Protests, police provocateurs, masks, etc

[jacee]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mounties-objected-to-kettling-g20-protesters-watchdog-finds/article2431805/?service=mobile

Throughout the G8 and G20 summits in Muskoka and Toronto respectively, the Mounties arrested only seven protesters, two of whom were later identified as undercover Toronto police officers.

Interesting that two disguised Toronto cops conducted themselves in a manner that got them arrested. I guess the officers were rioting or inciting a riot!

Police DO incite trouble so they can shut down even peaceful protests - ie, declare them to be "unlawful assembly". It's a fact.

At that point, under the proposed law, anyone wearing a mask (eg dust mask) is arrested, put in jail, and subject to charges that can lead to 10 years in jail.

BUT NO ONE DID ONE GODDAMN THING WRONG,

EXCEPT THE POLICE!!!

This is how Harper intends to crush dissent in Canada.

This is how Harper intends to fill up his new jails.

Canada is about to become one of those backwards countries whose jails are full of 'political prisoners', incarcerated for protesting our (democratic?) government.

As one who trampled the lawn of Queen's Park during the Mike Harris years, I know this: Harris liked protests because he liked pissing off 'the lefties', so he never tried to crack down. Harper hates protesters and protests, so he's trying to silence us by turning Canada into a police state where protesting is effectively outlawed.

Harper is like Ghaddafi, thinks he knows what's 'best' for us, a 'Father'figure, head of the 'household' who gives the orders and everybody jumps! ... or they are severely punished.

And dissenters go to jail, die and disappear in those kinds of totalitarian 'regimes'.

Think it won't happen in Canada?

Ask an Indigenous person, the first protesters on this land, whose traditional leaders died and 'disappeared' by the hundreds, at the hands of the RCMP.

RCMP officers on site at the 2010 summit of world leaders questioned the order to corral an entire crowd of protesters, but relented because they were officially operating under the command of the Toronto Police Service at that event site.

Easy for them to say now that they didn't agree, but they still did it.

Whatever happened to their responsibility to refuse illegal orders?

Edited May 14, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

Police DO incite trouble so they can shut down even peaceful protests...

No, they generally don't, since that would be illegal; it would be entrapment. What is legal (and here's a key fact for you, particularly: it has been legal for long before Harper became prime minister) is for police to infiltrate a particular group that's known to incite riots and/or carry out violent protest or just violence and try to, under cover, provide what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime it's suspected they are likely to commit.

Harper is like Ghaddafi

Do you want people to consider you mentally unstable?

-----------

This goes back to what I said in another thread about the same issue:

I think we might find that at the root of the one sided attacks on the police lies a misunderstanding of rights and freedoms. [Certain posters have] revealed between their lines that they perceive of rights as being far more broad than what they actually are, especially those of assembly. Thus, it seems to me, when they see police push protesters out of a street, they see police brutality, not the fact that protesters are breaking the law by sitting down in the middle of a street and refusing to budge when told to move. The more they agree with the protesters' message, the more justified they think the protesters are in occupying whatever space they please, and the more evil the cops for pushing them out with force. When police are disguised amongst a group of anarchists renowned for vandalism and violence, it's the cops that are the cause of the vandalism and violence as part of a plot to silence [a]... message.

There's a distinct lack of balance in such a viewpoint and thus also in expectations built upon it.

[Michael Hardner]

No, they generally don't, since that would be illegal; it would be entrapment. What is legal (and here's a key fact for you, particularly: it has been legal for long before Harper became prime minister) is for police to infiltrate a particular group that's known to incite riots and/or carry out violent protest or just violence and try to, under cover, provide what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime it's suspected they are likely to commit.

Hi g_bambino - what type of behavior in a crowd should be considered inciting violence ?

Do you consider carrying a rock and wearing a mask to be grounds for arrest for inciting violence ?

[jacee]

No, they generally don't, since that would be illegal; it would be entrapment. What is legal (and here's a key fact for you, particularly: it has been legal for long before Harper became prime minister) is for police to infiltrate a particular group that's known to incite riots and/or carry out violent protest or just violence and try to, under cover, provide what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime it's suspected they are likely to commit.

Whatever the Toronto police provocateurs were doing, it got them arrested by the RCMP.

Until proven that they were falsely arrested, seems to me the Toronto police provocateurs must have been doing something illegal.

I think Harper is an extreme narcicisst like Ghaddafi: He may have a conscience, but he just thinks he knows what's 'right' for everyone and those who disagree are wrong and deserving of punishment/'justice'.

There is no excuse for using "force" against peaceful protesters.

I don't care where they are sitting/standing/walking.

You don't beat people with batons, tasers, shoot them (in the eye/brain) with rubber bullets, assault them with deafening sound cannons, etc., for peacefully sitting in the street.

The friggen street is closed anyway!

This is where police are totally off the rails and in violation of their oath:

We pay them to uphold our right to protest peacefully, NOT to beat us up for protesting peacefully.

Police do not have the right to physically assault peaceful protesters: That's what 'freedom of assembly' is - the right to gather and protest peacefully without being assaulted or criminalized.

Edited May 14, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

Hi g_bambino - what type of behavior in a crowd should be considered inciting violence ?

Do you consider carrying a rock and wearing a mask to be grounds for arrest for inciting violence ?

(Grabs popcorn ... )

[g_bambino]

Whatever the Toronto police provocateurs were doing, it got them arrested by the RCMP.

So?

[g_bambino]

Do you consider carrying a rock and wearing a mask to be grounds for arrest for inciting violence?

By itself, no.

[Guest American Woman]

No, they generally don't, since that would be illegal; it would be entrapment. What is legal (and here's a key fact for you, particularly: it has been legal for long before Harper became prime minister) is for police to infiltrate a particular group that's known to incite riots and/or carry out violent protest or just violence and try to, under cover, provide what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime it's suspected they are likely to commit.

I think the objection some have is to "kettling," which involves the rounding up of even peaceful protesters, and holding them en masse for long periods of time. The RCMP themselves say they were uncomfortable about it but acting on the direction of local police, but I haven't seen that confirmed. At any rate, I'm against this type of police action; peaceful protesters, who are doing nothing wrong, should be left alone. Not sure what Harper has to do with it, though.

Edited May 14, 2012 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

By itself, no.

So you think police behaving in that way is acceptable, and is part of "provid[ing] what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime it's suspected they are likely to commit."

Do you think that they should be able to arrest people, even if they don't have a legal case to do so ?

What is the basis of your faith that police don't cause trouble or engage in entrapment ? Don't you think we should have policies in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen ?

[Guest American Woman]

RCMP officers on site at the 2010 summit of world leaders questioned the order to corral an entire crowd of protesters, but relented because they were officially operating under the command of the Toronto Police Service at that event site.

Easy for them to say now that they didn't agree, but they still did it.

Whatever happened to their responsibility to refuse illegal orders?

Evidently the orders weren't illegal. In March 2012 kettling was ruled lawful by the European Court of Human Rights following a legal challenge.

[Signals.Cpl]

I think the objection some have is to "kettling," which involves the rounding up of even peaceful protesters, and holding them en masse for long periods of time. The RCMP themselves say they were uncomfortable about it but acting on the direction of local police, but I haven't seen that confirmed. At any rate, I'm against this type of police action; peaceful protesters, who are doing nothing wrong, should be left alone. Not sure what Harper has to do with it, though.

Harper is responsible for everything, starting from Global warming and ending with the Earthquake in Japan.

[g_bambino]

So you think police behaving in that way is acceptable...

Obviously.

Do you think that they should be able to arrest people, even if they don't have a legal case to do so?

Obviously not.

What is the basis of your faith that police don't cause trouble or engage in entrapment? Don't you think we should have policies in place to ensure that abuse doesn't happen?

We already do. When I said police can "provide what seems to the target to be a favourable opportunity to commit the crime it's suspected they are likely to commit", I was summarising (as best as possible) various rulings by the Supreme Court on what constitutes entrapment. Police can pose as children online, as prostitutes, as drug dealers and drug purchasers, and as anarchist protesters, so long as, that is, they don't do anything more than provide the opportunity to commit a crime and don't do so to anyone whom the police didn't have grounds to suspect was likely to commit that crime; as the court put it: "attract people who would not otherwise have any involvement in a crime and because it is not a proper use of the police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis." In other words, an officer posing as a minor willing to have sex with an adult can do so at sites known to be frequented by those who want sex with minors, but could not do the same at, say, these forums. Similarly, an officer can infiltrate a group known to cause violence at protests or known to be planning to cause violence at a protest and try to "provid[e] an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence", but could not do the same at, say, a lawful, organised protest conducted by a group never before known to have committed or planned to commit violence or rioting.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited May 14, 2012 by g_bambino

[Signals.Cpl]

Do you want people to consider you mentally unstable?

That ship has sailed.

[jacee]

So?

So police provocateurs should be charged with trying to incite a riot/counselling to commit an offence, etc. As appropriate to their actions.

[g_bambino]

So police provocateurs should be charged with trying to incite a riot/counselling to commit an offence, etc. As appropriate to their actions.

You were speaking about the arrest of the undercover officers, without regard for why they were arrested (your words: "Whatever the Toronto police provocateurs were doing...") Now you're accusing them of committing specific crimes. Two different matters.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 14, 2012 by g_bambino

[GostHacked]

I think the objection some have is to "kettling," which involves the rounding up of even peaceful protesters, and holding them en masse for long periods of time. The RCMP themselves say they were uncomfortable about it but acting on the direction of local police, but I haven't seen that confirmed. At any rate, I'm against this type of police action; peaceful protesters, who are doing nothing wrong, should be left alone. Not sure what Harper has to do with it, though.

Even the RCMP watchdog says it was within the norms. Which to me is a bunch of bullshit. But this is the first time I have seen where the cops got arrested for whatever they were doing. But they got let go, and the rest did not. Two sets of rules here. One for the masses, and one for the police.

Harper has something to do with it, holding the G8 summit in Toronto.

This whole thing gets stinkier and stinkier.

[Michael Hardner]

... as the court put it: "attract people who would not otherwise have any involvement in a crime and because it is not a proper use of the police power to simply go out and test the virtue of people on a random basis."

That sounds like an exact description of police walking around in bandanas, carrying rocks, egging people to commit violence.

I agree with the court that this isn't a good use of our government's resources, to coax people into committing crimes and destroying property.

[jacee]

Similarly, an officer can infiltrate a group known to cause violence at protests or known to be planning to cause violence at a protest and try to "provid[e] an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence", but could not do the same at, say, a lawful, organised protest conducted by a group never before known to have committed or planned to commit violence or rioting.

[ed.: c/e]

Well I see a couple of problems there:

Nobody plans or organizes a violent protest or riot.

People plan peaceful protests.

Some people choose non-peaceful tactics.

But it isn't 'their' protest and they're not likely travelling as a group, but individually.

You are identifying 'the group' incorrectly.

We are protesting peacefully.

We don't control others and we are not responsible for others.

Leave us alone!

We're just doing a bit of 'street theatre' in our Harper masks.

I wonder if Harper realizes that with his new 'mask' law, there will be more masks than ever on the streets, and they'll be some distorted version of his face!

Edited May 14, 2012 by jacee

[Signals.Cpl]

Well I see a couple of problems there:

Nobody plans or organizes a violent protest or riot.

People plan peaceful protests.

Some people choose non-peaceful tactics.

But it isn't 'their' protest and they're not likely travelling as a group, but individually.

You are identifying 'the group' incorrectly.

We are protesting peacefully.

We don't control others and we are not responsible for others.

Leave us alone!

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Calls+action+some+protest+websites/3183669/story.html

[GostHacked]

You were speaking about the arrest of the undercover officers, without regard for why they were arrested (your words: "Whatever the Toronto police provocateurs were doing...") Now you're accusing them of committing specific crimes. Two different matters.

[ed.: +]

You are showing a double standard. The protesters were accused of specific crimes, detained but never charged. Since no charges were brought against the cops, then they were not doing anything wrong.

Some of your posts in other threads related to this matter, shows you are more with the police than the protesters.

[Guest American Woman]

Even the RCMP watchdog says it was within the norms. Which to me is a bunch of bullshit. But this is the first time I have seen where the cops got arrested for whatever they were doing. But they got let go, and the rest did not. Two sets of rules here. One for the masses, and one for the police.

There's no record of what the police were doing to get arrested, but whatever it was, it would be a fact that they had no intent to commit violence. Can't say the same about the others who were arrested. So really, there's not two sets of rules as much as there is a difference of possible intent, and that's the main issue.

Harper has something to do with it, holding the G8 summit in Toronto.

He picked the location. That's it. That's what he's responsible for.

This whole thing gets stinkier and stinkier.

It doesn't help that the RCMP didn't keep good records about the incident(s), but evidently "kettling" is legal, as much as I personally disagree with it. I see nothing wrong with cops going undercover in crowds, however.

[GostHacked]

That sounds like an exact description of police walking around in bandanas, carrying rocks, egging people to commit violence.

I agree with the court that this isn't a good use of our government's resources, to coax people into committing crimes and destroying property.

Of course it is not a good tactic. The best tool is prevention, and mixing in with the crowd to incite violence is not what a 'peace officer' should be doing. Police are essentially peace officers correct? Trying to get people to riot is not what I call a tactic of prevention.

This is going to be a crappy analogy, but hang on here ..... if I walk into a theater and get someone else to scream FIRE, who is really responsible? Let's say the first person refuses and I go on until I find one that will. Who is really to blame here?

Destroying property means someone has to pay for it, guess who gets stuck with the bill for the damages and the bill for the services rendered by the police....

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it is not a good tactic.

The sarcasm was practically dripping from my post above onto your keyboard... I guess it wasn't enough.

[g_bambino]

You are showing a double standard. The protesters were accused of specific crimes, detained but never charged. Since no charges were brought against the cops, then they were not doing anything wrong.

What?

[g_bambino]

That sounds like an exact description of police walking around in bandanas, carrying rocks, egging people to commit violence.

Yes... So?

I think you've entirely missed the crux of the matter: context. I repeat: "[A]n officer can infiltrate a group known to cause violence at protests or known to be planning to cause violence at a protest and try to 'provid[e] an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence', but could not do the same at, say, a lawful, organised protest conducted by a group never before known to have committed or planned to commit violence or rioting."