Canada's War on Terror and the Freedom to Radicalize

[drummindiver]

And some of these Black Bloc types could be cops inciting violence. I will use Montebello again as an example.

I looked for evidence of this. All I could personally find was a video of ppl wearing the same boots, therefore they must be police. I guess all skin heads in their Doc Martins must be cops also.

[Michael Hardner]

I looked for evidence of this. All I could personally find was a video of ppl wearing the same boots, therefore they must be police. I guess all skin heads in their Doc Martins must be cops also.

Canada[edit]

On August 20, 2007, during meetings of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in Montebello, three protesters were accused of being police provocateurs by Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. The three masked protesters, one of whom was notably armed with a large rock, were asked to leave by protest organizers. After the three protesters breached the police line, they were brought to the ground, handcuffed, and taken away. The evidence that the arrested people were police provocateurs was circumstantial, including the fact that they were wearing boots identical to those worn by police.^[13][14] According to veteran activist Harsha Walia, it was other participants in the black bloc who identified and exposed the undercover police.^[15]

After the protest, the police force initially denied then later admitted that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators; however, they denied that the officers were provoking the crowd and instigating violence.^[16]The police released a news release in French where they stated "At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts" and that "at all times, they responded within their mandate to keep order and security".^[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/officers-accused-of-inciting-violence-face-ethics-panel/article4291063/

Three undercover officers accused of inciting protesters to attack riot police at the 2007 North American leaders summit in Montebello are being summoned to testify before Quebec's independent police ethics committee.

Can anybody find a link to the ethics committee findings ?

[jacee]

The incident

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

The findings

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919

Police acknowledged they were officers.

Couldn't prove intent to provoke.

One officer guilty of assaulting a protester.

...

When confronted they gave themselves away by running behind the police line. Lol

Like any blac bloc is going to do that!!

[Black Dog]

Nope. These ppl are terrorists. Murder is not the only criteria for terrorism.

Violent protest isn't terrorism either. Unless you want to expand the definition to be so broad as to encompass any illegal act with a political motive, which I'm sure would suit the CPC just fine.

[Black Dog]

Also I'm still waiting for someone to explain why new powers for security are necessary and why the old way of doing things (which already had little oversight for CSIS et al) was insufficient.

[jacee]

Violent protest isn't terrorism either. Unless you want to expand the definition to be so broad as to encompass any illegal act with a political motive, which I'm sure would suit the CPC just fine.

Ya... Like jaywalking. Lol

.

[GostHacked]

I looked for evidence of this. All I could personally find was a video of ppl wearing the same boots, therefore they must be police. I guess all skin heads in their Doc Martins must be cops also.

It was a big scandal, the Montebello Police and Quebec Police both admitted they were police officers. People keep missing that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-went-undercover-at-montebello-protest-1.656171

Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.

However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence.

"At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts," the police force said in French in a news release. "It is not in the police force's policies, nor in its strategies, to act in that manner.

"At all times, they responded within their mandate to keep order and security."

They were masked and carrying rocks, I am sure they were there to keep the peace.

[Argus]

The lawmaking side of the system certainly is...thank the stars for the SCC so far is all I can say. It really does seem to be the only thing capable of standing in the face of incremental authoritarianism at the moment.

Can you give us some specifics of how the SCC protected me from authoritarianism?

[eyeball]

Also I'm still waiting for someone to explain why new powers for security are necessary and why the old way of doing things (which already had little oversight for CSIS et al) was insufficient.

The new powers make Mr Harper look more Prime Ministerial.

It's not that the old way of doing things are insufficient it's that the effect of introducing those tough old measures while mocking the pansies across the floor for being soft on fill-in-blank-here have worn off. We've had a few galvanizing moments recently and the time for introducing tough new measures and pointing at pansies is nigh with an election on the horizon. It seems to work every time but they do have to keep up the effort, because as everyone knows the public is either as stupid as a sack of hammers or possessed of no more attention than a hummingbird on crack.

That probably explains why no one notices the dictator's arsenals of increasingly tougher measures our state like many around the world are accumulating. It's like our species can't race towards authoritarianism fast enough. Democracy, liberty and freedom don't seem to be providing any sort of bulwark against a process that is itself a part of the process of democracy. It's more than just a riddle inside a conundrum, it's a malicious malware that has infected and taken over our system.

[jacee]

Can you give us some specifics of how the SCC protected me from authoritarianism?

no one can protect you from yourself Argus.

[eyeball]

Can you give us some specifics of how the SCC protected me from authoritarianism?

How? It's applying the Charter of Right's and Freedoms to government legislation thereby preventing any that chips away at our rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Jacee thanks for posting this link:

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919

It's pretty clear when you read that, that security forces overstep their bounds in a very organized way, ie. with support of RCMP leadership and the like. This also means that you can fully expect such types to share information gained from additional security measures.

Now that we know that, is it worth the extra security from eavesdropping (and of course there is a measure of extra security) to risk this type of anti-democratic action ?

I ask the question openly, as those are the cards on the table. I would still say that it's worth it, but that we need to be aware that abuses will (not might) happen.

[jacee]

Jacee thanks for posting this link:

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919

It's pretty clear when you read that, that security forces overstep their bounds in a very organized way, ie. with support of RCMP leadership and the like. This also means that you can fully expect such types to share information gained from additional security measures.

Now that we know that, is it worth the extra security from eavesdropping (and of course there is a measure of extra security) to risk this type of anti-democratic action ?

I ask the question openly, as those are the cards on the table. I would still say that it's worth it, but that we need to be aware that abuses will (not might) happen.

Increasing security would not have prevented the two recent high profile deaths. More and better mental health interventions would have. Where is that on Harper's agenda?

And where are measures to prevent search and seizure without warrants and arrest and detention of thousands of protesters without reasonable grounds or charges?

Oh wait! Harper wants to make that easier!

Easy for him to say ... from his closet! :/

.

[Keepitsimple]

It already did happen - over 1000 people arrested 'just in case' one of them "may" commit an illegal act.

.

I take it you are referring to the G20 Kettling. Funny thing is, arguably the worst case of government infringement on rights was when Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act and arbitrarily arrested over 300 people - holding them far longer than the G20. And lets face it, Trudeau the Younger shows a level of reckless impulsiveness that might lead us down that path again. The truth is that people make mistakes - we're human - but just as the article that was posted that showed how similar powers in the UK have proven to be used very, very cautiously - the same will happen here - because if they don't - there will be hell to pay.....that's what happened in the UK and there is no reason that it would be different here.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[jacee]

I take it you are referring to the G20 Kettling. Funny thing is, arguably the worst case of government infringement on rights was when Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act and arbitrarily arrested over 300 people - holding them far longer than the G20. And lets face it, Trudeau the Younger shows a level of reckless impulsiveness that might lead us down that path again. The truth is that people make mistakes - we're human - but just as the article that was posted that showed how similar powers in the UK have proven to be used very, very cautiously - the same will happen here - because if they don't - there will be hell to pay.....that's what happened in the UK and there is no reason that it would be different here.

Well Harper outdid Trudeau,

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/07/court-approves-two-g20-class-action-lawsuits-alleging-mistreatment-by-toronto-police-during-2010-summit

Kettling hundreds in the streets and incarcerating over 1000 in horrible conditions.

Edited February 11, 2015 by jacee

[drummindiver]

It was a big scandal, the Montebello Police and Quebec Police both admitted they were police officers. People keep missing that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-went-undercover-at-montebello-protest-1.656171

They were masked and carrying rocks, I am sure they were there to keep the peace.

Fair, but I was referencing G-20. My bad for not clearly stating.

[drummindiver]

Violent protest isn't terrorism either. Unless you want to expand the definition to be so broad as to encompass any illegal act with a political motive, which I'm sure would suit the CPC just fine.

You clearly can differentiate between peaceful political protest, and violent political protest.

Attacking police cars with police men inside is not political protest.

Many of you choose to not even call it criminal, yet constantly refer to what the police may or may not have done (talking G-20, not Montebello).

Did they act as provocateurs? I don't know. I do know many crimes are solved by policemen acting undercover.

I

[dre]

Increasing security would not have prevented the two recent high profile deaths. More and better mental health interventions would have. Where is that on Harper's agenda?

And where are measures to prevent search and seizure without warrants and arrest and detention of thousands of protesters without reasonable grounds or charges?

Oh wait! Harper wants to make that easier!

Easy for him to say ... from his closet! :/

.

Supporters of these kinds of power grabs will never be able to give you any tangible reasons. They are irrationally frightened, and have a "feeling" that they are insecure and that someone needs to protect them. The fact that terrorism isnt even one of the thousand biggest threats to them doesnt matter. A fear dumb population is the best thing that could ever happen to a government intent on making itself more powerful. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Its why the Germans allowed the rise of the Nazis after the Reichstag fire... Its why the Americans allowed the patriot act... its why Canadians stood buy while Japanese Canadians had their property siezed and were herded into concentration camps.

[Michael Hardner]

Increasing security would not have prevented the two recent high profile deaths. More and better mental health interventions would have. Where is that on Harper's agenda?

Good point.

They do, however, claim that two plots were prevented through security means.

And where are measures to prevent search and seizure without warrants and arrest and detention of thousands of protesters without reasonable grounds or charges?

Oh wait! Harper wants to make that easier!

Easy for him to say ... from his closet! :/

.

Kind of a low blow there. I still think it's going to be impossible to strike a balance. It's clear that they already have enough ways to abuse our rights. It's also clear to me that there are some ways that additional powers would make us secure.

So we're in overlap mode, which means we have to trust the people we can't trust.

[Michael Hardner]

Its why the Germans allowed the rise of the Nazis after the Reichstag fire... Its why the Americans allowed the patriot act... its why Canadians stood buy while Japanese Canadians had their property siezed and were herded into concentration camps.

Each of those things are understandable, and even if they're mostly unacceptable they are degrees of unacceptable.

[jacee]

Each of those things are understandable, and even if they're mostly unacceptable they are degrees of unacceptable.

! Not if things like them are happening again !

.

Edited February 12, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Not if things like them are happening again!

.

Not what ? Unacceptable ? Things "like them" ? Even the things on that list are not exactly like each other ?

Is rounding up people and killing them "like" rounding them up ? Is the Patriot Act "like" interment ?

[dre]

Each of those things are understandable, and even if they're mostly unacceptable they are degrees of unacceptable.

Thats true it IS understable. Its pretty well known how easily cowards are parted from both their money or their liberty.

BinLaden understood that when he came up with a plan to trick westerners into unsustainable behavior that he hoped would origionally bankrupt them... And private western interests understood while they were dividing the loot from the whole scam.

5 Trillion Dollars.

This is the most profitable endeavor in all of human history.

[jacee]

Supporters of these kinds of power grabs will never be able to give you any tangible reasons. They are irrationally frightened, and have a "feeling" that they are insecure and that someone needs to protect them. The fact that terrorism isnt even one of the thousand biggest threats to them doesnt matter. A fear dumb population is the best thing that could ever happen to a government intent on making itself more powerful. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Yup. Anything that instills fear of the corporate machine ... you protest, we will CRUSH you.

Its why the Germans allowed the rise of the Nazis after the Reichstag fire... Its why the Americans allowed the patriot act... its why Canadians stood buy while Japanese Canadians had their property siezed and were herded into concentration camps.

It's the same mentality, yes.

It's not me, it's just 'them'.

.

.

Edited February 12, 2015 by jacee

[poochy]

Well Harper outdid Trudeau,

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/07/court-approves-two-g20-class-action-lawsuits-alleging-mistreatment-by-toronto-police-during-2010-summit

Kettling hundreds in the streets and incarcerating over 1000 in horrible conditions.

Yes, because being detained for a day is similar in any way to being held for weeks without ever being charged, split the difference if you like, but Harper didn't out do anyone, nor did he himself specifically arrest anyone or order the police to do so, of course you won't believe that.