Protests, police provocateurs, masks, etc

[WWWTT]

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?

I do not recall ever saying that I ever agreed with any of their rulings?

Honestly I am not even aware of many of their cases?

Maybe war criminal trials?

WWWTT

[jacee]

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

I mentioned the UK experience only as an example of the controversy surrounding the kettling tactic. It was deemed justified in those cases because of vandalism and things being thrown at police in London UK at the time.

That was not the case at Novotel or Queen and Spadina and the OIPRD review deemed the kettling "unlawful" in those circumstances.

AmWo is trying to distract you into the American obsession that International law doesn't apply to them. Whoopee-do. Irrelevant.

[g_bambino]

It was deemed justified in those cases because of vandalism and things being thrown at police in London UK at the time.

Proof, please.

[jacee]

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

I see you're out of discussion points.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Kettling is not prohibited under international law, so unless Canada has a law against it, which it doesn't, it's legal.

[guyser]

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

Canada is a nation state. Filled with Canucks.

USA is the same , 'cept filled w Yanks

The Intr'l Court deal with nation states and treaties betw them. It has no bearing on the legal systems in our countries as they pertain to the citizens.

[Signals.Cpl]

I do not recall ever saying that I ever agreed with any of their rulings?

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

Honestly I am not even aware of many of their cases?

Maybe war criminal trials?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I do not recall ever saying that I ever agreed with any of their rulings?

Honestly I am not even aware of many of their cases?

Maybe war criminal trials?

I'm just curious as to your views, is all - I'm just wondering if you think international court rulings, international law, should apply to Canada.

[guyser]

Kettling is not prohibited under international law, so unless Canada has a law against it, which it doesn't, it's legal.

Probably true, unless and until challenged under the Charter. Which I suspect will render the idea null and void (kettling)

[g_bambino]

I see you're out of discussion points.

I simply followed you off to fantasy land.

[g_bambino]

Kettling is not prohibited under international law, so unless Canada has a law against it, which it doesn't, it's legal.

All the laws relating to arrest have to be taken into account. But, essentially, yes.

[WWWTT]

I mentioned the UK experience only as an example of the controversy surrounding the kettling tactic. It was deemed justified in those cases because of vandalism and things being thrown at police in London UK at the time.

That was not the case at Novotel or Queen and Spadina and the OIPRD review deemed the kettling "unlawful" in those circumstances.

AmWo is trying to distract you into the American obsession that International law doesn't apply to them. Whoopee-do. Irrelevant.

I am only pointing out the flaws in using one ruling to cover every case.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Kettling is not prohibited under international law, so unless Canada has a law against it, which it doesn't, it's legal.

Actually the practice of kettling can be in contradiction of section 9 of the Canadian constitution.So therefore it may be in fact illegal!

But this is for the courts to decide.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Whats your point Signals.cpl?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I'm just curious as to your views, is all - I'm just wondering if you think international court rulings, international law, should apply to Canada.

This question is too far separated from the current discussion so I am not prepared to discuss.

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

Whats your point Signals.cpl?

WWWTT

You stated you never said you agreed with any of the other rulings of those courts, yet in the same post you turn around and say that it applies only for the one ruling implying you are fine with the others. I was just pointing out where you said it.

[Signals.Cpl]

This question is too far separated from the current discussion so I am not prepared to discuss.

WWWTT

It is not necessarily too far separated, if you agree that certain international laws apply in Canada and for Canada while others do not. If an international court approves the use of kettling but rules against something else, can Canada take one at face value and say its international law, and the other does not apply to us? This could apply to other nations, for example the trials for War Crimes, who is to say that a Serbian General who massacred thousands of civilians is guilty of a crime but does that crime apply because it happened in his country? We can say that international law should apply to and in all countries or none at all. If we claim that International Law should not apply to Canada we are in fact helping the agencies that make/enforce the laws irrelevant.

[WWWTT]

if you agree that certain international laws apply in Canada and for Canada while others do not. If an international court approves the use of kettling but rules against something else, can Canada take one at face value and say its international law, and the other does not apply to us? This could apply to other nations, for example the trials for War Crimes, who is to say that a Serbian General who massacred thousands of civilians is guilty of a crime but does that crime apply because it happened in his country? We can say that international law should apply to and in all countries or none at all. If we claim that International Law should not apply to Canada we are in fact helping the agencies that make/enforce the laws irrelevant.

Actually you may be right.

However this line/course will lead to thread drift so I am not going to go too far into this.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between international law and domestic law.

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

Actually you may be right.

However this line/course will lead to thread drift so I am not going to go too far into this.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between international law and domestic law.

WWWTT

I understand and as there is a different but sometimes international law trumps domestic law.

[Signals.Cpl]

Where is the Outrage against these thugs?

[GostHacked]

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.

Political non-answer rhetoric.

'There is a knife in this dead man's body piercing the heart. But let's wait for the autopsy to see what he died of.'

The fact that this has caused such a storm, as it rightly should, means that something more than normal police procedures had taken place during that event.

I will again point to that documentary 'Into The Fire' .. or simply do a quick search through Youtube and see it for yourself.

Here is one good clip I got with a quick search 'kettling g20' Good use of a billion dollars eh?

Let's count the cops shall we?

[GostHacked]

Where is the Outrage against these thugs?

You won't find anyone here condoning the use of violence during protest. It's counter productive.

[ironstone]

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?

You can't be taken seriously when you compare Harper to a brutal dead dictator and Canada isn't a totalitarian regime,although I have concerns about our HRC's,but that's another topic.

[jacee]

You can't be taken seriously when you compare Harper to a brutal dead dictator and Canada isn't a totalitarian regime,although I have concerns about our HRC's,but that's another topic.

Criminalizing dissent is on the road to totalitarian, and it seems to be Harper's only strategy, a definite lack of resourcefulness ... or will ... to really do the job of democratic leadership, imo.

[Signals.Cpl]

Criminalizing dissent is on the road to totalitarian, and it seems to be Harper's only strategy, a definite lack of resourcefulness ... or will ... to really do the job of democratic leadership, imo.

And how does he criminalize dissident? By telling rioters to remove show their face? If you are proud of your participation in a protest why hide it? And if you need to hide your face what does that say about the activities you are participating in or planning to participate in?