Protests, police provocateurs, masks, etc

[g_bambino]

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

No, we'll have to wait for the actual investigations to be completed and see what, if any, charges are laid. "[G]rounds to believe that this mass arrest was unlawful" does not mean the arrest was unlawful.

[g_bambino]

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.

I just pointed out a court ruling to you. The kettling it ruled on took place in central London; there are no camp grounds in central London; I know, I've been there a number of times. The weather conditions in which an arrest takes place do not impact on the legality of the arrest.

[jacee]

No, we'll have to wait for the actual investigations to be completed and see what, if any, charges are laid. "[G]rounds to believe that this mass arrest was unlawful" does not mean the arrest was unlawful.

Gee that's exactly what Chief Blair said.

You must be psychic!

[jacee]

I just pointed out a court ruling to you. The kettling it ruled on took place in central London; there are no camp grounds in central London; I know, I've been there a number of times. The weather conditions in which an arrest takes place do not impact on the legality of the arrest.

Correction ... protesters were camped in the street.

At least they had food and shelter!

I find it troubling that peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders can be held in conditions that are illegal for prisoners.

[g_bambino]

Correction ... protesters were camped in the street.

At least they had food and shelter!

Read the damn article I linked to: "Police use of 'kettling' tactics to contain crowds during violent demonstrations in London in 2001 did not breach human rights, European judges have ruled." It had nothing to do with any Occupy people camped in central London.

[jacee]

Read the damn article I linked to: "Police use of 'kettling' tactics to contain crowds during violent demonstrations in London in 2001 did not breach human rights, European judges have ruled." It had nothing to do with any Occupy people camped in central London.

Very different circumstances than in Toronto.

There was no 'violence' by protesters at Novotel or Queen and Spadina.

There was no legal justification for kettling, and the OIPRD report concludes that the police action was "unlawful".

You're not doing good cops any favours by trying to cover up for bad cops.

[g_bambino]

There was no 'violence' by protesters at Novotel or Queen and Spadina.

Which has no bearing on the legality of kettling. The Criminal Code allows for arrests to be made to prevent violence.

You're not doing good cops any favours by trying to cover up for bad cops.

Of course I'm not trying to cover up for bad cops. I'm highlighting how you're not doing a very good job of incorporating facts into the process by which you reach your conclusions.

[ed.: +]

Edited May 18, 2012 by g_bambino

[jacee]

Which has no bearing on the legality of kettling. The Criminal Code allows for arrests to be made to prevent violence.

In your dreams ...

Defending bad policing destroys public confidence and besmirches good policing.

I think you should step down.

[g_bambino]

In your dreams ...

I'd normally ask for a more substantial argument than that, but I know now you don't have one.

[WWWTT]

I just pointed out a court ruling to you. The kettling it ruled on took place in central London; there are no camp grounds in central London; I know, I've been there a number of times. The weather conditions in which an arrest takes place do not impact on the legality of the arrest.

British and European law is not applicable in Canada.

The Canadian constitution is unique to Canada

Therefore any rulings made in Europe are not transferable to Canadian law.

Its in my opinion that kettling can cause serious problems and will result in many costly lawsuits and in turn legislation may be passed in the future to ban the practice.

Keep in mind that this tactic is relatively new to Canadian law enforcement,therefore new to how it relates to our constitution.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Which has no bearing on the legality of kettling. The Criminal Code allows for arrests to be made to prevent violence.

[ed.: +]

Canadian constitution allows us the freedom of speech,including the right to protest.

Show me where the criminal code over rules the constitution.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Which has no bearing on the legality of kettling. The Criminal Code allows for arrests to be made to prevent violence.

[ed.: +]

Constitution permits the right to freedom of travel without obstruction.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

British and European law is not applicable in Canada.

The Canadian constitution is unique to Canada

Therefore any rulings made in Europe are not transferable to Canadian law.

The international court ruled that kettling is not unlawful. Are you saying that you don't believe international law applies to Canada?

[WWWTT]

The international court ruled that kettling is not unlawful. Are you saying that you don't believe international law applies to Canada?

Did the international court use the Canadian constitution to make their findings?

Did the international court make an actual ruling in the G8/G20 cases?

WWWTT

[g_bambino]

Constitution permits the right to freedom of travel without obstruction.

The constitution places limits on rights.

[g_bambino]

British and European law is not applicable in Canada.

I'm aware of that. It was jacee who raised the subject of a court in Europe (she said the British supreme court) making a ruling on kettling.

[guyser]

The international court ruled that kettling is not unlawful. Are you saying that you don't believe international law applies to Canada?

It applies to Canada, but not to Canadians. Same as in the US I believe.

Int"l Law comes fromn treaties betw the partners, not the people who live in each country.

[WWWTT]

The constitution places limits on rights.

Are you implying that because of such limitations,then kettling is acceptable?

As well under what conditions are limits applied?

And what about section 9 of the Charter?

Are you implying that section 9 no longer is in effect,why?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Did the international court use the Canadian constitution to make their findings?

Did the international court make an actual ruling in the G8/G20 cases?

I'm asking you what you think. Do you think International Court rulings apply to Canada? I'm not speaking of this issue specifically. You can't pick and chose. Either international court rulings apply to Canada - or they don't.

[Guest American Woman]

It applies to Canada, but not to Canadians. Same as in the US I believe.

Int"l Law comes fromn treaties betw the partners, not the people who live in each country.

That doesn't make sense - What is Canada other than the people who live in it?

[jacee]

I'd normally ask for a more substantial argument than that, but I know now you don't have one.

My argument is that contained in the OIPRD review.

You're the one defending bad policing, and there is no justification for that.

[WWWTT]

I'm asking you what you think. Do you think International Court rulings apply to Canada? I'm not speaking of this issue specifically. You can't pick and chose. Either international court rulings apply to Canada - or they don't.

Honestly I am not aware of the cases that the international court made their rulings on.

Since they made those rulings on cases that were not within Canada then yes their rulings are not applicable here.

However this only applies to kettling.

Other international rulings other than kettling are another matter.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Honestly I am not aware of the cases that the international court made their rulings on.

Since they made those rulings on cases that were not within Canada then yes their rulings are not applicable here.

However this only applies to kettling.

Other international rulings other than kettling are another matter.

So if it's a ruling you don't agree with, it doesn't apply - but if it's a ruling you do agree with - it does apply? How can some apply and others not apply? And would you agree that other nations can pick and chose which rulings apply to them, too?

[g_bambino]

You're the one defending bad policing...

And you're the one making a decopage budgie skull from cut-out pictures of the Marquis de Sade and Martha Stewart.

[g_bambino]

So if it's a ruling you don't agree with, it doesn't apply - but if it's a ruling you do agree with - it does apply?

The ruling being discussed here is that which came from the European Union Court of Human Rights. It doesn't have any effect on Canada, except, perhaps, as reference for a Canadian court dealing with a related case.