allowed the kids to play during the Vancouver riots and the G20 mess...some where else they would not have been so patient with their young pups.

[jacee]

There's one thing I've wondered about for some time, since before the G20, perhaps back to when the Tamil demostrators occupied University Avenue: Is it lawful for a mob to take over a public street at will, even if the leader(s) personally define it as "democracy" and "free speech"? To my mind, it's illegal; there are more who would like to use those streets for their intended purpose: transportation. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[sp]

Yes, you are wrong. There is an important sequence of priorities in applying the law that all police officers are supposed to know but sometimes need reminding: The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and takes precedence over all other laws. Criminal law is next. The Highway Traffic Act is pretty far down the list and municipal bylaws even farther.

Suppressing political dissent is against the law in Canada.

Thus, it's a matter of police discretion, protecting freedom of expression and public safety of all citizens, including protesters, are the deciding factors. In a corrupted 'democracy' like ours, street protests by normally law abiding citizens are a certainty. WE pay the police to "serve and protect" US, not to be the hired goons-with-guns-and-no-ID for government or corporations who want to supress public dissent. Otherwise, no democracy would ever survive.

[Tilter]

Yes, you are wrong. There is an important sequence of priorities in applying the law that all police officers are supposed to know but sometimes need reminding: The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and takes precedence over all other laws. Criminal law is next. The Highway Traffic Act is pretty far down the list and municipal bylaws even farther.

Suppressing political dissent is against the law in Canada.

Thus, it's a matter of police discretion, protecting freedom of expression and public safety of all citizens, including protesters, are the deciding factors. In a corrupted 'democracy' like ours, street protests by normally law abiding citizens are a certainty. WE pay the police to "serve and protect" US, not to be the hired goons-with-guns-and-no-ID for government or corporations who want to supress public dissent. Otherwise, no democracy would ever survive.

For sure he's wrong. Those youngsters (and the oldsters who participated) had every right to riot, loot, burn and act like the assholes they all were and are.

Gee those damn police--- doing what the city is paying them to d---what were they thinking :ph34r:

[WWWTT]

There's one thing I've wondered about for some time, since before the G20, perhaps back to when the Tamil demostrators occupied University Avenue: Is it lawful for a mob to take over a public street at will, even if the leader(s) personally define it as "democracy" and "free speech"? To my mind, it's illegal; there are more who would like to use those streets for their intended purpose: transportation. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[sp]

If you find democracy "inconveniant" then maybe you really don't believe in democracy?

WWWTT

[Thorn]

There's one thing I've wondered about for some time, since before the G20, perhaps back to when the Tamil demostrators occupied University Avenue: Is it lawful for a mob to take over a public street at will, even if the leader(s) personally define it as "democracy" and "free speech"? To my mind, it's illegal; there are more who would like to use those streets for their intended purpose: transportation. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[sp]

It shouldn't be, and the Tamils ought to have been arrested. But the demos during the G20 were organized with the assistance of police, and were going down roads which were approved ahead of time by the police for demonstrations. Not to mention, the 'free speech zone' the police themselves established for people to protest, and where they wound up beating and arresting people anyway.

[Thorn]

For sure he's wrong. Those youngsters (and the oldsters who participated) had every right to riot, loot, burn and act like the assholes they all were and are.

Gee those damn police--- doing what the city is paying them to d---what were they thinking :ph34r:

So because 200 punks broke some windows across town it's acceptable for the police to go on a rampage and attack other demonstrers wherever they are, even the next day?

[jacee]

For sure he's wrong. Those youngsters (and the oldsters who participated) had every right to riot, loot, burn and act like the assholes they all were and are.

Gee those damn police--- doing what the city is paying them to d---what were they thinking :ph34r:

The question was only about using streets for protests.

I'm sure you can figure out for yourself where such criminal acts fall in legal priority.

[Moonlight Graham]

For sure he's wrong. Those youngsters (and the oldsters who participated) had every right to riot, loot, burn and act like the assholes they all were and are.

Gee those damn police--- doing what the city is paying them to d---what were they thinking :ph34r:

Yes, there were idiots who rioted/looted, but many who did not. And many (both those who did and din't riot/loot) had their legal rights trampled on. This is a VERY serious issue. The freedoms and legal rights, like those guaranteed in the Charter, are at the very core of liberty and democracy and have been for centuries. So is the rule of law, and the police did not follow the rule of law in many cases as they trampled on the legal and Charter rights of many Canadians, thus breaking the law themselves (hmm something wrong with police breaking the law, isn't there?). Legal rights and the rule of law have, in their history, a purpose of protecting citizens from the tyranny of the state. When the state police abandon the law to such an extent as they did in Toronto, it should of the utmost concern to all citizens.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[jacee]

It shouldn't be, and the Tamils ought to have been arrested. But the demos during the G20 were organized with the assistance of police, and were going down roads which were approved ahead of time by the police for demonstrations. Not to mention, the 'free speech zone' the police themselves established for people to protest, and where they wound up beating and arresting people anyway.

It's nice if police respect the agreements they make with protesters, but unfortunately in this and other situations they don't. Instead, they use the agreement to create sitting ducks out of protesters.

I used to believe it was good to negotiate agreements with police but never again.

The Tamils are entitled to free expression. Sure there were safety issues, but that week their Tamil friends and family in Sri Lanka were being chased down and killed en masse in complete violation of all law and no other country would raise a hand or a voice to help. They were desperate and extremely agitated. Police handled it right.

[g_bambino]

The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and takes precedence over all other laws.

Sure. But the constitution doesn't grant people the right to protest wherever they want. Can someone bring a crowd into your bedroom to protest? Lest we forget, S.1 of the Charter: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

WE pay the police to "serve and protect" US, not to be the hired goons-with-guns-and-no-ID for government or corporations who want to supress public dissent. Otherwise, no democracy would ever survive.

Why do you feel the need to automatically go to the extreme? Alternately, democracy would cease to exist if everyone were allowed to march into anywhere they want whenever they feel like it for whatever reason they feel justifies their actions; that's mob rule, not democracy; chaos would ensue. Civilised society requires that everyone obey the law, including protesters.

[g_bambino]

Those youngsters (and the oldsters who participated) had every right to riot, loot, burn and act like the assholes they all were and are.

Was that actually taking place at Queen and Spadina at the time?

[g_bambino]

If you find democracy "inconveniant" then maybe you really don't believe in democracy?

Perhaps I just don't ascribe to your ochlocratic version of "democracy". Taking over a public road and telling everyone not involved in your protest to join in or shove off isn't democracy.

[g_bambino]

But the demos during the G20 were organized with the assistance of police, and were going down roads which were approved ahead of time by the police for demonstrations.

Ah, yes. That's true of some streets, I believe. But, in the chaos of those two days, I am fairly convinced that other roads, not designated as march routes, were taken over by crowds.

If there's prior organisation, arrangement, compromise, and public preparedness: no problem. Gathering a multitude and taking over streets without warning or consideration to anyone but yourselves: not cool, as far as I see it.

[c/e]

Edited August 20, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Is it lawful for a mob to take over a public street

Whose space is public space anyway? It's a good question to examine in depth.

[g_bambino]

Whose space is public space anyway? It's a good question to examine in depth.

It is a good question. The first answer that popped into my mind was (for whatever it's worth): everyone's. Hence, the need to be conscious and considerate of others in the use of our public space.

[cybercoma]

But maybe the public demonstrations are in everyone's interest, as it's one of the fundamental values of democracy, and therefore others should be considerate of the demonstrators.

[Guest Derek L]

But maybe the public demonstrations are in everyone's interest, as it's one of the fundamental values of democracy, and therefore others should be considerate of the demonstrators.

Who decides it's in the public's interest? The protestors? Perhaps if it was indeed in the public’s interest, the protestors wouldn’t be protestors, they’d be the public...

[cybercoma]

Who decides it's in the public's interest? The protestors? Perhaps if it was indeed in the public’s interest, the protestors wouldn’t be protestors, they’d be the public...

I don't understand what you're saying. The protesters are the public.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't understand what you're saying. The protesters are the public.

A small portion of the public……A relatively small amount of people publicly demonstrating against cause x, even if all intentions where fora peaceful demonstration, with an end result being broken storefronts and riot cops in the streets is not in my interest.

Perhaps the people demonstrating against cause x should change tactics if they want to effect change…..Start a online petition….a facebook page….find a famous musician to perform a song/public service announment…..hire a PR company….etc

Look at the Red Cross, local SPCA or Salvation Army…..There causes are generally viewed in a positive light by the public……….The demonstrators clogging up the streets need a effective marketing campaign….

[cybercoma]

You're free to protest as long as no one can see you and hear you.

[Guest Derek L]

You're free to protest as long as no one can see you and hear you.

Pissing the public off by chaining themselves to light posts and chanting “Stop Bush & the New World Order from using nuclear weapons to clear cut the whales for oil” doesn’t seem all that effective to me.......

[cybercoma]

What the hell are you talking about? Stay on point here. We're talking about the G20 protests and the use of public space. Who cares what you think is effective? It's a protected right and if they're not allowed to use public space for these things, then they're not allowed to protest anywhere. That's the point.

[Guest Derek L]

What the hell are you talking about? Stay on point here. We're talking about the G20 protests and the use of public space. Who cares what you think is effective? It's a protected right and if they're not allowed to use public space for these things, then they're not allowed to protest anywhere. That's the point.

Did the G20 demonstrators achieve their goals?