What right have you lost.

Derek 2.0 · February 16, 2015

Funny how they declared Queens Park a 'safe zone' then started cracking skulls and dragging off bodies, huh?

Over a thousand people were arrested. I believe the number of convictions sustained was a few dozen. All the rest were illegal detentions, according to the report by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, without proper warrants or reasonable grounds.

Is that your assertion? I ask because I've yet to find that conclusion from within the report.......But from the actual report, on the detentions:

The use of containment tactics should also be closely linked to the intelligence information police have received. The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that the protesters being contained are actually causing a disturbance or likely to cause a disturbance elsewhere. Innocent bystanders and non-violent protesters (where they can be identified) must be allowed to filter out. Containment should continue only for as long as absolutely necessary, and the well-being of those contained must be given as much consideration as possible

furthermore:

In light of the large number of arrests that did not result in a charge or resulted in the charge being withdrawn, the Toronto Police Service should consider whether it is in the public interest to retain the police records of the arrestees who were either not charged or whose charge was withdrawn. It is our understanding that TPS policy allows for records to be expunged. It is recommended that the TPS should consider exercising its discretion to expunge those records where it is not in the public interest to retain them. Further, it is recommended that the TPS should communicate that policy to the public and allow members of the public to apply to have their records expunged.

Likewise, and similar to the APEC inquiry:

Police services should ensure that, before police take action to make mass arrests or arrests involving extractions from a crowd of protesters, loud and clear warnings are given and enough time allowed for protesters to comply with any police direction. Before any major protests begin, the Toronto Police Service should test its public announcement systems to ensure that public announcements can easily be heard by all who attend the event

So police should further notify demonstrators prior to the commencement of police action, then once policing action has begun, the police should make more effort in determining who’s innocent prior to mass detentions, and of those detained that won’t be charged, it should be communicated further that they can apply to have their arrest record expunged……………..

So where in the findings does it confirm your assertion that the mass arrests were illegal?

Argus · February 17, 2015

Is that your assertion? I ask because I've yet to find that conclusion from within the report

What would you call arresting someone without a warrant and without reasonable grounds?

And what would you call it when you then sign the documentation for logging them as "mickey mouse"?

jacee · February 17, 2015

Is that your assertion? I ask because I've yet to find that conclusion from within the report.......But from the actual report, on the detentions:

furthermore:

Likewise, and similar to the APEC inquiry:

So police should further notify demonstrators prior to the commencement of police action, then once policing action has begun, the police should make more effort in determining whos innocent prior to mass detentions, and of those detained that wont be charged, it should be communicated further that they can apply to have their arrest record expunged..

So where in the findings does it confirm your assertion that the mass arrests were illegal?

It's being addressed via a class action suit

.

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

What would you call arresting someone without a warrant and without reasonable grounds?

And what would you call it when you then sign the documentation for logging them as "mickey mouse"?

Within the purview of Canadian law........the police do not require a warrant to detain/arrest someone.

jacee · February 17, 2015

Within the purview of Canadian law........the police do not require a warrant to detain/arrest someone.

And "reasonable grounds" Derek?

And can I legally be arrested by 'Mickey Mouse' wearing no police id#?

And the real irony ... innocent people illegally detained have to raise money to plead their case in court, while they, as taxpayers, are paying for the police to defend themselves. :/

.

Edited February 17, 2015 by jacee

cybercoma · February 17, 2015

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

And Harper is massaging CSIS for the same purpose.

cybercoma · February 17, 2015

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?

This is just cringeworthy.

How on earth can you say you support democracy, while making a statement like this that can only be interpreted as wanting to restrict protest. Protest, by the way, is political action taken between elections. It's a way of holding the democracy accountable. Your statement here is about as undemocratic as it comes without being completely batshit crazy.

cybercoma · February 17, 2015

Right, and of those police members committing criminal acts, they too (like all Canadian citizens), are held to account.....and rightfully so.

-----

All of this of course doesn't speak to the presumed rights to be taken away by C-51.......or lack there of.

In other words, you refuse to look at systems. Michael Hardner can go on for pages and pages explaining the problem with the system and just like Stephen Harper, you'll completely ignore that there is a system at all and continue to say "but individuals and individual responsibility." Nobody in the police is an individual. Nobody in the military is an individual. Those are particularly and blatantly obvious examples of individuals being cogs in a machine (ie, the system). Stop ignoring what's being said and rejecting the existence of a system outright because nobody's talking about individual accountabilities. They're pointing to a larger systemic problem and couldn't possibly care less about the system's scapegoats.

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

This is just cringeworthy.

How on earth can you say you support democracy, while making a statement like this that can only be interpreted as wanting to restrict protest. Protest, by the way, is political action taken between elections. It's a way of holding the democracy accountable. Your statement here is about as undemocratic as it comes without being completely batshit crazy.

Where did I suggest I wanted to restrict the right to protest? I’ve clearly made the distinction between peaceful protest (like the Occupy movement) and militant protests that involve the destruction of both private and public property…..

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

In other words, you refuse to look at systems. Michael Hardner can go on for pages and pages explaining the problem with the system and just like Stephen Harper, you'll completely ignore that there is a system at all and continue to say "but individuals and individual responsibility." Nobody in the police is an individual. Nobody in the military is an individual. Those are particularly and blatantly obvious examples of individuals being cogs in a machine (ie, the system). Stop ignoring what's being said and rejecting the existence of a system outright because nobody's talking about individual accountabilities. They're pointing to a larger systemic problem and couldn't possibly care less about the system's scapegoats.

So if a member of the RCMP drives drunk or a member of the military beats his wife, that’s an indictment on the entire membership of each organization? Clearly then, if a follower of Islam is involved in terror attack, then all followers of Islam………..Sounds kinda stupid eh? Now reread your point on the police/military......

cybercoma · February 17, 2015

Where did I suggest I wanted to restrict the right to protest? I’ve clearly made the distinction between peaceful protest (like the Occupy movement) and militant protests that involve the destruction of both private and public property…..

You haven't clearly done that at all, since it has been mentioned to you repeatedly that not only were peaceful protesters abused, but residents who had nothing to do with the protests as well.

cybercoma · February 17, 2015

So if a member of the RCMP drives drunk or a member of the military beats his wife, that’s an indictment on the entire membership of each organization?

Don't be stupid. Now you're just insulting my intelligence and acting like you're dense. You don't need to fabricate some bullshit to discuss the topic at hand. The systemic failures have been described to you ad nauseum here.

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

You haven't clearly done that at all, since it has been mentioned to you repeatedly that not only were peaceful protesters abused, but residents who had nothing to do with the protests as well.

Well I have, likewise pointing out the actual post protest inquiries and their recommendations.......

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

Don't be stupid. Now you're just insulting my intelligence and acting like you're dense. You don't need to fabricate some bullshit to discuss the topic at hand. The systemic failures have been described to you ad nauseum here.

You feel your description of "systems" and "cogs" doesn't insult my intelligence?

Argus · February 17, 2015

And Harper is massaging CSIS for the same purpose.

If he ever uses them against political enemies I will certainly call that out, and call them out, as I have repeatedly called out Chretien and the RCMP. I even got suspended for my nasty words about the then RCMP commissioner.

Argus · February 17, 2015

So if a member of the RCMP drives drunk or a member of the military beats his wife, that’s an indictment on the entire membership of each organization? Clearly then,

We're not talking about a single instance, here. More than a hundred cops were fined for removing their name tags, for instance, and those were the ones who were caught and where it could be proven.

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

We're not talking about a single instance, here. More than a hundred cops were fined for removing their name tags, for instance, and those were the ones who were caught and where it could be proven.

Do you have a cite? Regardless,if true, in how many of those instances were the name tags torn off well confronting protesters? They are, after all, affixed with velcro........ :rolleyes:

jacee · February 17, 2015

Do you have a cite? Regardless,if true, in how many of those instances were the name tags torn off well confronting protesters? They are, after all, affixed with velcro........

You must not have been following it back then.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/nearly-100-toronto-officers-to-be-disciplined-over-g20-summit-conduct/article1216228/?service=mobile

Tell me Derek: Would over 100 officers 'spontaneously' remove their ID#'s ... without a senior officer giving that order?

.

Edited February 17, 2015 by jacee

Derek 2.0 · February 17, 2015

You must not have been following it back then.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/nearly-100-toronto-officers-to-be-disciplined-over-g20-summit-conduct/article1216228/?service=mobile

Tell me Derek: Would over 100 officers 'spontaneously' remove their ID#'s ... without a senior officer giving that order?

.

Or their Union that was then in the process of fighting the requirement with the labour relations board? Big difference between badge numbers and name tags.....

At a hearing before the board, the police union argued that in this electronic environment a name can be used to determine an officer’s home address, telephone numbers and other personal information.

The union said organized criminals, bikers, stalkers and others can and do use this information to harm officers.

It argued that the tags disproportionately endanger female officers or those from ethnic or religious minorities.

I wonder how many of the "90 nameless officers" were females and/or ethnic/religious minorities on the force......

cybercoma · February 17, 2015

If he ever uses them against political enemies I will certainly call that out, and call them out, as I have repeatedly called out Chretien and the RCMP. I even got suspended for my nasty words about the then RCMP commissioner.

I must have missed the posts where you criticized the use of the CRA to undermine the work of charities that are leftwing, while completely ignoring the political activities of rightwing charities. Edited February 17, 2015 by cybercoma

Argus · February 17, 2015

I must have missed the posts where you criticized the use of the CRA to undermine the work of charities that are leftwing, while completely ignoring the political activities of rightwing charities.

Now it's the CRA? Maybe you could stick to the subject at hand without continually searching for other ways to condemn my moral failings.

I have been extremely critical of the police for putting down demonstrations by people who are very much opposed to my viewpoint. I know you never have and never will do the same. I'm fairly certain that if police started shooting right wing protestors you'd be cheering them on and yelling for more.

jacee · February 17, 2015

Or their Union that was then in the process of fighting the requirement with the labour relations board? Big difference between badge numbers and name tags.....

I wonder how many of the "90 nameless officers" were females and/or ethnic/religious minorities on the force......

Names... no. I agree.

Officers are required to wear an ID#.

They didn't.

Who were those unidentified 'police officers' who behaved abominably to citizens and caused mayhem at the g20?

Military?

.

Derek 2.0 · February 18, 2015

Names... no. I agree.

Officers are required to wear an ID#.

They didn't.

Who were those unidentified 'police officers' who behaved abominably to citizens and caused mayhem at the g20?

Military?

.

Your prior link from the Globe and Mail doesn't mention if badge numbers were removed, just name tags........during the same time the police union was fighting against the requirement.

jacee · February 18, 2015

Your prior link from the Globe and Mail doesn't mention if badge numbers were removed, just name tags........during the same time the police union was fighting against the requirement.

They had neither, NO ID.

From the Globe link:

Many of the people who confronted police over the tumultuous three-days of protests that closed down Toronto's core said officers were not wearing badge numbers or name tags on their uniforms - allegations that were bolstered by photographs in the media.

.

Edited February 18, 2015 by jacee