Police provoking violence?

[M.Dancer]

We have to keep our troops in Afghanistan to teach them democracy. Perhaps we should practise what we preach, Democracy belongs to everyone and allowing this type of thing to go on is not democratic.

We learn by example and how can that example teach anything but violence. A few hypocrites on here aye.

Mandeep Dhillon, a spokeswoman for No One is Illegal, a group of immigration activists based in Montreal, said the aim of protesters was to disrupt the summit.

“The ultimate thing would be for this conference to be halted. . . I can’t say who would be able to do this, but the walls that have been established in Montebello deserve to come down.”

I don't know. I would think that the expressed aim being to disrupt a lawful gathering of elected leaders conducting business is pretty anti democratic. Those tactics are straight from beerhall..... I don't think anyone in Canada elected Ms Dhillon and I'm pretty sure trespassing is still against the law.

[margrace]

After reading your posts on here M. Dancer I find you are the equivilant of the very people you want our troops to fight against in Afghanistan. With the ideas expressed on here by you and your friends we would be the same as the poor Afganies. Your idea of democracy is your way or nothing.

[M.Dancer]

After reading your posts on here M. Dancer I find you are the equivilant of the very people you want our troops to fight against in Afghanistan. With the ideas expressed on here by you and your friends we would be the same as the poor Afganies. Your idea of democracy is your way or nothing.

No not at all. The difference between me and them is, I have no intention of shouting them down. If I don't like my government I will vote accordingly. I won't throw stones nor will I trespass or breeak the law. Neither would I try to break up a meeting of elected officials even if I disagreed with those officials.

See I believe in democracy, they don't. Those people only believe in democracy if their party is the party in power. And since their party will never be in power, they feel they have the right to trample on everyone else right to conduct business. They are the equivilent of the Nazis of 1933. The only difference is this is Canada and the masses are about to start following some unwashed hippies just because they don't like Harper, free enterprise or Zionist jews.

[margrace]

All the people of Afganhistan want is the right to be free, to have democracy right? And who is stopping it, the people with the power, the power to hold meetings in which they are not allowed. What is the difference, except in the degree of violence. You can preach Hitler all you want but not allowing free assembly and the right to free information when the people meeting are the ones who control the economy is no different that Afghanistan, Iraq or Hitler for that matter.

I heard Mr. Harpers sarcastic remark about a hundred demonstrators. One of the groups demonstrating was the Council of Canadians, how you and your friends would like to shut them up.

[buffycat]

Dancer your willingness and desire to shut down public opposition to governmental agendas is far more reminiscent of Nazi Germany than anything which the protestors might or might not have done.

This is NOT the first time that police have planted provacatuers at rallys and protests - gosh it's an old trick and works on the gullible all the time - get a ouija board and ask Goering.

[scribblet]

No not at all. The difference between me and them is, I have no intention of shouting them down. If I don't like my government I will vote accordingly. I won't throw stones nor will I trespass or breeak the law. Neither would I try to break up a meeting of elected officials even if I disagreed with those officials.

See I believe in democracy, they don't. Those people only believe in democracy if their party is the party in power. And since their party will never be in power, they feel they have the right to trample on everyone else right to conduct business. They are the equivilent of the Nazis of 1933. The only difference is this is Canada and the masses are about to start following some unwashed hippies just because they don't like Harper, free enterprise or Zionist jews.

Just the usual 'rent-a-protester' showing up to liberate a continent from their elected leaders LOL

[geoffrey]

Dancer your willingness and desire to shut down public opposition to governmental agendas is far more reminiscent of Nazi Germany than anything which the protestors might or might not have done.

Your kidding? None of us are critical of those in marches carrying signs and acting like naive university students.

However, we draw the line when they resort to violence and breaking the law. Democracy is founded on the basis of rule of law, throwing a rock at a cop is illegal regardless if your in a protest or in a back alley.

Don't attack the police and defy the law and you'll be ok, I promise.

This is NOT the first time that police have planted provacatuers at rallys and protests - gosh it's an old trick and works on the gullible all the time - get a ouija board and ask Goering.

Why? Why the hell would they do that?

[Posit]

However, we draw the line when they resort to violence and breaking the law.

Do you draw that same line when police resort to violence and breaking the law without provocation? You see it is common place for the police to instigate and provoke a reaction by using violent measures against protesters in order to break them away into small groups, isolate them and remove the antagonists. Yet this smacks of human rights violations under the Charter, the police admit to it.

Again we must be careful about what the Surete du Quebec are doing with the media, since they are attempting to limit their potential damages after having to admit they had officers planted in the crowd. We also have to be careful about what the protesters might present as propaganda. However, I believe the video of the three officers with one holding a rock and the part where Dave Coles repeatedly demands the one put down the rock citing this was a peaceful demonstration, speaks volumes about the bad behavior of the SQ. I don't buy the SQ explanation that they were trying to find protesters who were not peaceful. They look like they were out to rile someone up IMO.

[Fortunata]

Stockwell Day believes the police: the infiltrators did not try to incite violence and the RCMP did not know that the QPP placed undercover persons among the demonstrators. There will not be a public enquiry.

Wherever Steve goes crowds get cleared, whether the crowds be media or demonstrators. Seems kinda funny. Sad really.

[buffycat]

I don't buy the SQ explanation that they were trying to find protesters who were not peaceful. They look like they were out to rile someone up IMO.

***

Of course they were. Old trick, same old schtick.

And as we all know, once some idiot starts there are always the morons who will simply follow.

Hence the term: provacatuer

Edited August 25, 2007 by buffycat

[AngusThermopyle]

Again we must be careful about what the Surete du Quebec are doing with the media, since they are attempting to limit their potential damages after having to admit they had officers planted in the crowd.

Thats a very astute observation. Do any of you guys remember how the Surete du Quebec handled the Oka crisis? These guys are renouned for screwing things up, sort of a cross between Inspector Clouseau and the Keystone Cops.

It's all well and good to speak of law and order, good government and being a good citizen who uses his rights in a democratic manner. If you have representation in the democratic process, thats fine and how it should be. However if you do not have representation in the process then you're screwed. I think those who are talking about voting and so on should keep this in mind. If your leaders dont listen to you then what else can you do but protest in order to get their attention. We must keep in mind that some of the changes that shaped this world of ours were brought about by much needed revolution.

Not that I approve of or advocate anarchistic beliefs and actions, I do however understand the need for protest. When you have a government without representation as we do sometimes the only option is to protest.

[runningdog]

After reading your posts on here M. Dancer I find you are the equivilant of the very people you want our troops to fight against in Afghanistan. With the ideas expressed on here by you and your friends we would be the same as the poor Afganies. Your idea of democracy is your way or nothing.

I agree. What is wrong with you, mdancer? I hope that past protests in Canada (and elsewhere) where violence broke out are looked at more closely with an eye towards police involvement. And for Harper to call the suggestion of police involvement "outlandish" and then have the police admit to it???...Time for an investigation into what Harpers' people knew/know about the situation.

If you, as a Canadian citizen, don't get very pissed off at this and call this unacceptable, you are WELCOMING a police state into our country. I bet even Don Cherry would be mad as hell at this, and that's saying something.

Edited August 25, 2007 by runningdog

[margrace]

Stockwell Day believes the police: the infiltrators did not try to incite violence and the RCMP did not know that the QPP placed undercover persons among the demonstrators. There will not be a public enquiry.

Wherever Steve goes crowds get cleared, whether the crowds be media or demonstrators. Seems kinda funny. Sad really.

I really believe if we brought one of the "terrible" warlords from Afganhistan here and sent Mr. Harper back, we would have exactly the same actions. Limiting people's freedoms is what both of these types promote.

[scribblet]

I really believe if we brought one of the "terrible" warlords from Afganhistan here and sent Mr. Harper back, we would have exactly the same actions. Limiting people's freedoms is what both of these types promote.

Can you clarify what you mean, or why and how Harper is limiting our freedoms or how Harper is promoting this ?

[geoffrey]

Do you draw that same line when police resort to violence and breaking the law without provocation? You see it is common place for the police to instigate and provoke a reaction by using violent measures against protesters in order to break them away into small groups, isolate them and remove the antagonists. Yet this smacks of human rights violations under the Charter, the police admit to it.

Bull. It's not common place. Do you have any documented examples in recent history?

Protestors are largely wasting their time, no one really cares. But if they want to protest peacefully, then whatever. What I saw from the images in this particular protest was a group of police haters ready to stir up shit. There is numerous pictures of them attempting to intimidate the officers and trying to provoke a response.

This isn't the police's fault here. This is the fault of the anarchist rent-a-protesters that seem to show up at every event with the goal of causing violence.

I don't buy the SQ explanation that they were trying to find protesters who were not peaceful. They look like they were out to rile someone up IMO.

Conspiracy theories are fun and all... but eventually you do have to ask the why question. Why would the SQ want a violent riot?

[Posit]

Do you have any documented examples in recent history?

Montebello, Tyendinaga, Caledonia, Oka, Ipperwash, Gufstasen Lake - these just in Canada. Just enter any of them in a search engine. In each case the police provoked the protesters using violence to incite them.

Why would the SQ want a violent riot?

You give the police too much credit. In the first place, inciting protesters using violence allows them to go in, separate them and isolate those more vocal protesters. Secondly and for the most part the majority case, the cops on the lines of these things including SWAT members are a bunch of testosterone-filled adrenaline junkies who see these kinds of things as an opportunity to bash some heads - exactly what they have been trained to do. Training is useless unless it can be occasionally applied under real-life conditions. Many of the cops who volunteer for these events shouldn't be in the force in the first place.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Posit

[margrace]

Bull. It's not common place. Do you have any documented examples in recent history?

Protestors are largely wasting their time, no one really cares. But if they want to protest peacefully, then whatever. What I saw from the images in this particular protest was a group of police haters ready to stir up shit. There is numerous pictures of them attempting to intimidate the officers and trying to provoke a response.

This isn't the police's fault here. This is the fault of the anarchist rent-a-protesters that seem to show up at every event with the goal of causing violence.

Conspiracy theories are fun and all... but eventually you do have to ask the why question. Why would the SQ want a violent riot?

Why would they want a riot, so they can use that as an exuse to limit more of our freedoms. I still Maintain that if you took Mr. Harper or some of the posters on here over to Afghanistan and exchanged them for some of the warlords there would be little difference in their actions

[scribblet]

Why would they want a riot, so they can use that as an exuse to limit more of our freedoms. I still Maintain that if you took Mr. Harper or some of the posters on here over to Afghanistan and exchanged them for some of the warlords there would be little difference in their actions

Now that statement is complete you know what !!!

I would like some examples of how Harper wants to limit our freedoms, and please provide us with the policy and or actions to go along with it.

[runningdog]

Now that statement is complete you know what !!!

I would like some examples of how Harper wants to limit our freedoms, and please provide us with the policy and or actions to go along with it.

no it is NOT complete you-know-what. By taking these actions, the police were trying to discredit ALL of the protesters. And you would do well to remember this quote..."Those who make peaceful demonstartion (our DEMOCRATIC RIGHT) impossible, make bloody revolution inevitable..."

I am shocked at the number of police apologists on this board. Have any of you watched the videos/done the research or are you acting the way you are because it is a conservative government in power? This goes way beyond political leanings. Just remember that in the near future, a political party that you may not support might come into power. THey might try to pass legislation that you do not like. GOOD LUCK TRYING TO PROTEST!!! By defending police actions here you are terminating your right to peaceful protest. Plain and simple.

[margrace]

Now that statement is complete you know what !!!

I would like some examples of how Harper wants to limit our freedoms, and please provide us with the policy and or actions to go along with it.

Don't be so nieve, he is the head of the country, he ordered all the protection around Montobello to keep us from finding out exactly what was going on. Remember if you aren't with us you are against us.

[CLRV]

This is a new wrinkle on a very old scenario. Anyone who has attended a demo in the past decade, or has at least payed wakeful attention to the ones that have been going on, know very well that police invariably provoke peaceful demonstrations, the media focuses in on a couple of idiots in anarchy t-shirts busting windows and runs the footage, reporting that "violent" protesters needed to be rounded up by police.

Fortunately, thanks to individual access to video cameras and the internet, demonstrators have begun to post THEIR footage clearly showing cops charging lines of peaceful people and other acts of provocation that belie the official story. So the cops have changed their tactics, putting their agents among the demonstrators to provoke the violence that's needed to discount and discredit the protest. Fortunately, that hasn't worked either.

As Marge Simpson said, the system may not work but as long as people are all videotaping each other justice will be done.

[buffycat]

I think this incident has helped to wake a few folks up.

Again, I will reiterate: This is not the first time that these sorts of provocations have happened. It is the first time the police have been caught so clearly and employed complete idiots for the job.

(buffycat @ Aug 24 2007, 04:18 PM)

*

This is NOT the first time that police have planted provacatuers at rallys and protests - gosh it's an old trick and works on the gullible all the time - get a ouija board and ask Goering.

Why? Why the hell would they do that? "

To stifle dissent by use of fear tactics and media spin. There are alot of people who won't go to demonstrations anymore due to the percieved tendency for them to turn ugly, so in that matter instigating violence serves the 'security' sector well, as well as delegitimizing honest protest actions (what is required for a real democracy to run).

It's and age old ploy.

[Rue]

It is standard operating procedure when managing large demonstrations to plant undercover officers in the crowds. There is nothing sinister about it.

Can some of you please stop and think. To prove criminal intent to charge someone with a crime, you need someone to witness someone engaging in violence.

By placing police undercover in the crowds, they use them as witnesses to testify as to who started a particular action or actions.

In this case the initial denial was nothing sinister. They are trying to preserve if possible their operating procedures.

In this case, the police officers in question were not agent provocateurs. They did not throw rocks nor did they engage in violence or counsel anyone to engage in violence. They were plants observing who was leading the crowds and who was telling who to do what.

They were given rocks by leaders in the protest groups and that is when their cover was blown because they could not throw the rocks or use them and they realized at that point they had to end their missions otherwise they could be accused of engaging in crimes while observing potential crimes.

What is with this need to engage in conspiracies and sensationalize this. Is anyone dumb enough to believe police do not plant undercovers in large crowds witht he potential to be violent?

As for this shock by some of you at the notion there are undercover police operations grow up.

As for Kuzad's comments, they are a typical of someone being shrill, i.e., emoting disjointed subjective feelings based on his own projected subjective

feelings of the world as representing a hostile place to him.

The point is if this crowd was not acting violently there is no criminal issue and the undercover officer's whose job is to observe and record. The police are not there because people are expressing their beliefs, they are there in the event while expressing their beliefs people decide to engage in violence which is a crime against all citizens. Their job is simply to record who incited the violence so the incitors can be arrested and charged.

There is a group of people in this country who think it is their absolute right to have tantrums. It is not and has never been an absolute right. The right of feredom of assembly and expression is predicated on it not being violent or damaging the property of others. If you don't cross the line and damage the property of others or engage in violence the police do not have any need to do anything but observe and act as crowd marshalls to prevent trampling or helping if someone faints. This is precisely why with legitimate demonstrations, police are welcomed.

Legitimate protesters and demonstrators have no problems with any police officer(s) and do not throw rocks at them or engagetresspass. They remain calm, focused and peaceful and the police appreciate that and are careful not to hurt peaceful protesters even if they have to arrest them. Peaceful demonstrators are trained to go limp and not fight and the police have been advised ahead of time by demonstration organizers that is what they will do. They tell the police when and what they will protest and how the law will be symbolically broken. As long as there is no damage to property or violence the police act calmy. The police in such cases do not have to engage in force. No rocks are being thrown and no one is trying to hit them or spit on them or kick them or light them on fire with a molotov cocktail.

The problem is when humans form groups, because groups serve as an agent to release inhibitions, all it takes is one or two idiots to get everyone else in the group engaging in violence.

You can have demonstrations start off as peaceful with organizers telling their groups to remain calm and peaceful but all it takes is one angry person with his own political agenda to disobey over all instructions to remain peaceful whocan then easily ignite a chain reaction as people panic and the police faced with an oncoming crowd push back and then start using pepper spray, batons, etc.

Anyone who comes on this post and wants to suggest the police planted the rocks and were handing them to others and were counseling people to commit crimes, better put up or shut up. because that is not what happened and any idiot knows for three undercover cops to be able to hand out rocks to many people, they would need further support and this would entail a supply line which could not be covered up.

The fact is the undercover officers were handed rocks along with many others by the same people now trying to smeer the police.

Just as it is wrong to smeer all the demonstrators as violent people it is dead wrong to state simply because the police are undercover it can automatically be inferred their mission is to incite others to commit crimes. It was not. Their mission was to observe and record.By being placed in a position where they were asked to engage in crime, they had to end their mission and blow their cover-no more, no less.

As for the idiots who handed out the rocks, they are cowards and that is precisely why they get others to hold the rocks and do their duty work.

Lets see the same people now spreading rumours and innuendoes about the police explain how the police would have been able to distribute rocks to a wide group and not compromise their supply line or were able to do such a thing with just 3.

Give me 5 minutes with the same people claiming the police were provocating and let's wee what these aqccusers themselves were doing.

I can't stand cowards who hide in crowds, hand out rocks and urge others to throw them, then run and hide and lie when they get caught and try blame the police for exactly what they were engaging in and the police were trying to prevent.

Those cowards who handed out the rocks and who now try smeer the police fool no one except probably Buffy and Kuzadd and a few other posters who still believe berets are cool and having tantrums is effective.

I have no sympathy for someone who does not have the courage to express their convictions peacefully and needs to engage in tantrums.

Violent demonstrators are nothing more then people with an inflated sense of privilege.

To me a genuine demonstrator must be disciplined, focused, principled, and at all times govern himself or herself with dignity and calm.

Everytime someone has a tantrum and tries to suggest this is effective makes a mockery of Marin Luther King, Ghandi and so many others who have changed the world precisely because they chose to use reason over anger and resist people trying to drag them down into a pit of violence.

As for Kuzad and Buffy why do you not come out and state it is wrong to smeer police officers as engaging in crime without proof just as it is to do the same to protesters. Why the double standard?

Edited August 25, 2007 by Rue

[runningdog]

It is standard operating procedure when managing large demonstrations to plant undercover officers in the crowds. There is nothing sinister about it.

Can some of you please stop and think. To prove criminal intent to charge someone with a crime, you need someone to witness someone engaging in violence.

By placing police undercover in the crowds, they use them as witnesses to testify as to who started a particular action or actions.

In this case the initial denial was nothing sinister. They are trying to preserve if possible their operating procedures.

In this case, the police officers in question were not agent provocateurs. They did not throw rocks nor did they engage in violence or counsel anyone to engage in violence. They were plants observing who was leading the crowds and who was telling who to do what.

They were given rocks by leaders in the protest groups and that is when their cover was blown because they could not throw the rocks or use them and they realized at that point they had to end their missions otherwise they could be accused of engaging in crimes while observing potential crimes.

What is with this need to engage in conspiracies and sensationalize this. Is anyone dumb enough to believe police do not plant undercovers in large crowds witht he potential to be violent?

As for this schock by some of you at the notion there are undercover police operations its past the point of kindergarten.

As for Kuzad's comments, they are a typical example of someone who is a shrill-emotive comments based on nothing but his own projected subjective

concepts of the world as a hostile place to people like him who think expressing themselves violently is a democractic right.

The point is if this crowd was not acting violently there is no criminal issue. The police are not there because they express their beliefs, they are there in the event while expressing their beliefs they decide to engage in violence which is a crime against all citizens.

There is a group of people in this country who think it is their right to have tantrums. It is if you simply want to wet your own pants and keep it zipped. Undo your pants and point and pee at others, then it becomes a criminal matter it not sometimes a source of amusement for some of us who think there are better ways to express one's views rather then having tantrums.

Martin Luther King used to welcome the police into his crowds and told his followers to.

Legitimate protesters and demonstrators should have no problems with any police officer(s).

The problem is when humans form groups, groups serve as an agent to release inhibitions, and it only takes one or two idiots to get everyone else in the group engaging in violence.

Anyone who comes on this post and wants to suggest the police planted the rocks and were counseling people to commit crimes, better put up or shut up. Either provide the evidence or walk away and stop planting the very same inneuendoes you claim shouldn't be placed on peaceful demonstrators. If its wrong to feather and tar innocent protesters then using the exact same logic, it is equally as wrong to tar and feather undercoevr officers simply doing their job.

LOL...a police officer, or married to one by chance? How's this: the police stay the hell OUT of demonstations UNTIL there is atleast SOME proof that they are turning ugly? You know, innocent until proven guilty? You remember that old dittie, ya??

[mcqueen625]

I really believe if we brought one of the "terrible" warlords from Afganhistan here and sent Mr. Harper back, we would have exactly the same actions. Limiting people's freedoms is what both of these types promote.

Why just pick on Harper? If I remember correctly was it not Jean Chretien who assaulted a man during a peaceful protest? And was it not during his watch when we all got to watch Jean's stormtroopers pepper spraying peaceful demonstrators. Even the public inquiry after the fact determined that the RCMP used excessive force. What free democratic are we talking about here, because it certainly isn't Canada. We in Canada have a form of government whereby the people really have no say in anything because the PM is able to be a virtual dictator. Naive people say, if we don't like the way government is acting we can vote them out come next election, and my question is what difference does it make since whoever gets in power will act exactly the same. The Liberals and the NDP want a socialist state where government is all things to all people. To have that happen government requires bigger and bigger government to administer all of the social programs. Canadians have become slaves to "Big Government."

Even if we are able to change government, how do we get rid of the people who actually run the government operations, namely senior bureaucrats. They will still be there regardless of who forms the government and it's become very obvious that they have their own agenda and it has virtually nothing to do with what Canadians want or don't want. Their whole mission in life is to insure their own survival, and to continue on with their agenda of how they think Canada should look like.