Protests, police provocateurs, masks, etc

[guyser]

since 1) it is lawful for the police to detain people for up to 24 hours...IF they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are connected to a crime and that it is necessary to detain you for their investigation...., even if no charge is laid,

A minor tweak, but an important one.

[guyser]

This is not a thread about facts, its a thread to say "f*ck the police".

Seems the only one who doesnt have facts, or tries to down play them is you.

You are right tho, it is FTP, and for very good cause.

Repeating the same fact over and over again will not help you break through the dream world some people live in.

What dream world is that, the one you live in where police are all good y goody ?

[g_bambino]

1) it is lawful for the police to detain people for up to 24 hours...IF they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are connected to a crime and that it is necessary to detain you for their investigation...., even if no charge is laid.

Sure. But, they have prety broad leeway to conclude there's reasonable grounds for arrest when it comes to public order; public intoxication, unlawful assembly, prevention of a riot, disrespecting an officer, etc., etc.

[jacee]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, since 1) it is lawful for the police to detain people for up to 24 hours, even if no charge is laid,

If they have reason to believe the person is about to 'breach the peace'.

The police did not have that justification in most cases, and thus will be liable for damages in the lawsuits now proceeding. And we should be very upset about that because it is taxpayers who will have to pay those damages for police acting outside the law.

and 2) kettling is not itself illegal.

... YET ... It hasn't yet been tested in the courts in Canada.

(edited to correct ... In the UK kettling is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling.)

The Toronto Police Services has declared publicly that they will never use 'kettling' again.

Toronto police swear off G20 kettling tactic

I'd say that's an admission of guilt and an attempt to do damage control.

Edited May 18, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

I really can't figure out what side you are on.

That's not my fault. Maybe I just don't regard the world in as polarised a way as perhaps you do.

Kettling is considered illegal in this case, because that would mean that the cops gave them a way out.

I don't quite understand what you're saying there. Regardless, kettling is not in itself illegal.

[g_bambino]

The police did not have that justification in most cases...

I'll take a court's decision on that matter over yours, thanks.

[g_bambino]

Will you stop stating facts? This is not a thread about facts, its a thread to say "f*ck the police".

My apologies! Please allow me to rephrse my earlier statement in rabblese: SCREW THE FASCIST PIGS!!

Thank you.

[guyser]

Sure. But, they have prety broad leeway to conclude there's reasonable grounds for arrest when it comes to public order; public intoxication, unlawful assembly, prevention of a riot, disrespecting an officer, etc., etc.

And true, however a mass arrest as happened does not seem to fit that bill.

And lets not forget to add they were detained and not allowed legal representation without delay

Thus this clusterf**k

[jacee]

Sure. But, they have prety broad leeway to conclude there's reasonable grounds for arrest when it comes to public order; public intoxication, unlawful assembly, prevention of a riot, disrespecting an officer, etc., etc.

NONE of which were relevant at Queen and Spadina or Novotel.

[g_bambino]

And true, however a mass arrest as happened does not seem to fit that bill.

I'm not certain of that, especially since I don't have all the information at hand. On the face of it, though, unlawful assembly and/or prevention of a riot seem to apply.

And lets not forget to add they were detained and not allowed legal representation without delay[.]

Is that a requirement? I know people have been taken into custody for public intoxication, transported to the station, and processed (and then there was that case in Toronto where the guy was strip searched and left naked in a cell) before being allowed to contact a lawyer. That all takes a good few hours.

Thus this clusterf**k

That's certain.

[g_bambino]

NONE of which were relevant at Queen and Spadina...

See above.

...or Novotel.

You mean where people sat down in the middle of the street and refused to move out of the road when told to?

[jacee]

I really can't figure out what side you are on. One moment you are against the police and their actions, and then the next you support them or play the 'wait and see' game.

...

Make a stand or get out of the way.

I don't know about g_bambino, but I'm against police brutality and illegal search, seizure and detention and all violations of our rights.

I'm for police officers who uphold individual rights by refusing bad orders and by telling the truth about the illegal behaviour of colleagues including superior officers.

[g_bambino]

I'm against police brutality and illegal search, seizure and detention and all violations of our rights.

I'm for police officers who uphold individual rights by refusing bad orders and by telling the truth about the illegal behaviour of colleagues including superior officers.

Who wouldn't be for all of that (except the expectation that subordinates should refuse "bad" orders; "bad" is subjective and for socially necessary military organisations like police forces to function, all orders, except the most egregiously illegal ones, must be followed; the commanding officer takes responsibility for the orders, not those following them)?

But, I think you don't fully understand your rights, especially their limitations.

[GostHacked]

I don't know about g_bambino, but I'm against police brutality and illegal search, seizure and detention and all violations of our rights.

I'm for police officers who uphold individual rights by refusing bad orders and by telling the truth about the illegal behaviour of colleagues including superior officers.

That all comes down to one very important quality which we call, Integrity.

[guyser]

I'm not certain of that, especially since I don't have all the information at hand. On the face of it, though, unlawful assembly and/or prevention of a riot seem to apply.

It was a park designated as a protest area , so part 1 of your post should not apply.

As for a riot, it shouldnt be hard to figure out that the cops would be wrong to arrest 1000 uinless they feel 1000 riots can start on a moments notice.

Is that a requirement? .

Yes, Section 10(-Obtain and instruct counsel without delay. (The smiley should be a 'B' )

Edited May 18, 2012 by guyser

[jacee]

That's not my fault. Maybe I just don't regard the world in as polarised a way as perhaps you do.

I don't quite understand what you're saying there. Regardless, kettling is not in itself illegal.

in Canada ... YET ...

And it is still subject to a Supreme Court ruling in the UK.

[g_bambino]

And it is still subject to a Supreme Court ruling in the UK.

It was already found by the European Union human rights court to be legal.

Police use of "kettling" tactics to contain crowds during violent demonstrations in London in 2001 did not breach human rights, European judges have ruled...

"The court notably found that the people within the cordon had not been deprived of their liberty within the meaning of the (Human Rights) Convention."

Kettling not a Breach of Human Rights

[g_bambino]

It was a park designated as a protest area...

I thought we were talking about kettling.

I've always said what happened at Queen's Park is incomprehensible. I didn't think there were "mass" arrests there, however; most were just driven out of the park; was it even a dozen people detained?

Yes, Section 10(-Obtain and instruct counsel without delay. (The smiley should be a 'B' )

Mmmmm.... What constitutes a "delay" is open to interpretation, I guess. One certainly can't contact a lawyer the second the police handcuffs are closed on one's wrists.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited May 18, 2012 by g_bambino

[guyser]

Mmmmm.... What constitutes a "delay" is open to interpretation, I guess. One certainly can't contact a lawyer the second the police handcuffs are closed on one's wrists.

[ed.: c/e]

Certainly , however that gets down to the brass tacks of the situation.

If the police were prepared to arrest a thousand (and they were) they should have been prepared to offer up the telephone to talk w counsel. They did not have the availabity to do that, thus people sat in jail for over a day.

Once arrested, transported, booked in (photos et al) then the process to allow counsel should have been made, but it did not.

[jacee]

See above.

You mean where people sat down in the middle of the street and refused to move out of the road when told to?

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/torontog20summit/article/1179221--g20-police-trampled-basic-rights-of-citizens-report

The result on the ground, according to the sweeping report, was officers “blindly following orders” and using excessive force, “ignor(ing) the basic rights of citizens under the Charter,” and acting unlawfully when they boxed in hundreds of people at the Novotel hotel and at the intersection of Queen St. and Spadina Ave.

...

In total, officers contained people on at east 10 occasions during the G20. On the Esplanade and at Queen and Spadina, protestors were contained specifically to be arrested — a response that “conflicts with the policies and procedures of the Toronto Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, and most other police services,” according to the report.“

I think you're wrong, according to what the OIPRD report is saying.

Police were "acting unlawfully" at Queen and Spadina and Novotel (among other places) ... seems pretty clear to me!

Edited May 18, 2012 by jacee

[g_bambino]

...acting unlawfully when they boxed in hundreds of people at the Novotel hotel and at the intersection of Queen St. and Spadina Ave.

Let's see the evidence behind that claim.

[g_bambino]

Once arrested, transported, booked in (photos et al) then the process to allow counsel should have been made, but it did not.

Okay. But, what happened at the detention centre on Eastern Ave. doesn't have anything to do with the legality of kettling, the clearance of people from Queen's Park, or determining which arrests were lawful and which weren't.

[jacee]

I thought we were talking about kettling.

I've always said what happened at Queen's Park is incomprehensible. I didn't think there were "mass" arrests there, however; most were just driven out of the park; was it even a dozen people detained?

Innocent people were brutalized by police at Queens Park.

[jacee]

Let's see the evidence behind that claim.

I guess you'll have to read the OIPRD (pdf) report.

This is from the summary ...

* On Saturday night, June 26, 2010, the night shift Incident Commander in the TPS Major Incident Command Centre ordered the containment and arrests of all people gathered outside the Novotel hotel on The Esplanade. The OIPRD investigation concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that this mass arrest was unlawful and the subsequent detention and imprisonment of the people was in violation of Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

* The arrests of the occupants of the Graduate Students’ Union, during the early morning hours of Sunday, June 27, 2010, were unlawful on two basis: the police did not have the requisite grounds to believe each arrested party had committed the offence of unlawful assembly the previous day and a warrant was required to arrest a person for unlawful assembly where that person was not found actually committing the offence. Such a warrant was never obtained

* The arrest and continued detention of people at Queen St and Spadina Ave in a severe thunderstorm, during the evening of June 27, 2010, was unreasonable, unnecessary and unlawful and people’s rights guaranteed by Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:K7eER4CskuEJ:https://www.oiprd.on.ca/CMS/getattachment/Media-Room/Backgrounder-G20-Report-release.pdf.aspx+OIPRD+novotel&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Edited May 18, 2012 by jacee

[jacee]

It was already found by the European Union human rights court to be legal.

In the UK situation, people were 'kettled' in their campground - ie, with access to food, warm clothes, shelter and bathrooms.

This was not the case in Toronto. They were kettled in the street for hours with no facilities, no food, no shelter from the thunderstorm, several displaying signs of hypothermia.

I think it will be seen differently by the courts.