What right have you lost.

[Derek 2.0]

To Derek 2.0 - I am very surprised that you have used the old "if you can't criticize the message then try to discredit the messenger" ploy. That is the first time I have seen you use that. I thought that you do not stoop to those kinds of arguments.

Do you really believe that someone who has worked in CSIS, who understands its strengths and weaknesses, would lie just to get some kind of revenge against somebody? Of all the speculation from different posters here, there is finally some "expert" (somebody who really knows the ins and outs) and you not only do not address his points but dismiss his opinion as "sour grapes"?

I hope that this is a "one-of-a-kind" response from you. That is a tactic associated with some less credible other posters on this board.

It’s very apt in this case…….Your cited “expert” served (and investigated the post mortem) during the largest intelligence failure, and resulted largest terror attack, in Canadian history. As per the Major commission, the failure of CSIS to share information (and later destroyed said signals intelligence days after the bombing) with the RCMP was highlighted as one of largest failures in the entire affair……

Of course C-51 is intended to expand the sharing of information between Government agencies, as such, an “expert” that was involved in the aftermath of the Air India bombing, lacks creditability on discussions encompassing the sharing of intelligence information and its utilization in combating terrorism……..unless of course we are to examine the failures of said “expert” and utilize them as an litmus on what not to do.

[Derek 2.0]

Police forces organizing anti-democratic operations, with little public accounting and no public understanding of how this happened. This was an action by the organizations.

That's with the assumption that police intended to organize "anti-democratic operations".......or just provide security.

You haven't yet answered the question of whether you're ok with it, so I'll assume you are. And again, my point is that we don't appear to be able to strike a balance between security/democratic rights. We have both sometimes, and other times we have neither. And, like you, most are ok with that.

I did answer your question.......to clarify, I can separate the overall intent of the police action, and be "ok with it", but not be "ok" with the actions of those officers that allegedly broke the law.

[Argus]

They worry that Canadians cant have confidence CSIS wont be used to target political enemies of the government. [/i]

.

Jean Chretien used the RCMP to target political enemies and that never bothered anyone.

[Michael Hardner]

That's with the assumption that police intended to organize "anti-democratic operations".......or just provide security.

They planted rioters in with peaceful protesters - an organized effort in which all of the planted and non-planted officers would have to be complicit. That's systemic, not just the work of a few rogues.

How this is "actions of officers" is beyond me. Was the invasion of Iraq the "actions of a few soldiers" ? I'll wear the hyperbole here, btw.

[jacee]

That's with the assumption that police intended to organize "anti-democratic operations".......or just provide security.

I did answer your question.......to clarify, I can separate the overall intent of the police action, and be "ok with it", but not be "ok" with the actions of those officers that allegedly broke the law.

You didn't respond to my post Derek:

"They worry that Canadians cant have confidence CSIS wont be used to target political enemies of the government."

And we all know who's on Harper's 'enemy list':

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/17/andrew-coyne-you-will-be-shocked-to-see-who-is-on-stephen-harpers-full-enemy-list

And we know the RCMP'S only oath is to "OBEY lawful ORDERS.

Who decides what's "lawful", Derek?

HE who signs the pay cheque and makes the laws!

.

Edited February 14, 2015 by jacee

[Derek 2.0]

They planted rioters in with peaceful protesters - an organized effort in which all of the planted and non-planted officers would have to be complicit. That's systemic, not just the work of a few rogues.

Sure, but how is that anti-democratic? Like I said before, I don't see the difference between that and other undercover operations/stings etc...

How this is "actions of officers" is beyond me. Was the invasion of Iraq the "actions of a few soldiers" ? I'll wear the hyperbole here, btw.

Again your point of view is predicated on one viewing the overall action being morally wrong……i.e. countering rioters and providing security or the invasion of Iraq.

[Argus]

And we know the RCMP'S only oath is to "OBEY lawful ORDERS.

The problem with the RCMP, as with the police during the G20, was in their zeal to obey ANY order, without care or concern about how lawful it might or might not be.

[jbg]

All we hear about is harper bad harper a dictator, harper talking our rights away. Well then lets see what rights have been lost and by who. The only PM I knew about that actually threw innocent people in jail or put soldiers on the street with guns was Trudeau SR.

Paul Martin's ads showed Harper on the way to doing the same thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, but how is that anti-democratic? Like I said before, I don't see the difference between that and other undercover operations/stings etc...

It disrupts, discredits and potentially prevents free speech.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure, but how is that anti-democratic? Like I said before, I don't see the difference between that and other undercover operations/stings etc...

Again your point of view is predicated on one viewing the overall action being morally wrong……i.e. countering rioters and providing security or the invasion of Iraq.

A sting is a setup to catch someone who has shown intent to commit a crime. Using cops to actually commit crime to possibly foment criminal activity among people exercising their democratic and lawful right to protest is something quite different. Not to mention illegal.

[Derek 2.0]

It disrupts, discredits and potentially prevents free speech.

But isn't that the intent of some of these protests? In that some protesters intent is to "disrupt, discredit and potentially prevent free speech" of the groups they're protesting?

I revert back to Occupy Vancouver, in that for its size and scope (and duration) very few protestors were detained (let alone charged) and as a response, very few police officers were required to observe and monitor their demonstrations, and for the most part, the police presence was one of traffic control…

Government and local businesses weren’t affected, regular people could carry on with their regular lives and the city functioned with some level of normalcy. Inversely, the protestors were allowed to protest for weeks on end, received media attention and were only shut down (By the Fire Marshal) when their encampment became a public health and safety concern (with open flames, ODs, public defecation and garbage).

So I’m forced to ask, what was the difference between protestors at Occupy and at the G20 in Toronto, and in turn, the reactionary response by police? Maybe, just maybe, if G20 protestors had of remained in public parks and played bongo drums and smoked dope, and not torching stores, banks, cop cars (well interfering with the media reporting on it) the police would have refrained from bashing skulls……….

[jacee]

But isn't that the intent of some of these protests? In that some protesters intent is to "disrupt, discredit and potentially prevent free speech" of the groups they're protesting?

I revert back to Occupy Vancouver, in that for its size and scope (and duration) very few protestors were detained (let alone charged) and as a response, very few police officers were required to observe and monitor their demonstrations, and for the most part, the police presence was one of traffic control

Government and local businesses werent affected, regular people could carry on with their regular lives and the city functioned with some level of normalcy. Inversely, the protestors were allowed to protest for weeks on end, received media attention and were only shut down (By the Fire Marshal) when their encampment became a public health and safety concern (with open flames, ODs, public defecation and garbage).

So Im forced to ask, what was the difference between protestors at Occupy and at the G20 in Toronto, and in turn, the reactionary response by police? Maybe, just maybe, if G20 protestors had of remained in public parks and played bongo drums and smoked dope, and not torching stores, banks, cop cars (well interfering with the media reporting on it) the police would have refrained from bashing skulls.

Boy are you confused.

The provocateur police were at Montebello QC G8, not the Toronto G20.

And it is the responsibility of the police to protect free speech, not suppress it. WE PAY THE POLICE TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS FROM INCURSION BY THE STATE.

.

Edited February 15, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

But isn't that the intent of some of these protests? In that some protesters intent is to "disrupt, discredit and potentially prevent free speech" of the groups they're protesting?

Yes, it is sometimes.

So I’m forced to ask, what was the difference between protestors at Occupy and at the G20 in Toronto, and in turn, the reactionary response by police?

I'm not sure why you're marching me back to Toronto on this line of questions. I think we've established my point. To answer your question, the government of Ontario quickly passed laws to restrict protest, as well as deceiving the public as to the scope of those laws. Also, police behaved improperly. But all of that is known, and probably supports my point, if anything.

Maybe, just maybe, if G20 protestors had of remained in public parks and played bongo drums and smoked dope, and not torching stores, banks, cop cars (well interfering with the media reporting on it) the police would have refrained from bashing skulls……….

I guess we'll never know...

[Argus]

So I’m forced to ask, what was the difference between protestors at Occupy and at the G20 in Toronto, and in turn, the reactionary response by police? Maybe, just maybe, if G20 protestors had of remained in public parks and played bongo drums and smoked dope, and not torching stores, banks, cop cars (well interfering with the media reporting on it) the police would have refrained from bashing skulls……….

But 99% of the G20 protesters acted lawfully and peacefully. In fact, some of them were beat up and arrested while playing bongo drums in public parks. There was a mentality among the police that all protesters were the enemy, regardless of what they were doing and how legally they were doing it. Police were incompetent, poorly trained and poorly disciplined, and showed an unsettling disregard for the law, never mind the constitution.

But that's on the Ontario Liberals.

The APEC summit in Vancouver resulted in gross violations of citizens rights by the RCMP, and that again was deliberate and without regard to the law. Jean Chretien had promised the Chinese dictatorship that they would not be subject to any embarrassment from protesters so police gleefully arrested anyone who tried to get anywhere near the summit or even the streets where the Chinese were going to pass. People were arrested on their own front lawns for daring to hold up small paper signs, and prisoners, especially female prisoners were strip searched to intimidate them before being released without charge.

We cannot rely on police to obey the law or respect anyone's rights. They have repeatedly demonstrated they have no regard for either. That is why I would like to see parliamentary oversight of the security forces - and the RCMP.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

We cannot rely on police to obey the law or respect anyone's rights. They have repeatedly demonstrated they have no regard for either. That is why I would like to see parliamentary oversight of the security forces - and the RCMP.

Yes, I think this is indeed where we are today.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not sure why you're marching me back to Toronto on this line of questions. I think we've established my point. To answer your question, the government of Ontario quickly passed laws to restrict protest, as well as deceiving the public as to the scope of those laws. Also, police behaved improperly. But all of that is known, and probably supports my point, if anything.

How did the Ontario Government deceive the public? Before said laws were passed, was a portion of the public under the impression it was a-ok to torch banks and cop cars?

As I said prior, I don't deny some police behaved improperly, as a result, several officers have been charged.........If we were in the makings of a police state, wouldn't said officers face zero legal action as a result?

[Derek 2.0]

But 99% of the G20 protesters acted lawfully and peacefully. In fact, some of them were beat up and arrested while playing bongo drums in public parks. There was a mentality among the police that all protesters were the enemy, regardless of what they were doing and how legally they were doing it. Police were incompetent, poorly trained and poorly disciplined, and showed an unsettling disregard for the law, never mind the constitution.

But that's on the Ontario Liberals.

Cite?

The APEC summit in Vancouver resulted in gross violations of citizens rights by the RCMP, and that again was deliberate and without regard to the law. Jean Chretien had promised the Chinese dictatorship that they would not be subject to any embarrassment from protesters so police gleefully arrested anyone who tried to get anywhere near the summit or even the streets where the Chinese were going to pass. People were arrested on their own front lawns for daring to hold up small paper signs, and prisoners, especially female prisoners were strip searched to intimidate them before being released without charge.

And that confirms my point……..during APEC, Sgt. Pepper and his band of merry men used force against protestors that attempted to breach security protecting various World leaders, yet during Occupy no such force was required………is this a reflection of policing or the actions of the protestors? Policing at its very core is reactionary, so that leaves me to believe that those protestors that behave like animals are going to get seasoned and tenderized by police, inversely (as demonstrated in the various examples cited) those police officers that take it too far will face legal recourse………..

[On Guard for Thee]

How did the Ontario Government deceive the public? Before said laws were passed, was a portion of the public under the impression it was a-ok to torch banks and cop cars?

As I said prior, I don't deny some police behaved improperly, as a result, several officers have been charged.........If we were in the makings of a police state, wouldn't said officers face zero legal action as a result?

Unfortunately for the cops, they seemed to forget everybody has a video camera these days.

[GostHacked]

Which typical democracy is this. You can be detained without charge for two weeks in the UK, for years in France, forever in the US.

Ah so because others are doing it, we need to as well? I thought this was a democracy where people have rights.

[Derek 2.0]

Unfortunately for the cops, they seemed to forget everybody has a video camera these days.

Why is that a bad thing for the police? I would think it would be tho their benefit.

[GostHacked]

They planted rioters in with peaceful protesters - an organized effort in which all of the planted and non-planted officers would have to be complicit. That's systemic, not just the work of a few rogues.

I guess even when the police admit that they were cops and under the order of the police services, people still do not want to believe it. After the G-20 the TPS admitted no extra arresting poweres were granted. So rights were violated. Again even whem coming from those who are 'protecting' us people still think they are isolated incidents.

How this is "actions of officers" is beyond me. Was the invasion of Iraq the "actions of a few soldiers" ? I'll wear the hyperbole here, btw.

Good point.

[GostHacked]

Sure, but how is that anti-democratic? Like I said before, I don't see the difference between that and other undercover operations/stings etc...

If three guys walk up with masks and rocks in their hands, what do you think their intentions are going to be? They ran as soon as they were called out.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why is that a bad thing for the police? I would think it would be tho their benefit.

Um, not when it catches them using excessive force and taking their badges off.

[Michael Hardner]

How did the Ontario Government deceive the public? Before said laws were passed, was a portion of the public under the impression it was a-ok to torch banks and cop cars?

I guess you don't know about this issue then. Again, my point has been made but I'm glad to be your personal Google guide through this issue, for now:

This blog reprints a Toronto Sun article:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30585&view=next

'Martial law' imposed during summit: Ombudsman

By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, Queen's Park Bureau

Last Updated: December 7, 2010 7:50pm

Torontonians were effectively placed under martial law during the G20 Summit, says Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin.

The provincial government’s decision to secretly invoke an obscure 1939 war measures law to give police extreme powers to detain, search and arrest people was likely unconstitutional and unnecessary, Marin says in his report, Caught in the Act, which was released Tuesday.

Toronto Police also went beyond the unusual powers granted by the Public Works Protection Act regulation, using it inappropriately to stop and search possibly thousands of citizen across the downtown core in violation of their Charter rights, he said.

“For the citizens of Toronto, the days up to and including the weekend of the G20 will live in infamy as a time period where martial law set in the City of Toronto leading to the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history,” Marin said. “And we can never let that happen again.”

The now infamous Regulation 233 was quietly passed by the Dalton McGuinty government at the direct request of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair in the days leading up to the June summit.

“Regulation 233’s ground zero was in Chief Blair’s office. No other police agency wanted anything to do with this police regulation,” he said.

...

Marin said he got “zero cooperation” from the police chief who said no to interviews on behalf of himself and his officers.

http://niagaraatlarge.com/2010/12/07/ontario-ombudsman-releases-blistering-report-on-provincial-government%E2%80%99s-role-in-g20-security-mayhem/

The McGuinty government’s decision, at a cabinet meeting prior to last June’s summit weekend to invoke it without informing the legislature or the public at large, combined with a statement Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair made later (when news of the cabinet decision leaked out) that the draconian powers would only apply to a five-metre zone outside a G20 summit security fence, proved to be a volatile mixture.

Marin said that unbeknown to thousands of people who came to Toronto to rally that weekend for better global environmental measures, and for other social justice issues, police forces applied the act to sites kilometers away, including areas government officials assured were “safe zones” for gathering to voice their interests and concerns.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/john_snobelen/2010/09/17/15392476.html

Of course there is still muttering over the trivial matter of the minor suspension of civil liberties in connection with the G20 summit. When will the public learn to trust the secret deals McGuinty and his cabinet make?

As I said prior, I don't deny some police behaved improperly, as a result, several officers have been charged.........If we were in the makings of a police state, wouldn't said officers face zero legal action as a result?

We're NOT in the makings of a police state in my opinion, so I can't answer your question. But if you feel like I can also ask you questions, as your personal Googler, maybe you can tell me what happened to the 3 officers who were found out by the crowd.

[Argus]

Cite?

No cite is needed. Their actions made it obvious.

And that confirms my point……..during APEC, Sgt. Pepper and his band of merry men used force against protestors that attempted to breach security protecting various World leaders,

Sorry, no, that is not what happened. What happened was that Jean Carle, from the PMO, ordered the RCMP to move back the fences they had established because while they were far enough away to protect world leaders it would still have been possible for some of the attending dictators to at least see them - at a distance. Chretien, who was always the friend of every dictator he could wrap his arms around, had promised Asian dictators he would make sure they would see no protests, so Carle, a political operative, was put in charge of the RCMP, and they obeyed his orders to the letter and without question, regardless of the illegality of those orders.

And as I said, the RCMP also arrested people on their front lawns for holding up paper signs, and in one case even moved onto someone's property to tear down a Tibetan flag from the flagpole in case it might offend the Chinese when they drove past. Sgt Pepper sprayed people who were sitting down in the street, not 'attempting to breach security'.