Police provoking violence?

[runningdog]

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.

not just Harper, I bet if you were able to see video of protests when the Libs were in power you'd see the same. Not much difference between the 2.

[Rue]

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?

Please why let facts and logic get in the way of these smeers of the police. I am not sure whether I would call them rent-a protesters, but I too would suspect there were only a few shit disturbers in the crowd handing out the rocks and those shit disturbers are the kind that go to every demonstration and live to incite violence in others. I think you give them too much credit calling them anarchists. That would assume they can read and understand political philosophy.

I prefer to think of them as people who feel marginalized and losers in society and feel out of control and victimized and powerless so need to compensate by hiding in crowds and displaying their aggression passively through others.

To me they are no different then the kind of people who show up for pit bull dog fights. They need to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy through inciting others to maim and be maimed and whether its another human or animal, it makes no difference.

I believe the British refer to them as hooligans. I refer to them as passive aggressive manipulative hippocritical cowards. But far be it from me to smeer anyone or judge them.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Rue

[Rue]

not just Harper, I bet if you were able to see video of protests when the Libs were in power you'd see the same. Not much difference between the 2.

How long ago was it Jean (Rambo) Chretien pounced on that pathetic person in the crowd and placed a choke hold on him? and to think Chretien means Christian in French. I wouldn't say Jean Chretien (John Christian) was acting too brotherly towards his fellow man.

As for my former memer of Parliament, Pierre, he had no problems invoking the War Measures Act and imposing a state of siege suspending all right to assembly and freedom of expression.

Being "Liberal" or "Conservative" clearly is not the issue and people who try reduce conflicts to such simplistic formulas are kidding themselves.

You think Jack Layton wouldn't be the first to use police to put down a demonstration? This is a man who screams bloody murder about medicare and then when he needs a hernia operation has no problem going to the Shuldice private medical clinic to get it done.

Do as I say not as I do.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Rue

[buffycat]

Wake up Rue, this sort of thing has been going on for a long time!!

Oh and thanks for the arbritrary insult, I'll let Kuzadd know!

Man you have issues.

[Fortunata]

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.

In the video I saw the undercover cops were being asked by another demonstrator repeatedly to put down the rocks. They wouldn't. They were asked repeatedly to take off the face coverings. They wouldn't. It didn't look quite as innocent as what you portray it as.

[Moxie]

Wow the police actually posed as protestors, wow doing their job and listen to the people screaming. Unions are to powerful in this country, It's about time we started monitoring them at rallies and protests.

To me this is a non-issue.

[Posit]

It's about time we started monitoring them at rallies and protests.

Sure. Fascism is alive and well in Canada. But lets keep the fascist subversive. You wouldn't want the general public to understand that their liberties have been denied.

I prefer to think of them as people who feel marginalized and losers in society and feel out of control and victimized and powerless so need to compensate by hiding in crowds and displaying their aggression passively through others.

Its obvious that the only rally you have been to is a Conservative Convention, where every one is pre-selected, the speeches are canned and polished and the agenda is fixed to party rule. On the other hand "real" Canadians get out and do something about what they see as unconstitutional, unjust and illegal, by standing up for their right to protest with others who see the same things. The people who attend these protests are well-educated, some leaders in society and many young men and women who haven't given up their ability to think like those of you gave in to a corporation mantra designed to make intellectual eunuchs out of you. They have expended their own time and money to travel to remote places and risk their lives in defending the liberties and rights that people like you take for granted. When physically attacked by police and verbally attacked by politicians and corporatists they wear broad shoulders and thick skin. And then they move on.

But you can go back to your house in a gated community, drive your fancy cars to air-conditioned skyscrapers while taking only enough time out to surf the gym and forget that there is a real world out there - one where politicians greedily steal from the public coffers and where the boss is screwing your wife while you are occupied in his bidding. Those of us who care what we leave our children of the next generations will continue to stand up against the creeping fascism of an extreme conservative cadre whose goal isn't to provide good government, or to reduce the burden of the poor but to silence those that might oppose the corporations' control of the government.

Watch for more pretests to come. I suspect that you might even be inconvenienced by one since the movement is growing by leaps and bounds.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Posit

[margrace]

I agree Posit, and the more I hear of these people who think protesters are not to be allowed, the more I am coming to realize that Capitalists are not democratic. They only use the word to cover up their actions. Iraq was run by capitalists, in conjuction with the world powers. But then the greed showed up and the two entities could not get along.

People who tell me that they want to cut taxes, that their money is only for them, that welfare, senior and our health care system are wrong are Capitalists. No better than the war lords, in fact they all follow the same rules. They use a lot of bafflegarb to cover up who and what they really are. Potential war lords if we let them get away with it. There is no push to democratize Afghanistan or Iraq, the idea is to gain control of any wealth to be had in those countries. They do not care for the beaton people of those countries any more than they care for Canadians who need help. I hope Canadians can see through their lies and discrepantcies and see them for what they are. No better than the people they criticize.

[Posit]

Actually I believe their greed is based on myth. Many of them have spent years pursuing the "if-you-only-work-just-a-little-harder-and-a-little-longer-and-you-too-can-be-rich" myth and so their disillusionment manifests itself in them becoming greedy and beating down anyone that gets in their way. On the other hand those of us grounded in reality haven't succumbed to the myths and instead challenge the myths and the corporations who promotes them.

We all know that 10% of the people in the world hold 90% of the wealth, right? We'll someone pointed out that the reverse is also true and it stinks. 90% of the people have to share less than 10% of the wealth. Sad state it is. Time to hold government accountable to their mandate - redistribute the wealth. Protest and civil disobedience are the only avenues left since those who hold the wealth control the government.

[scribblet]

Wow the police actually posed as protestors, wow doing their job and listen to the people screaming. Unions are to powerful in this country, It's about time we started monitoring them at rallies and protests.

To me this is a non-issue.

Really, they wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't trying to infiltrate, particular as we know that there are many protesters who are there to make trouble and many in G8 summits for instance do get violent.

No one is suggesting that there not be peaceful protests, it's pretty sad to read that some people cannot distinguish between allowing the peaceful protests, but making attempts to stop the violence. In this case it was a very small protest and not amounting to much, but in larger protests the protesters can get out of hand.

It's the socialists and liberal types who want more government, who want to tell us what we should do with our hard earned money and always have their hands out for more.

[Keepitsimple]

There have been many posts in this thread from people who have at best, watched a video. I was scanning the Letters to the Editor in the Saturday Star and found this one from someone who was actually there - it puts things in a little different perspective:

I was at Montebello, and although I did not personally see the incident with the so called agents provocateurs, it matters little on what side the three really were. While the majority of the 1,000 demonstrators were peaceful, there was a contingent that needed no impetus to cause trouble.

At roughly 4 p.m., just as the buses were about to load to take people home, a phalanx of black clad men wearing bandanas over their faces and carrying makeshift weapons such as garbage can lids to use as shields, sticks and whatever items they could find to throw ran from a side street and headed towards the police barricade. There had been relatively few skirmishes up until this point, a bit of tear gas and pepper spray, but nothing that involved a show of police force. When the peaceful people realized that there was going to be a confrontation, they scattered. This was not what was wanted and it was uncalled for.

There appears to be a trend in demonstrations where, on the one hand, most protesters have a measured response, but on the other, there are those who embrace violence. So far, the peaceful ones, while not necessarily condoning the violence and often tacitly condemning it, have not voiced enough concern to have it stopped. This must change. Time to stop confusing hooliganism with civil disobedience.

[scribblet]

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.

I kinda doubt that I'm as naive as you are - when did Harper say "Remember if you aren't with us you are against us." But hey, I'm always up for a good conspiracy theory LOL

I still wannna know how Harper is going to limit our freedoms, what policy what quotes?

Edited August 26, 2007 by scriblett

[M.Dancer]

One of the groups demonstrating was the Council of Canadians, how you and your friends would like to shut them up.

On the contrary, I just think someone should pick an official language and try to be coherent.

[M.Dancer]

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 -

Are you saying those people who riot at demonstrations are gullible? And that why the throw rocks at police and destroy private property?

.....gullible....

[M.Dancer]

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

With or without frothing spittle and rage?

[M.Dancer]

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.

Well, that explains all the media coverage of what went on inside.......

Time to check on the old alcan portfolio...demand is soaring

[margrace]

If I asked M. Dancer, Scriblett , Mr. Harper, Mr Bush and a few of the War lords of Afghanistan and a few others on here what their thoughts on life were and how it should be run, I would get exactly the same answers. That is why it is funny to listen to your ideas on here.

[M.Dancer]

If I asked M. Dancer, Scriblett , Mr. Harper, Mr Bush and a few of the War lords of Afghanistan and a few others on here what their thoughts on life were and how it should be run, I would get exactly the same answers. That is why it is funny to listen to your ideas on here.

Another nutter who thinks she is a pyschic. You don't know my opinions.....no not at all.

[Black Dog]

I heard on te news the Police said the undercover officers were outted because when told to throw the rocks at the police, they didn't.

The cops have been so up front and honest about this business so far, why wouldn't one believe that?

What cracks me up most about the reactions here is that there are peopel who actually think the cops wouldn't incite violence in a situation like this.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Black Dog

[geoffrey]

Why would they? What's the motivating factor there?

They don't get a commission for how many protesters they kick the crap out of, but maybe they should...

[Black Dog]

Why would they? What's the motivating factor there?

They don't get a commission for how many protesters they kick the crap out of, but maybe they should...

Well, one can never underestimate the visceral thrill cops get out of asserting their athouri-tah with their truncheons. But the "official" explanation would be it creates the pretext for breaking up these protests while discrediting the protests themselves. Also, it's not like anyone would hold the cops accountable, right? So it's a win-win for the cops.

The use of agents provocateurs has a long history in Canada. In the late 1970s, the MacDonald Commission of Inquiry into Certain Acts of the RCMP found that the RCMP had infiltrated many non-violent public interest organizations and engaged in "dirty tricks" to discredit various groups, such as arson and break-ins. That traditions seems to have continued: remember the Mounties bombing the oil well and blaming it on Weibo Ludwing? Even the recent terrorism arrests in Toronto have a similar whiff about them.

Here's a question: if the Montebello Three weren't there to start shit, why were they dressed like Black Bloc (the kind of group known for starting shit)? If they were just there to observe and keep things from getting out of hand, why not show up in regular civilian dress?

Incidentally, I'd like to see some support for the claims that there was violence at this particular protest.

[Fortunata]

Who would benefit the most by having the protesters dispersed?

[geoffrey]

Well, one can never underestimate the visceral thrill cops get out of asserting their athouri-tah with their truncheons. But the "official" explanation would be it creates the pretext for breaking up these protests while discrediting the protests themselves. Also, it's not like anyone would hold the cops accountable, right? So it's a win-win for the cops.

The use of agents provocateurs has a long history in Canada. In the late 1970s, the MacDonald Commission of Inquiry into Certain Acts of the RCMP found that the RCMP had infiltrated many non-violent public interest organizations and engaged in "dirty tricks" to discredit various groups, such as arson and break-ins. That traditions seems to have continued: remember the Mounties bombing the oil well and blaming it on Weibo Ludwing? Even the recent terrorism arrests in Toronto have a similar whiff about them.

Here's a question: if the Montebello Three weren't there to start shit, why were they dressed like Black Bloc (the kind of group known for starting shit)? If they were just there to observe and keep things from getting out of hand, why not show up in regular civilian dress?

I don't neccessarily disagree with many of your points, BD. I just don't think that the police would intentionally start a riot. This was a big group of people, this could definitely have got out of hand. I could see the police doing what you said in small protests, but not something this big. They knew they were outnumbered and could have been easily overwelmed. They weren't interested in starting a riot here, I really don't think they were.

[kuzadd]

I don't neccessarily disagree with many of your points, BD. I just don't think that the police would intentionally start a riot. This was a big group of people, this could definitely have got out of hand. I could see the police doing what you said in small protests, but not something this big. They knew they were outnumbered and could have been easily overwelmed. They weren't interested in starting a riot here, I really don't think they were.

Outnumbered, with all the weapons right??

Rubber Bullets, tear gas, and more.

Yup those cops would be quite frightened by the unarmed crowd

[kuzadd]

Well, one can never underestimate the visceral thrill cops get out of asserting their athouri-tah with their truncheons. But the "official" explanation would be it creates the pretext for breaking up these protests while discrediting the protests themselves. Also, it's not like anyone would hold the cops accountable, right? So it's a win-win for the cops.

"But the "official" explanation would be it creates the pretext for breaking up these protests while discrediting the protests themselves."

That, the statement you have just made, has to be reiterated repeatedly by varying posters, to posters who 'don't understand' is frightening in itself!

What's there not to understand?