Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Rahn Curve | Main | The police are losing the PR battle »

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Serious question

According to this Christie Blatchford piece, it's been revealed that Toronto Police had successfully infiltrated the planning session for the violent protesters. This is how police we apparently able to identify arrest the perpetrators after the fact.


The Globe and Mail has learned, independent of what was said in court yesterday, that Toronto police had an undercover officer who infiltrated the group and who, with a judge’s authority, recorded a critical planning meeting on June 25.


That's great and all, but I just have one question: if police had an insider at the planning session, and had identified the masked hoodlums before the window smashing had even started, why was it allowed to happen? Why weren't these people arrested on a conspiracy charge? Why weren't police able to have people there that morning, ready to snatch them the second they pulled out their hammers?

The police knew what was going to happen. They knew who was going to do it. They knew when it was going to happen. And it still happened. It happened unmolested for several hours that Saturday as a matter of fact.

Posted by Mike Brock on July 7, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Does anyone question why I bash Toronto so much when they clearly the most despicable people on the planet? The Slave Patrol sent an undercover agent with a warrant to record planning meetings. Nice little fascist state you've got there. I thank God that I don't live among you people.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-07-07 9:35:05 AM


I expect we'll have the answer to that question before long, Mike. It's barely been a week, and the wheels, they do grind slow.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 10:05:45 AM


I say close down the University of Toronto and York U and turn them into homeless shelters. Use the provincial capital building too.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-07-07 10:14:18 AM


Zeb Punk
They dont need homeless shelter , there all rich

Posted by: don b | 2010-07-07 10:30:57 AM


What's the surprise there? As someone told me so nicely as we watched the cop cars burn: "So, they manage to remove all the mailboxes, bikelocks and newspaper boxes but then forgot their squad cars in the middle of the street?"

Don't expect anyting to come out of it anytime soon though. The VYR case dragged on for almost three years and charges against the cops still haven't been filed (if ever), and that was much more cut and dry with a video essentially showing just how wrong the cops where. Even then, there were still a lot of people who thought the cops did a good job.

As long as property damage is equated with violence in the media the cops pretty much have free reign and any judicial oversight will come way too late (if ever).

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 10:38:42 AM


I don't think Canadians need the media to tell them that property damage is a form of violence, Snowrunner.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 11:09:37 AM


This has become standard policing (at least in Ontario).

Step 1: Sit back and observe while property rights are violated by a gaggle of people, taking care to ensure that you know the identities of those comprising the gaggle.

Step 2: When the gaggle disperses, sneak into each of their homes in the middle of the night, with overwhelming police force, and arrest them individually.

The goal: to arrest wrongdoers without any police officers getting harmed.

The message: From armed trespassers on private land, to firey blockades on railway lines, to rocks smashed through business storefront windows, ensuring that no police officer gets harmed takes precedence over defending the property rights of the governed. In short: police do not defend your property anymore, period.

This - a policy against police getting hurt - is also why, in Caledonia, police went after the non-native protesters, instead of rounding up the trespassers: they had much less chance of getting hurt by rounding up the non-native protesters (who were not armed and were not threatening any sort of violence) than by rounding up the trespassers and - because they are no longer in the business of defending anyone's property - all they wanted to do was reduce the likelihood of violence between the two factions by separating the two factions.

To my mind, the policy needs to be changed. Property damage is not an acceptable price for police not risking physical injury. Police are paid well *because* they risk physical injury.

Were the military to take the same approach, we'd be watching Islamic terrorists destroying *empty* churches and other un-Islamic structures while the armed forces stood by ensuring that nobody provokes the terrorists - with a Canadian flag - to use violence.

At root, this is a failure to understand, care about, and/or act upon the principle that there is no life without property. But, hey, it's just something one does for a paycheque, right?

Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2010-07-07 11:34:30 AM


I have a hard time disagreeing with any of that, Paul. It's never been safer to be a cop, but at the same time, cops have never been more fearful. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 11:57:41 AM


"I don't think Canadians need the media to tell them that property damage is a form of violence, Snowrunner."

Property damage isn't violence though, it's property damage, even the Canadian Criminal Code knows the difference.

The problem with equating property damage to violence (which in most people is associated with bloddy faces etc.) is that it allows the cops to claim they need to "protect us" from these "violent criminals" resulting in a police response beyond reasonable.

It's the same with people who call the anti-choice crowd "pro-life", it gives the group a positive spin where it shouldn't get one.

Language IS power and even though most people don't consciously parse sentences / words for their meaning they DO get the meaning.

So, first step is to stop calling the Saturday events violence and calling them property damage, because that's what it was

BTW, have a look what goes in in most parts of Europe every May 1st: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xag1E3naPrk

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 12:04:32 PM


Excellent points, Paul. I do not know if it is actually official police policy as you say, but their behaviour in each incident suggests that it is. This has nothing in common with law and order - oh, I know there will be a rush to label me a mean conservative for using the term. If there were law and order those committing violence would be arrested immediately as soon as they started. What you described is what has become common currency and the norm while law-abiding citizens are held hostage.

We don't need more police officers nor do the police need more power to do their job. We need the police to do their job and if unwilling to do so they should cease being part of the force.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-07 12:07:02 PM


Shane: I can't know if/why any particular officer might be more fearful, but if police are more fearful, one reason might be declining respect for property rights (i.e., for rising levels of belief that "we're all in this together", meaning: "Each person is entitled to an equal share of everything that is produced, whether or not he/she expended any effort in producing it". The leftists who smashed those windows did not regard the glass as belonging to anyone in particular: they see the glass as belonging to the collective, and the destruction of that glass as nothing more than an expression of the collective's attitude toward exclusive use/possession.

That collectivism is founded upon the belief that each of us is his brother's keeper: i.e., upon altruism, as Compte defined the term (the ethical code upon which french Civil law is founded); upon the idea that one must "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And the only answer, in the long term, is a rejection of altruism and an embracing of rational egoism, together with Judaism's "do *not* unto others as you would *not* have them do unto you".

Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2010-07-07 12:13:34 PM


Property damage isn't violence though, it's property damage, even the Canadian Criminal Code knows the difference.

You mean by calling one vandalism and another assault? Stop minimizing what the punks did, Snowrunner. "It's just glass man" just doesn't convince. Plate-glass windows cost thousands of dollars; assholes are free.

The problem with equating property damage to violence (which in most people is associated with bloddy faces etc.) is that it allows the cops to claim they need to "protect us" from these "violent criminals" resulting in a police response beyond reasonable.

Shooting a vandal dead to protect property is reasonable, particularly if done by the property's owner. Again: Property costs money. Assholes are free.

It's the same with people who call the anti-choice crowd "pro-life", it gives the group a positive spin where it shouldn't get one.

You've got it backwards, Snowrunner. "Pro-choice" means "pro-abortion," inasmuch as you support continuing the practice, even if you don't have any yourself. That's like saying someone isn't pro-capital punishment just because they're not an executioner. "Pro-life," on the other hand, means just what it says: for protecting life.

Language IS power and even though most people don't consciously parse sentences / words for their meaning they DO get the meaning.

That would explain your linguistic gymnastics and attempts to use words to minimize the importance of despicable and unjustifiable acts. Your efforts are actually rather bald, and quite transparent. If knowledge is power, you need to ammo up some more.

So, first step is to stop calling the Saturday events violence and calling them property damage, because that's what it was.

First step is to start treating terrorist enablers, sympathizers, and apologists like we treat the terrorists themselves. Would you care to go first?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 1:58:13 PM


Paul, I think that collectivism versus individualism was the furthest thing from the police's minds that weekend, and most other times, for that matter. Perhaps their attitudes are merely natural outgrowths of the increasing paranoia that has come to define Western society as a whole.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-07 1:59:53 PM


"You mean by calling one vandalism and another assault? Stop minimizing what the punks did, Snowrunner. "It's just glass man" just doesn't convince. Plate-glass windows cost thousands of dollars; assholes are free."

It not only calls it differently it also has different sentencing guidlines, but I know, that's small potatoes for you. As usual, you also fail to actually understand what I wrote, blinded by your own perception of reality.

"Shooting a vandal dead to protect property is reasonable, particularly if done by the property's owner. Again: Property costs money. Assholes are free."

Only that my point isn't about someone defending their own property but Cops using property damage to justify them ignoring law & order themselves because they need to protect us from the violence. I am sure everytime you see someone that wears black you cross the street or cower behind something solid and dial 911, just in case.

"You've got it backwards, Snowrunner. "Pro-choice" means "pro-abortion," inasmuch as you support continuing the practice, even if you don't have any yourself. That's like saying someone isn't pro-capital punishment just because they're not an executioner. "Pro-life," on the other hand, means just what it says: for protecting life."

No, pro-choice means that we give women the right to chose. It does not mean "get an abortion" it means you have the choice to decide if you want an abortion or not, legally, without having to do it in a dark back alley or an unsanitary environment with a coat hanger.

But I am sure the anti-choice people, much like the anti-drug crusaders, think that if it is just made illegal then it won't happen.

"That would explain your linguistic gymnastics and attempts to use words to minimize the importance of despicable and unjustifiable acts. Your efforts are actually rather bald, and quite transparent. If knowledge is power, you need to ammo up some more."

Coming from you that.... well, I guess it's a joke, but that's okay we all need to laugh some time.

As for linguistic gymnastics? Yeah, I can read and understand text above grade four, sorry about that. I shall try in the future to write in small sentences and use simple logic so that you don't feel left out.

"First step is to start treating terrorist enablers, sympathizers, and apologists like we treat the terrorists themselves. Would you care to go first?"

Oh, you want to get rid of the US Government? Right after you, let me know how it goes. Or are you just man enough to hide behind your keyboard calling for executions etc. without having the guts to go out on the street?

Tell you something. Next time a protest is happening that is "left" or whatever it is you have a problem with, go out on the street and start a counter demonstration, stand up to these vandals and do-no-gooders and show us what you're made off instead of spouting off on the internet alone.

You and Zeb would make a wonderful couple, five years later and you still both sound like a broken record, it would be cute if it wouldn't be so sad.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-07 10:35:03 PM


It not only calls it differently it also has different sentencing guidlines, but I know, that's small potatoes for you. As usual, you also fail to actually understand what I wrote, blinded by your own perception of reality.

It has different sentencing guidelines because violence against property is considered less grave than violence against people. That doesn’t make violence against property not violent. The dictionary defines violence as “physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.” I know exactly what you wrote; it was wordplay worthy of a shyster.

Only that my point isn't about someone defending their own property but Cops using property damage to justify them ignoring law & order themselves because they need to protect us from the violence.

What difference does it make who shoots the vandal, Snowrunner? Shot is shot.

I am sure everytime you see someone that wears black you cross the street or cower behind something solid and dial 911, just in case.

No, but I do put a little extra swagger into my step and loosen my knife and flashlight in their sheaths…just in case.

No, pro-choice means that we give women the right to chose.

To choose to kill a helpless unborn, you mean. Don’t even try this old sophism with me, Snowrunner. ALL actions, good or bad, are the result of choice. To say you are “pro-choice” is therefore meaningless.

It does not mean "get an abortion" it means you have the choice to decide if you want an abortion or not, legally, without having to do it in a dark back alley or an unsanitary environment with a coat hanger.

You don’t have to do it at all. This is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. It's true there were once great social pressures that women felt forced their hands but that's no longer the case today.

But I am sure the anti-choice people, much like the anti-drug crusaders, think that if it is just made illegal then it won't happen.

Using this logic, we should repeal all laws, because all will inevitably be broken. I’m detecting shades of anarchism and nihilism in this line of reasoning (and I use the term loosely).

Coming from you that.... well, I guess it's a joke, but that's okay we all need to laugh some time. As for linguistic gymnastics? Yeah, I can read and understand text above grade four, sorry about that. I shall try in the future to write in small sentences and use simple logic so that you don't feel left out.

No, I’m serious. Your writing is poor, your motives transparent and self-serving, and your bitterness palpable. I don’t like to get this personal anymore but it’s hard to address this point without so doing. The upshot is, your style is deceitful and manipulative, and your words very carefully chosen to slant the truth in the direction you want it to go, which was my point. It’s not honest debate.

Oh, you want to get rid of the US Government? Right after you, let me know how it goes. Or are you just man enough to hide behind your keyboard calling for executions etc. without having the guts to go out on the street?

Snowrunner, the reason I don’t go looking for trouble is because I’m sure to find it; the old saying’s true. And your accusation of cowardice would carry more weight if you gave your true name.

Tell you something. Next time a protest is happening that is "left" or whatever it is you have a problem with, go out on the street and start a counter demonstration, stand up to these vandals and do-no-gooders and show us what you're made off instead of spouting off on the internet alone.

Oh, I imagine that if I encountered a vandal or housebreaker in the act it would be very much the worse for him; a 300-pound man can deal quite a whallop. Just out of curiosity, will you be among the criminals?

You and Zeb would make a wonderful couple, five years later and you still both sound like a broken record, it would be cute if it wouldn't be so sad.

I’d worry more about your own emotional health, Snowrunner; your words are not those of a happy man.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-08 8:12:00 AM


"It has different sentencing guidelines because violence against property is considered less grave than violence against people. That doesn’t make violence against property not violent. The dictionary defines violence as “physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.” I know exactly what you wrote; it was wordplay worthy of a shyster."

Yes, I talk about perception, you drag out the dictionary. At least you know how to use one. Bonus point for you.

"What difference does it make who shoots the vandal, Snowrunner? Shot is shot."

Oh I don't know. Because the idea of having cops randomly enforcing the law as they see fit a la Judge Dredd is not really a world I want to live in? There is a reason why pretty much all western democratic societies have separated the powers in the state, as much as it may gall you that the cops didn't just carpetbomb the protesters in Toronto with the help from the CF.

"No, but I do put a little extra swagger into my step and loosen my knife and flashlight in their sheaths…just in case."

Ah well, paranoid is paranoid.

"To choose to kill a helpless unborn, you mean. Don’t even try this old sophism with me, Snowrunner. ALL actions, good or bad, are the result of choice. To say you are “pro-choice” is therefore meaningless."

Ah Shane, every life is sacred, unless of course it is the life of someone I don't like or don't agree with, in which case I want someone from the Government come and shoot them"

You're a fine example of a human being Shane.

"You don’t have to do it at all. This is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. It's true there were once great social pressures that women felt forced their hands but that's no longer the case today."

Pardon me? If you take the choice away to get a medical procedure done you think women would no longer not want to have children "after the fact"? Or what is going on in your mind there? Oh, is it that you believe deeply that it's all those loony lefties who grab pregnang women of the street and force them to have abortions and once you outlaw the procedure all will be fine?

"Using this logic, we should repeal all laws, because all will inevitably be broken. I’m detecting shades of anarchism and nihilism in this line of reasoning (and I use the term loosely)."

If you want to know my leaning, it would be socialist libertarian which does belong to the political philosophy of anarchy, yes, very well guessed. Now, quick Shane, tell me what exactly my believes based on this political philosophy are and why you disagree with the three main points.

As for getting rid of all laws? No, we need to codify certain aspects, but we sure as hell don't need a police state were every thing one wants to do requires royal ascend from some other human beings.

"No, I’m serious. Your writing is poor, your motives transparent and self-serving, and your bitterness palpable."

My bitterness? Please explain.

"I don’t like to get this personal anymore but it’s hard to address this point without so doing."

That's funny. You are the first in every "discussion" we have were you veer of the topic and make it personal. It has lead me to the conclusion that you are incapable of having a fact based argument, for you, everything is personal, and only what you personally approve of is a valid argument, everything else is a "sign" of something or the other in the other person.

"The upshot is, your style is deceitful and manipulative, and your words very carefully chosen to slant the truth in the direction you want it to go, which was my point. It’s not honest debate."

Oh really? Please give me an example where I am "slanting the truth". I am curious.

And while we're at it, please provide a FACTUAL counter point to this "slanting of truth" instead of turning it into yet another personal attack.

"Snowrunner, the reason I don’t go looking for trouble is because I’m sure to find it; the old saying’s true. And your accusation of cowardice would carry more weight if you gave your true name."

Just google the Archives on here. Someone decided to track me down and post my full name, address and other infos on here, with the sweet sweet threat that they will use my name to post in inflammatory things in Jiadhists forums because they didn't like what I was writing. Was. Oh, around four years ago. Come on Shane, you claim to be a smart boy, you can find that.

"Oh, I imagine that if I encountered a vandal or housebreaker in the act it would be very much the worse for him; a 300-pound man can deal quite a whallop. Just out of curiosity, will you be among the criminals?"

Wouldn't you like to know. Why? You come to evil downtown Vancouver and "teach me a lesson"? Tell ya something, you come to Vancouver and we can have a face to face talk, if you're brave enough for that that is, but much like most of you loudmouths on the internet you will come up with a lame excuse in the next five seconds, just like others on here have before.

My favourite still is the guy on here who claimed he would never ever want to talk to me in person because, as I am a pacifist (according to him), he is afraid that I may beat him up. You guys are a funny lot, you loudmouths.

"I’d worry more about your own emotional health, Snowrunner; your words are not those of a happy man."

Coming from you that means..... Nothing. Thanks for trying though, it is the thought that counts after all.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2010-07-08 11:27:20 AM


Mike, I failed to address your last paragraph which merits a reply. Of course it is all based on a big IF, but let's say it is true that the police knew in advance what was going to happen. They still could not legally arrest the people on the grounds of what they suspected the people would do. At least that is my understanding of the law. The important point you raise, and indeed a very important one, is why the police allowed the violence to continue once it started. We may never learn the truth, but it should be investigated along with claims, such as your own.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-08 11:48:15 AM


Alain,

You're not very up-to-speed on the criminal code.

Section 465(1), subsections (c) and (d)

465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

[...]

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It is, in fact, an indictable offense to plan to commit a crime. And if the police had infiltrated the group, with a warrant from a judge (which they did), then they would have had evidence to convict them on conspiracy charges before they even engaged in the property destruction.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-08 12:07:22 PM


Mike, I stand corrected. I must say I find it surprising though. I recall when my daughter's new truck was stolen from our farm and what happened. The constable told me he saw the driver jump out of the truck but could do nothing unless he apprehended him while inside the truck. That experience along with other cases I have known led me to believe what I did.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-08 1:33:02 PM


Yes, I talk about perception, you drag out the dictionary. At least you know how to use one. Bonus point for you.

Yes, facts can be so inconvenient to those who try to win the day using emotions, I agree. Fortunately for our society, some of us don’t instinctively shy away from anything that can be documented, tabulated, or enumerated.

Oh I don't know. Because the idea of having cops randomly enforcing the law as they see fit a la Judge Dredd is not really a world I want to live in?

I asked what difference it made, not what you wanted.

There is a reason why pretty much all western democratic societies have separated the powers in the state, as much as it may gall you that the cops didn't just carpetbomb the protesters in Toronto with the help from the CF.

Yet shooting looters and rioters was common at the beginning of the 20th century, when that separation had already taken place.

Ah well, paranoid is paranoid.

I’m not the one who’s worried about living in a police state.

Ah Shane, every life is sacred, unless of course it is the life of someone I don't like or don't agree with, in which case I want someone from the Government come and shoot them.

Actually, there is a moral difference between the innocent and the guilty. Curious that you’ll defend the rights of the guilty till you’re blue in the face, but ignore the rights of those against whose innocence even the most upstanding adult pales. Who’s being selective, Snowrunner?

You're a fine example of a human being Shane.

I know.

Pardon me? If you take the choice away to get a medical procedure done you think women would no longer not want to have children "after the fact"? Or what is going on in your mind there?

You stated it was a matter of what was necessary, not what was wanted. What is going on in my mind was answering your actual question rather than guessing what you might have been hinting that and taking a stab at answering that. Thank you for revealing your true intent—and the duplicitous nature of your original question.

Oh, is it that you believe deeply that it's all those loony lefties who grab pregnang women of the street and force them to have abortions and once you outlaw the procedure all will be fine?

Taking potshots is so lame, Snowrunner; can you really do no better?

If you want to know my leaning, it would be socialist libertarian which does belong to the political philosophy of anarchy, yes, very well guessed. Now, quick Shane, tell me what exactly my believes based on this political philosophy are and why you disagree with the three main points.

Why should I guess at your “believes” when you’re content to share them, Snowrunner? By the way, can you think of a single major culture in history that survived for an extended period with an “anarchist” government, which is to say no government?

As for getting rid of all laws? No, we need to codify certain aspects, but we sure as hell don't need a police state were every thing one wants to do requires royal ascend from some other human beings.

We don’t have a police state, and the word is “assent.” Next.

My bitterness? Please explain.

You are angry and resentful; your writing drips with it, and you personally attack those who don’t share your views, even when they offer you no insult. That is bitterness.

That's funny. You are the first in every "discussion" we have were you veer of the topic and make it personal.

Including this one?

It has lead me to the conclusion that you are incapable of having a fact based argument, for you, everything is personal, and only what you personally approve of is a valid argument, everything else is a "sign" of something or the other in the other person.

Read the thread, Snowrunner. The only one tossing insults is you. And everything someone does is a sign of something. Think about it.

Oh really? Please give me an example where I am "slanting the truth". I am curious.

Your “choice” argument, for one, for reasons already stated. I will paraphrase: All actions are the result of a choice by the actor; therefore to say that you favour “choice” is to say nothing about the legitimacy of the act itself. In other words, you are feigning neutrality when you are anything but. Tomorrow someone could “choose” to hang you. Since you are “pro-choice,” I presume you have no trouble with that?

Just google the Archives on here. Someone decided to track me down and post my full name, address and other infos on here, with the sweet sweet threat that they will use my name to post in inflammatory things in Jiadhists forums because they didn't like what I was writing. Was. Oh, around four years ago. Come on Shane, you claim to be a smart boy, you can find that.

So what you’re saying is that you tried to maintain your anonymity. Which is no more than what I said.

Wouldn't you like to know. Why? You come to evil downtown Vancouver and "teach me a lesson"? Tell ya something, you come to Vancouver and we can have a face to face talk, if you're brave enough for that that is, but much like most of you loudmouths on the internet you will come up with a lame excuse in the next five seconds, just like others on here have before.

Nope; no bitterness here. No lawlessness either. I think we’ve hit upon the reason you don’t like cops, Snowrunner.

My favourite still is the guy on here who claimed he would never ever want to talk to me in person because, as I am a pacifist (according to him), he is afraid that I may beat him up. You guys are a funny lot, you loudmouths.

This juvenile chest-beating does not make your arguments ring any truer, Snowrunner. In fact, it lends credence to mine.

Coming from you that means..... Nothing. Thanks for trying though, it is the thought that counts after all.

Ah, yes. The truth of a message is entirely dependent on the identity of the messenger. Sort of whether you’re alive or not is dependent on someone else’s “choice.”

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-08 2:39:05 PM


P.S. Re: "Choice": It was my assertion I was paraphrasing, not your argument, in case that was not clear.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-08 2:51:05 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.