Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Jesse Kline: Soldiers of expression: Hate speech, censorship and ethics | Main | The Fuhrer Calls »

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

The time for excuses is long over

I must admit that I am, and continue to be amazed by a certain strain of "law & order conservatives" -- as Peter Jaworski labels them -- that continue to either remain neutral on, or take a distinctively pro-police position in regards to what happened in Toronto during the G20 weekend.

The stories of abuse against members of the press, bystanders, and peaceful protesters are numerous, documented in both text and video, and they just keep coming.

[I]n came a line of armoured police, into an area the city had promised would be safe for peaceful demonstrations during the summit. They closed right in on John and his daughter and the two others and ordered them to move. Pruyn tried getting up and he fell, and it was all too slow for the police.

As Sarah began pleading with them to give her father a little time and space to get up because he is an amputee, they began kicking and hitting him. One of the police officers used his knee to press Pruyn’s head down so hard on the ground, said Pruyn in an interview this July 4 with Niagara At Large, that his head was still hurting a week later.

Accusing him of resisting arrest, they pulled his walking sticks away from him, tied his hands behind his back and ripped off his prosthetic leg. Then they told him to get up and hop, and when he said he couldn’t, they dragged him across the pavement, tearing skin off his elbows , with his hands still tied behind his back. His glasses were knocked off as they continued to accuse him of resisting arrest and of being a “spitter,” something he said he did not do. They took him to a warehouse and locked him in a steel-mesh cage where his nightmare continued for another 27 hours.

(h/t Dr. Dawg)

While many conservative commentators have been notably speaking out, the silence from conservative partisans is deafening. And when there is something said, it's usually in the form of reminding us that the situation wasn't the fault of the police, it was the fault of the "violent anarchists", to quote Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak.

This sort of argumentation, is about on par with a young child screaming "he started it!". As if, we expect no better from the police than we expect of violent criminal thugs.

Certainly, we can expect something from Liberals.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has decided to fully endorse the actions of the police and stand behind the jackboots. Which isn't really surprising, since McGuinty has been hard at work criminalizing the ownership of certain breeds of dogs, and banning everything under the sun. And his former jackboot-in-chief is promising more police CCTV cameras in downtown Toronto if he gets elected Mayor, to crackdown on Toronto's rampant crime that's only about the lowest in the world for a city of it's size.

As for the Federal Liberals, the revered screenwriter of Onegin and part-time resident of Canada, Michael Ignatieff hasn't had much to say either. He's very concerned about the lost revenue by Toronto businesses, though. Amputees getting beaten by the police? Not so much.

Posted by Mike Brock on July 6, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Perhaps it's because these statements have an aura of exaggeration about them, Mike. An air of exaggeration that squares nicely with the image of the stereotypical protester as an anti-authority activist who considers the mere existence of the police a blot on his liberty. Simply by protesting, they have tainted themselves in the eyes of the public, never mind the police. And they don't help themselves with comments like, "It's only glass, man."

Most people, not having been there to see with their own eyes, are more likely to side with those whom experience has shown them to be generally more upstanding and trustworthy. Now let's consider their choices: the inveterate malcontent who likes to get in people's faces, or the man in blue who will risk his life to save yours? For most, the choice is obvious.

You can cite rights until the cows come home, you can pass laws until your gavel wears a hole in the desk, and you can call for investigations until you're blue in the face, but swimming upstream will always be tougher, going against the grain will always give more splinters, and those who gather thistles will always get more prickles. It may or may not be right, but that's the way it is. Nobody can change that, and whole nations have been bathed in their blood by madmen and ideologues who thought they could.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 2:36:22 PM


Shane Matthews,

But as you well know, most of the infractions we're talking about happened outside the scope of any violence. Especially on Sunday, where countless, diverse demonstrations were broken up by police -- including a group of people marching against a global bank tax.

The police overreach is indefensible. And we will soon see what the courts have to say about it, I think.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-06 2:43:32 PM


For those who were not eyewitnesses to the events in question, the courts are indeed the best place for these disputes to be heard. Perhaps the "deafening silence" is at least in part due to the fact that most people weren't there, and therefore have no way to evaluate the competing claims of the varies sides.

Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-07-06 2:51:42 PM


Cops are only the the result of much greater threat. Banksters, Globalists, and the New World Order are seetting us up for a system of a modern day fuedal serfdom. It would be best if everybody would invesigate these warnings before they censor the net and that possibility becomes impossible.

Posted by: mikeg | 2010-07-06 3:04:58 PM


Mike, you are no different from the "law-and-order conservatives", just the opposite side of the same coin. Some of us prefer to await the facts and meanwhile support neither side if you will. So until then it really does not matter how much hyperbole is used it remains people's opinions.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-06 3:08:37 PM


Alain.If I may I would like to know where you get your news from. Unfortunately if you are still watching TV or reading the so called News Papers you are not getting anything even resembling the truth. Have a look at LewRockwell.com,listen to InfoWars.com. You have been conditioned your whole life to believe the corporate BS.I will pray for you and the rest of the sheeple who are going to wait until CBC or CTV to report the real news.

Posted by: mikeg | 2010-07-06 5:21:46 PM


OK - let's consider the facts which are NOT in dispute.


The Toronto Chief of Police broke trust with the public when he lied about the 'special powers' his force has been granted: he has admitted he lied, and claimed to have much 'greater' powers than he actually did.

There are undisputable videos of police officers breaking the law (as well as the police code of conduct - a censurable offense). Illegal searches. Illegal siezures - which, by the way, the criminal code specifically states ought to be prosecuted against individual police officers as 'theft'.

Unwarranted violence - unless you think Steve Paikin is an unreliable witness...or some sort of an anarchist!

Let's face it. There was a lot of law-breaking that went on during the G8/G20 summit. And, by far, the most of this law-breaking was committed by the very police officers whom we had entrusted to uphold the law.

Every 'right' carries a 'responsibility'.

It is now our responsibility to bring each and evey individual law-breaker to justice: whether they were anarchists, hooligans or police officers.

Anything less would be an abdication of our responsibilities and civic duties!

Posted by: Xanthippa | 2010-07-06 5:57:43 PM


If only life were so simple: cops bad, everyone else no matter what good. Oh, and no need to investigate and obtain actual facts, hop on the emotional bandwagon for one side or the other. I have no doubt that not all the cops had spotless behaviour but neither do I accept that everyone else was totally blameless.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-06 6:16:23 PM


@Alain: wow, way to own that strawman. TAKEN DOWN.

I used to read the stuff over at Celestial Junk. I had my suspicions, and this confirms that he is an authoritarian neanderthal like Kate. I'll save a lot of time by avoiding either site. Mike, I hope you expand your complaint into a formal suit along with all the others who were mistreated. Actually, the people whose property was damaged while the cops did nothing should also launch a civil suit.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-07-06 6:31:18 PM


The courts will only rule if a case is brought to them, Mike. And I, as well as numerous Canadians, have come to instinctively distrust any assertions by protesters that their gathering was "peaceful." Violence follows these anti-capitalists around like flies on shit.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 6:31:42 PM


Mikeg, why should we trust you over reputable newsmen, and your sources over established ones? If your sources are on the fringe, it's because they haven't yet proven themselves. Talk like yours is exactly what turns people off the anti-capitalism movement; it sounds like so much paranoid delusion.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 6:34:06 PM


The Toronto Chief of Police broke trust with the public when he lied about the 'special powers' his force has been granted: he has admitted he lied, and claimed to have much 'greater' powers than he actually did.

Right. Activists never lie. Tell me, Xanthippa, how is activist malfeasance less bad than official malfeasance?

There are undisputable videos of police officers breaking the law (as well as the police code of conduct - a censurable offense).

Like the Rodney King beating video, the publicly aired part of which set a town on fire, but the full length of which showed that King had escalated the encounter at every point. What these sound bites are missing is context.

Unwarranted violence - unless you think Steve Paikin is an unreliable witness...or some sort of an anarchist!

He's worse than either. He's a journalist who has a financial stake in selling copy. Journalists brought us the global warming pseudocrisis, the date rape pseudocrisis, the sudden-acceleration pseudocrisis, and countless other hoaxes.

Let's face it. There was a lot of law-breaking that went on during the G8/G20 summit. And, by far, the most of this law-breaking was committed by the very police officers whom we had entrusted to uphold the law.

How many businesses were vandalized, how much public and private property torched, by the police? And here is another question for you: How can these anarchists turn to the law for succour? They don't acknowledge the validity of the law and are there to protest its existence. And they grew violent first, I believe.

Every 'right' carries a 'responsibility'.

Tell it to the anarchists.

It is now our responsibility to bring each and evey individual law-breaker to justice: whether they were anarchists, hooligans or police officers.

I won't argue with that. I will argue with trying and convicting them in the court of public opinion based on incomplete evidence provided for sensationalistic effect by known rabble-rousers.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 6:41:11 PM


Shane If you look at LewRockwell.com today there is an article called When The Media Are Mainly Liars.You might need to use a certain amount of common sense to discern the difference between truth and fiction. I have come to believe this is a commodity in short supply. It is regretable that the protesters who attend these events dont have any common sense either, and get caught up in petty dramas when the fight is being lost because people cant see that they are distracted from the real issue, which is globalist bankers are going to take more and more in taxes and fees until you are so fricken broke and tired you wont be able to resist. You must turn off your TV and stop reading the crap that passes for News. You must break a life time of conditioning.Without a free Internet your conditioning will never be challenged. While your over at LewRockwell you might look at some other titles like Public School Lies or Hedgeing The Coming Apocalypse or heck read everything and open up your mind.

Posted by: mikeg | 2010-07-06 7:16:44 PM


@SM

The Toronto Chief of Police ADMITTED he lied to the public and claimed for himself and his force powers that they never had. This is not in dispute - nor are anarchists or protesters the source of this: the Toronto Chief of Police is the source.

So, that particular straw-man is not helping your case - rather, trying to resort to it weakens your argument.

Steve Paiken, whatever you think of his show, has shown himself over and over to be a man of integrity in reporting. I don't always agree with his POV, but I do respect his word because he has earned that level of trust from me. Yes, this is a value judgment - one you may disagree with. Yet, I would like you to ask you, in order to satisfy my curiosity and to 'set me right', to please refer me to another instance when Steve Paiken has compromised his principles in order to 'sell copy'. If I am mistaken in trusting his word, I would honestly like to know.

Re: the Rodney King video... The video in Mr. Brock's original post (update, I believe) is quite sufficient to establish the actions of the police officers shown in it. Regardless of what traspired beforehand, this video clearly shows the police officers conducting a search after detaining - but not arresting - a person.

That constitutes an illegal search: police are only permitted to conduct a search after following all the proper procedures to place a person under full arrest (and, contrary to the citizen's belief, not simply upon detaining him). Searching him without having first placed him under full legal arrest constituted illegal confinement - a criminal offense which each of the participating officers is not protected from facing by the fact that they were acting in uniform (our laws).

The confiscation of goggles from this citizen during an illegal search constitutes theft. Again, our criminal laws are explicit: if a police officer confiscates property during an illegal search, they are not shielded by their role as a police officer and ought to be prosecuted for theft to the fullest extent of the law.

I repeat: if we cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold the law to do so, the very foundation of our society is threatened.

That is too high a price to pay!

Posted by: Xanthippa | 2010-07-06 8:19:05 PM


Mikeg, why should we trust you over reputable newsmen

Will a newswoman do, if Steve Paikin isn't good enough for you?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/of-a-million-g20-stories-in-this-taken-city-this-was-mine/article1627063/

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2010-07-06 8:25:13 PM


Dawg same answer for you. Read this at LewRockwell.com When The Media are Mainly Liars followed by Public School Lies. Iknow they are long articles and you have better things to do, but you may learn to think beyond your present reality. Its really not so scary.

Posted by: mikeg | 2010-07-06 9:09:50 PM


We can now add David Warren to the list of righties who witnessed it first hand, and reached much the same conclusions: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/enforce+order/3234177/story.html#ixzz0sxisM4SV

I've yet to find any commentator on the left or right who bore physical witness to the events and sided with the police.

It seems all the people biased towards the police were not there and are more inclined to their biases than first-hand accounts.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-06 9:50:54 PM


Shane If you look at LewRockwell.com today there is an article called When The Media Are Mainly Liars.You might need to use a certain amount of common sense to discern the difference between truth and fiction.

I do, MikeG; and my experience, plus common sense, tells me that a minority opinion that consists primarily of invective and accusations of everything from lying to larceny, while offering no workable solutions, is more likely to be the fiction.

The real issue...is globalist bankers are going to take more and more in taxes and fees until you are so fricken broke and tired you wont be able to resist.

Since when do banks collect taxes? And who compels you to do business with them anyway? There are always alternatives to the big banks, including local credit unions and even your mattress.

You must turn off your TV and stop reading the crap that passes for News. You must break a life time of conditioning.

You must convince me that you are right and they are wrong. Begin now.

I believe the information on the Internet is the same regardless of whether you pay for it or not.

While your over at LewRockwell you might look at some other titles like Public School Lies or Hedgeing The Coming Apocalypse or heck read everything and open up your mind.

"Open your mind." The age-old cry of the outcast.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 10:26:17 PM


Xanthippa,

1. So the chief of police lied. What's your point? Cops are not legally required to tell the truth; courts have upheld this. What about the woman walking alone threatened with violence who tries to bluff her assailant, claiming to have a weapon? That's lying too. I don't like lying but it's nothing everyone else doesn't do...probably more often.

2. I will judge for myself the integrity of Steve Paiken, or anyone else; I have not ceded that judgement to you. That said, I am not even familiar with Mr. Paiken and have only your word that he's an honest reporter. I've heard The Guardian and other papers described as "respected" publications, which generally means anything the speaker wants it to mean; in many cases further digging revealed that the publications in question were Leftist tabloids.

3. So they searched him. He was near a highly secure area and was asked only to open his bag. He could have complied and been out of there in thirty seconds. Instead he chose to be an idiot and escalate based solely on moral outrage. Not all eyes will weep for him.

4. Excuse me, that's not true. The police are allowed to search if they have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect that person has recently committed a crime or is carrying an illegal item, particularly a weapon (Criminal Code, s. 117.02). They don't have to arrest him first. What was that about lying, Xanthippa?

5. It is only theft if the goggles are not returned.

6. Repeat all you like. I would rather grant more power to the police than to anarchists, and judging from the public reaction to the police crackdown, a majority of Canadians agrees with me. As far as I can tell, the only ones who lose out are the sometime criminals known as "street protesters" who have nothing but contempt for the law and treat it as a shield from behind which they can break the law and escape punishment. I am not moved to tears.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 10:40:53 PM


Will a newswoman do, if Steve Paiken isn't good enough for you?

I don't care if it's a news bot. The question was why I should trust MikeG, not Steve Paiken.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 10:42:24 PM


Mike, David Warren simply suggested the police action was misdirected and clumsy; he didn't accuse them of brutality or illegal conduct. I agree with his criticism that they should have prevented the property damage, and will add my own assertion that they should have felt free to use live ammunition.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-06 10:44:35 PM


Isn't the Dawg cypherin' a thesis?

Posted by: Bocanut | 2010-07-06 11:12:00 PM


Cops are dicks. They have to be, its their job. I saw a video online that has an interesting scene in it. It shows the cops letting protesters through their lines. Agent provocateurs? The rest of the vid is pretty sketchy, boots matching and nonsense like that, but that one scene makes you wonder. Its not like the RCMP have ever been caught doing that before, right?

oh, here's the link if your interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo

You should at least lodge a complaint, if you can still do that kind of thing. I don't think you need to sue. You would most likely lose. I don't know, its a tough call. Is it worth it? How are you gonna feel the next time a cop walks up to you? Are the cops in this country purposely shooting themselves in the foot?

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-07-07 2:10:12 AM


"Since when do banks collect taxes?"

Shane. He means they create inflation through fractional reserve banking ... which is basically a tax. Ancient rulers used to do exactly the same thing. Depreciate the currency (by reducing the metal content) and pocket the difference. Meanwhile ordinary citizens suffered because of rising prices. What central bankers, bankers, and gov't officials do today is really no different.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-07-07 5:57:07 AM


@mikeg

I was quoting Shane. Plenty of reputable journos got caught up in this and reported what they saw. Follow the link I provided.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2010-07-07 5:59:02 AM


I've never had a cop be a dick to me, Steve. Perhaps that's because they don't sense the hostility in me that they may well get from you and your pals. My dad was a fireman, and in my experience the police/ambulance/fire services form a loose brotherhood of sorts, so I tend to look at them as firemen with guns, not oppressors.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 6:37:44 AM


Shane. He means they create inflation through fractional reserve banking ... which is basically a tax.

Are you sure that's what he meant, Charles? It sounds to me like this guy has little idea of what he's talking about and just hates banks, period.

Ancient rulers used to do exactly the same thing. Depreciate the currency (by reducing the metal content) and pocket the difference. Meanwhile ordinary citizens suffered because of rising prices. What central bankers, bankers, and gov't officials do today is really no different.

Actually, depreciation is usually used (probably unwisely) as a debt-fighting measure, not a get-rich-quick scheme by the elite. Did you know, Charles, that the richest five percent of Canadians pay nearly half the total income taxes collected?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 6:40:20 AM


close tag.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 6:40:46 AM


close tag.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 6:41:20 AM


Stupid server. Who coded this piece of shit?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 6:42:03 AM


"Actually, depreciation is usually used (probably unwisely) as a debt-fighting measure, not a get-rich-quick scheme by the elite. Did you know, Charles, that the richest five percent of Canadians pay nearly half the total income taxes collected?"

You're right Shane. It is used as a debt-fighting measure ... in a sense. It's used to keep interest rates low so the gov't can finance its spending as much as it pleases. Your observation about taxes (which is in fact very true) is duly noted but beside the point. I actually agree that taxes should be reduced dramatically.

But the fact that inflation of the money supply benefits those who receive the money first is an economic fact of reality. The more you inflate, the more the people who receive the money first will benefit. Economists as far back as Cantillon understood this (although our current twits don't seem to be quite as sharp). Think about it. When banks or central banks increase the money supply, banks lend (eventually) out the cash. They pay themselves massive bonuses (I don't think anyone will dispute this). As the new money is spent, this drives up prices. Those who receive the new money much later or not at all suffer because of rising prices. So, in fact, inflating the money supply is like a regressive tax. Ordinary citizens are paying a tax to bankers and gov't cronies.

In the end you either believe everyone gets the new money at the same time, or some get the new money first and others later (or not at all). The former is absurd, the latter is reality.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-07-07 6:58:39 AM


But more to the point, it is obvious at this point that the police abused their power in T.O. We need to stop excusing their behaviour and begin demanding that they target the criminals and leave law-abiding citizens alone.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-07-07 7:10:58 AM


Charles, I concede both that not everyone gets the "new" money at the same time, and that those with first pickings tend to get the best pickings. Certainly it does not make sense that banks should be making record profits while the rest of the economy is in the toilet, thanks in large part to those same banks.

President Obama is, I think, mildly anti-capitalistic; much of his political rhetoric consists of excoriating big business, even though he knows that big business provides both products and jobs for Americans. But some of the regulatory changes he's made to the way America does business have been long overdue.

As for the rest of the world blaming America for the financial crisis, my only response is: And whose fault is it that you have become so dependent on American prosperity?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 7:15:02 AM


"As for the rest of the world blaming America for the financial crisis, my only response is: And whose fault is it that you have become so dependent on American prosperity?"

Don't think for a minute that I blame America for the financial crisis. I blame fractional reserve banking ... which is a reality in every country on the planet.

Actually for anyone interested in "Austrian" economics I've been reading a fantastic book entitled "Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles" by Jesus Huerta de Soto. Honestly, it's a "must read" ;)

Posted by: Charles | 2010-07-07 7:41:50 AM


And whose fault is it that you have become so dependent on American prosperity?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 7:15:02 AM

Or whose fault is it that American prosperity is based on borrowing trillions from foreigners to pay for it?

Posted by: The Stig | 2010-07-07 7:47:54 AM


But more to the point, it is obvious at this point that the police abused their power in T.O. We need to stop excusing their behaviour and begin demanding that they target the criminals and leave law-abiding citizens alone.

Charles, this compellingly simple plea is complicated by the iffy legal status of the protests themselves. Blocking traffic has never been legal, nor has causing a disturbance, harassing or intimidating people, public nuisance, and squatting--to say nothing of the violence that inevitably attends any protest that targets economic policy. Depending on who you talk to, simply protesting is a crime, or at the least a public nuisance that many would be happy to see the police do something about.

There are signs that protest as a means of political discourse is losing ground anyway; it's generally ineffective, most often resorted to by fringe groups with questionable causes, and so 1960s. Blogging is way more effective and doesn't tie up traffic. It was bloggers, not protesters, who helped set the tone of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, and Vanderzalm's anti-HST petition has done more to get El Gordo's attention than any protest ever would.

As for the police--I'm not going to pass judgement until their conduct is properly reviewed by people who possess far more facts than either of us. The anarchists who broke the law on camera will still receive fair hearings; the police are due the same.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 7:56:49 AM


Shane,

If protestors are not obstructing traffic or harrassing others, it is no business of the state. If the protestors are to be obstructing traffic, then they should receive permission from the authorities. If they obstruct traffic without permission, the police should be allowed to force them to disperse and arrest those who resist. And obviously, the police should be arresting anyone harrassing others or destroying either public or private property.

The police, in this case, did much more than force unlawful protestors to disperse and go after vandals and thugs. They harrassed lawful protestors. They also harrassed invididuals who going about their daily business.

As for your wanting to wait for an enquiry - don't hold your breath. If there is one, the police will be doing the enquiring. Kinda like when the IPCC conducted its own enquiry.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-07-07 8:53:49 AM


Blocking traffic has never been legal, nor has causing a disturbance, harassing or intimidating people, public nuisance, and squatting--to say nothing of the violence that inevitably attends any protest that targets economic policy.

In the US and Canada, it's actually a little more murky than that. In both Canada and the United States, the jurisprudence on what constitutes the right to peaceably assemble has essentially placed an asterisk next to state/provincial and municipal laws against blocking traffic -- at least for "reasonable" amounts of time.

It's been decided that the right of assembly, and therefore to protest, in some cases can supersede such laws within reason, and as such, police are compelled to give significant leeway to large peaceful protests, even if they block streets, etc.

Spontaneous street protests break out all over North America every year, in major cities, without permits and as a matter of course, police are there to keep the peace and keep everyone safe. They usually do this by helping to direct traffic around the affected area, and/or moving the protest along as not to loiter in one specific area for a protracted period of time.

But the blatant statement that it's illegal without a permit is not actually true.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-07 8:55:20 AM


"Or whose fault is it that American prosperity is based on borrowing trillions from foreigners to pay for it?"

That's just the point. The borrowing is slowly but surely destroying American prosperity - as it is in Europe and Japan.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-07-07 8:57:52 AM


The jurisprudence you mention, Mike, is largely courtesy a generation of judges who fondly remember the aforementioned Sixties. Many of those on the bench today were actually marching back then. Judges have interpreted the freedom to assemble to protect everything from street disorders to having a trade union's decision having de facto force of law.

In short, the activities remain illegal, but for personal and political reasons, many judges are reluctant to convict. A similar phenomenon is observed when the charges concern marijuana--it's illegal but judges, many of whom smoked dope in the 60s and some of whom still do, simply wink.

Because the law is a blunt instrument, we need to accord judges a certain amount of discretion. But this generation of jurists has really stretched things to the limit--to the point where many governments are legislating mandatory minimum sentences for several serious offences.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 10:12:27 AM


If protestors are not obstructing traffic or harrassing others, it is no business of the state.

I can think of several things besides those two that they could do to make it state business, Charles, including torching police cruisers and breaking the windows of empty shops, to name just two. In fact, you added a qualifier to this remark before the paragraph was out.

The police, in this case, did much more than force unlawful protestors to disperse and go after vandals and thugs. They harrassed lawful protestors. They also harrassed invididuals who going about their daily business.

They harassed nobody, Charles. Under the law, harassment requires a pattern--several occurrences over an extended period. Yelling at somebody just once is not harassment.

As for your wanting to wait for an enquiry - don't hold your breath. If there is one, the police will be doing the enquiring. Kinda like when the IPCC conducted its own enquiry.

If even one person sues, Charles, then there will be an inquiry by the courts, which the media will be all over. Depending on how that goes, much more could come to light. Look at the Braidwood Inquiry.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 10:17:20 AM


I'm loathe to join in the battle of "read my link. No, read MY link! NO, read MY LINK!!!!"

That's a lie. I'm not loathe to do it. Cuz I'm about to do it!

I liked Lorrie Goldstein's take on the whole situation:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/07/06/14629166.html

Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-07-07 10:33:38 AM


Cindy Sheehan says,

"Kerry and Obama both supported more war. An “antiwar” movement de-legitimizes itself when it works hard for a candidate who does not promise total and rapid withdrawal of troops from wherever they happen to be at the time AND does not promise to end war as an imperial tool of corporate conquest".

"Obama comes out strong with a new antiwar marketing campaign to assure his “re-election.” Even though not one progressive issue has been propagated during his term, these war supporters are looking forward to another four years of the dance of death. Right foot kill—left foot torture—spin around for environmental devastation—allemande left for health care fascism—and shimmy right for bankster bailouts. Wasn’t eight years of this crap during the Bush stain enough for y’all?"

The majority of the so-called antiwar movement, in fact, voted for a candidate that PROMISED to contract one war only to be able to profoundly EXPAND another. Obama all along said that he is not against all war, just “dumb wars.” If there existed an antiwar movement that had integrity—it would have said that “all wars are dumb,” and we withhold our support for just another dyed-in-the-wool warmonger. View the
TWO Party Paradyne System News clip below:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2824363/the_obama_deception_extra_part_2/

Posted by: M Btok | 2010-08-01 10:08:42 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.