The Shotgun Blog
« Conservatism on Ice | Main | Bastiat in Africa »
Monday, October 18, 2010
Silenced
Before, during and after June's G20 summit the provincial government, the Toronto Police Service and the Crown Attorney's Office have balanced ham-fisted authoritarianism with Ruritanian incompetence. The former seemingly an attempt to make up for the latter.
The Keystone Koppery began a few weeks before the summit, with the mythical five meter rule, a rather silly attempt at intimating people who view being arrested as a minor form of political martyrdom. This continued with the tactical blundering that allowed police property to be turned into portable barbecues on the first day of the summit, then followed the next day with the random drag-netting of passersby, in an attempt to reestablish order.
That most of the actual criminals slipped away quite easily that weekend, only to be apprehended later through fairly basic gumshoe work, did not shake the resolve of Queen's Park, the PMO and the TPS that extraordinary times required extraordinary measures. Sure they do, if you can identify actual threats and respond accordingly, otherwise civil liberties are being compromised not out of dire necessity, but to make-up for simple incompetence.
The narrative pitched by the TPS, and its partisan supporters, was that dangerous criminals were on the loose, justifying the draconian legal measures and police tactics of that June weekend. Rather than a secularized Al-Qaeda, what we got instead was a bunch of near-juvenile delinquents, many of them from out of town, engaging in vandalism. Not peaceful and law abiding by any means, but not the grave threat promised. The issue of the G20 summit and its aftermath is not order versus chaos, but incompetence covered up by gross overreaction.
This idiocy in an iron glove reached a new low late Friday, with the re-arrest of an alleged G20 riot ringleader on charges - I can scarcely believe I'm writing this - of giving his political opinions:
Alex Hundert, an alleged organizer of G20 violence in Toronto, was arrested Friday night for breach of bail conditions after participating as a forum panelist at Ryerson University.
[...]
Hundert, 30, charged on three counts of conspiracy pertaining to G20 activities, was released in July on $100,000 bail with about 20 terms, including not participating in any public demonstration, explained Norris. “We are struggling with how broadly the Crown is interpreting that.”
That's right, a talk shop at a university is considered a demonstration. The $100,000 bail is a nice touch as well. There is little indication that Mr Hundert is anything more than a bourgeois Bolshevik, yet he was slapped with a tycoon-sized bail. Getting tough with the riff-raff, eh? Or just demonstrating a tin ear for the needs of the moment. If delivering political inanities about "building solidarity and understanding" is an arrestable offence, then the whole of the NDP caucus is in grave danger.
As can be gleaned, I'm not a fan of Alex Hundert or his politics. If he is guilty as charged of the crimes laid by the Crown, let him be punished. Expressing cartoonish views of the capitalist system, however, is no threat to the peace. It is a threat only to common sense and good taste.
The persecution of Mr Hundert, his ludicrous bail conditions can be seen only in this light, has elevated a minor figure into a martyr. Part of the world view of the many of the G20 protestors, both violent and peaceful, is that the police are stooges of corporate Canada. The clumsy attempts to silence Mr Hundert, because of his attendance at an anti-capitalist forum no less, play into exactly that image. How better to combat a simplistic view of the world, than by behaving in almost exact accordance with its narrative.
The same day news broke of Alex Hundert's arrest, we had word that "Officer Bubbles" is suing You Tube:
When he first saw a video of a Toronto constable threatening to arrest a G20 protester for blowing bubbles, one YouTube user was so livid, he couldn’t stop writing comments.
In fact, the man, who uses the alias “theforcebewithme,” can’t even remember writing the specific comment that now has him defending a $1.2 million defamation lawsuit launched by Toronto’s now notorious “Officer Bubbles.”
Const. Adam Josephs seeks to compel the Google-owned YouTube to reveal the identity of the person who created and posted the videos as well as any information it has on the 24 other users who made allegedly defamatory remarks.
The crime in question? Cartoons and comments.
In his statement of claim, Josephs calls the cartoons and several comments “devastatingly defamatory,” alleging they have brought him “ridicule, scandal and contempt both personally and as a member of the (Toronto Police Service).”
Wow. A word of advice to Officer Josephs, never become a blogger. You wouldn't last very long. Mike Brock put in his two cents here. While I agree with Mike's arrogant bastards theme, I have to qualify it with observing how utterly clueless the behaviour of the TPS has been these past months, from top to bottom.
Had TPS Chief Bill Blair and Dalton McGuinty sat down, perhaps in some shadowy Queen's Park basement, and planned a way of ruining the TPS' reputation, they could not have succeeded more brilliantly. From charging people singing O Canada, to arresting a fool for attending a Far-Leftist gabfest, to suing a YouTube commenter, they are doing everything short of donning actual Darth Vader masks. We have long know that we are governed by arrogant clowns. The fear now is that we are being policed by them as well.
Posted by Richard Anderson on October 18, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
Actually, I believe one of those cartoons had Officer "Bubbles" punching someone in the face. That is bona fide defamation, in that it is both damaging to the reputation and demonstrably untrue. Officer Bubbles may be a comical character, but there's nothing comical about the daggers being tossed his way from behind a cloak of cowardly anonymity. Those who accuse the police of cowardice would do well to review their own actions.
Also, bail conditions are nothing unusual. Convicts are frequently barred from certain areas, from contact with children, or from owning animals, vehicles, or firearms. Each is an infringement of personal liberty, but is considered justified in balance with the public's right not to be re-victimized.
As for the G20 itself--there was a credible threat. High-ranking dignitaries from numerous countries are an enticing target. Several terrorist plots in Canada had been recently unearthed. The fact that nothing happened would appear to suggest that the security worked--terrorists know they will not get treated with the same kid gloves that vandals will. Preventative measures are never satisfying, because the best that can happen is nothing.
P.S. I presume, that if you are truly for freedom of expression, that nothing will happen to this post.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-18 7:57:49 AM
Satire is not defamation. Otherwise Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have been bankrupted years ago.
Bail conditions must be reasonable, restricting freedom of speech is an unreasonable restraint in these circumstances.
The kettling tactics used by the TPS had nothing to do with protecting dignitaries from terrorists. The mass arrests did not target terrorists but protestors (both violent and peaceful).
Freedom of expression on private property is always at the will of the owner(s), or their representatives, of that property. I have no right to start reading the selected works of Ayn Rand in your living room, you have no right to making inappropriate comments on someone else's blog.
Mr Hundert is not being thrown off private property, he is being silence by the government for annoying the powers that be.
Posted by: Publius | 2010-10-18 8:20:46 AM
Satire is not defamation. Otherwise Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have been bankrupted years ago.
Anything that is demonstrably untrue and demonstrably damages the reputation of a citizen can be held to be defamation. That is for the courts to decide, not an activist.
Bail conditions must be reasonable, restricting freedom of speech is an unreasonable restraint in these circumstances.
a) I disagree; and b) It's not his speech that's restricted (see below).
The kettling tactics used by the TPS had nothing to do with protecting dignitaries from terrorists. The mass arrests did not target terrorists but protestors (both violent and peaceful).
Excuse me, the same mob that enabled vandals can, however unwittingly, enable terrorists, who would find it much easier to pull something nasty in the midst of all that chaos. Clearing the streets prevented this. Besides, the protestors were blocking traffic, hindering their fellow citizens, and enabling criminal behaviour.
Freedom of expression on private property is always at the will of the owner(s), or their representatives, of that property. I have no right to start reading the selected works of Ayn Rand in your living room, you have no right to making inappropriate comments on someone else's blog.
Rights regarding private property are curtailed when that property is maintained primarily for public use. A restaurant may be privately owned, but is subject to regulation in the way a private dwelling-place is not. They may not, for example, refuse to serve you because you're black, serve you rotten food, maintain an untidy premises, or arbitrarily strip-search you.
I had a feeling you'd resort to this "It's my house so I am the law" tack; it's a common libertarian fallback. It demonstrates a lack of sincerity and intellectual honesty. Censorship doesn't become not censorship just because it's your site, nor does threatening to take your football and go home make you the winner of any debate. Perhaps you should not be a blogger either, if you are unwilling to practice what you preach.
Mr Hundert is not being thrown off private property, he is being silence by the government for annoying the powers that be.
He is not being silenced. Conditions are being placed on whom he may associate with, in what context, with a view to reducing his known tendency to engage in criminal behaviour. Not for annoying anyone, mind you, but for plotting criminal acts of destruction of OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. And no, having a cause is not an excuse. The government is under no obligation to release an accused on bail. If he finds the terms of his release that onerous, perhaps he'll prefer it back in his cell, with his wallet lighter by $100,000. That still won't even approach the actual cost of his crimes, but it's a start.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-18 9:57:46 AM
If officer bubbles loses his police job, he could run as a conservative next election.
Posted by: don b | 2010-10-18 10:18:15 AM
Better hope he doesn't, Don. He'll probably want longer sentences for drug offenders.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-18 10:38:41 AM
Fantino II? Fortunately there will be a Libertarian running against Fantino.
Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-18 10:41:13 AM
No one is going to watch these cartoons and think Officer Josephs actually arrested Santa Claus or Barack Obama. It's satire, pure and simple.
Posted by: David Taylor | 2010-10-18 2:14:52 PM
Excuse me, the same mob that enabled vandals can, however unwittingly, enable terrorists, who would find it much easier to pull something nasty in the midst of all that chaos.
This would make for a decent Tom Clancy plot. It also has nothing to do with reality. Shane talks out of his ass and the sun sets in the West.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-10-18 5:29:26 PM
The videos are back.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MisterOfficerBubbles
Here’s what I wrote in the comments:
“Princess Bubbles, you really are a dumb fuck. Once Pandora’s box is opened there is no going back!
Did that lawyer tell you that all this would go away once you gave him some cash? He saw your dumb ass coming a mile away! Now he’s laughing all the way to the bank and the whole country, no the whole world, is laughing at you. You are the only one not laughing.
And boo fucking hoo if someone threatened to blow bubbles at your family. Just try and sue me you worthless piece of human garbage.”
Posted by: winston smith | 2010-10-18 10:25:17 PM
I suggest that if Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were Canadian, they would be locked up by now. Of course, Rick "Unfunny" Mercer gets away with it, because he's every party leaders favourite PR tool. He doesn't criticize or lampoon politicians: he promotes them and provides suitable cover for their statist agendas. I recall listening in on Mercer having a conversation with a student on the subject of political satire. When the subject of Jon Stewart came up, he sneered at the obviously more talented Mr. Stewart, and came up with this interesting bon mots, "Why would I want to attack politicians the way he does? I help them and they help me." I guess this is a good example of the CBC mindset in action.
Posted by: AB Patriot | 2010-10-18 10:40:17 PM
No one is going to watch these cartoons and think Officer Josephs actually arrested Santa Claus or Barack Obama.
No, but they might take away the general notion that Constable Josephs is abusive, violent, and unprofessional, which could easily affect his prospects in both this career and the next. It is this sort of damage that litigation seeks to redress. And I notice that Josephs, unlike the weasel who posted the cartoon, actually uses his real name. He may have acted like a jerk during the incident in question, but tho's more the man?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 8:01:17 AM
Nice flame, Winston, if that's your real name.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 8:02:10 AM
This would make for a decent Tom Clancy plot. It also has nothing to do with reality. Shane talks out of his ass and the sun sets in the West.
A fine speech, Cyto. Care to back it with some proof? Or is your horse already departing as swiftly as possible for the sunset in question in a vain attempt to catch up with your personal courage, which had departed for safer climes long since?
You can't out-argue me, and you can't out-insult me. What's left for poor Cyto? He just hasn't been the same since he played Russian Roulette with a clip-loading pistol.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 8:07:09 AM
As has been known to happen, Mr. Matthews is talking sense here. If this cop believes he has been defamed, he has the right to waste an enormous amount of money, time, trouble and self-respect proving himself wrong; and if he actually turns out to be right, he's entitled to all the blood he can squeeze out of this particular stone. It may even be worth it. But in any event it's his right, and not one of which any of us should be lightly deprived. And as you may not have realized, if take that right away from him, you take it away from everybody else, including yourself.
And of course, anybody who doesn't like his bail conditions has the absolute right to loaf in prison instead, eating steak and surfing the net at taxpayer's expense. If his guy has chosen to exercise that right, should I weep?
Posted by: ebt | 2010-10-19 11:11:38 AM
Poor Officer Bubbles.
But what is the difference between him and "Lucy" and "Lying Jackel" of CHRC/CHRT fame using libel suits/threats to try and suppress the damaging testimony eventually outed by CHRT Lustig?
Lawfare and Slapp suits - plain and simple.
He now joins them in what Mark Steyn described bet as a "fragile personalities".
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2010-10-19 12:07:29 PM
The difference, LS, is that Josephs has a case for libel. Not a slam-dunk case, but a case. Libel is a recognized legal matter. The CHRT, on the other hand, has argued that the law is no excuse, that the truth is no excuse, and that misunderstandings are no excuse. You can't compare the two because not only is their function different, but their methodology is profoundly different (and dangerously flawed).
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 2:19:55 PM
Sorry Shane - my knowledge of libel and defamation law may be lacking---but it appears to me from all the above mentioned actors and action cases that anyone can sue anyone (at least in Ontario and BC) for hurt feelings. Now Officer Bubbles.
Then if the poor aggrieved victim (Lucy or Bubbles) is mollified, he/she can abandon the said lawsuit without any consequences or financial compensation to the TARGET.
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2010-10-19 3:43:32 PM
Actually, LS, you've got it a bit narrow. Anybody can sue anybody for anything at all or nothing at all. Suing's easy. It's suing and winning in any meaningful sense that takes some doing, and suing at anything less than ridiculous cost that's just about impossible. That's why it's a rich man's hobby.
Posted by: ebt | 2010-10-22 12:06:27 PM
LS, if you know nothing about a subject, it's usually better to say nothing. Instead of telling us how you feel, do some research on the subject. While feelings are not generally compensable in Canada, damage to one's professional reputation certainly is. If Josephs can show that this extensive smear campaign has damaged his prospects for promotion or employment, he can petition for damages.
Furthermore, none of this is contrary to libertarian philosophy. Libertarians preach an extreme form of personal liberty; commensurate personal accountability is the other side of the coin. And if these bloggers' actions have impaired this officer's ability to earn a living to the tune of X dollars, then they should compensate him those X dollars. Whether a penalty beyond true cost should be assigned is subject to debate.
On a purely personal note, I find it very hard to feel sorry for a 59-year-old who signs "theforcebewithme" to vitriolic flames that look like they were written by a 15-year-old. Such behaviour is unattractive enough in a bona fide teenager; in a senior citizen, it is downright disgraceful.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-22 1:27:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.