News   Nov 04, 2024
 403     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 664     4 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 839     1 

G-20 Summit in Toronto

When I say black and white, I am referring to the view that you either have all possible liberties, or none.

What does that really mean?

If I were to try and walk down the middle of Yonge St at noon today (Nov 25, not during the G20), I'd probably be arrested. I'd probably be arrested if I walked down the adjacent sidewalk naked. I'd probably get charged with something if I were to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre for no good reason.

Since I don't have "all possible liberties" (liberty to walk wherever, whenever and however I want or the liberty to say whatever I want), then by your logic, I have none.
 
And yes, I do believe that the suspension of civil liberties is worth the protection of property owned by people who actually contribute to this world.

So it's a completely subjective judgement-call by someone in a position inherent to an anti-liberty bias?
 
Civil liberties do not include a right to destroy property or put others at risk. In other words, there is no inherent "either or scenario" in evidence. If individuals opt for destructive civil disobedience wherein they make a conscious choice to undertake violent actions, they should be well aware that there legal consequences to such actions - including arrest, fines, and jail time. They should also be aware that forceful measures may be used to stop them from carrying out such activities that may result in their injury.

Even non-violent civil disobedience can have legal consequences for a protester in certain instances. Ignorance of the law in that regard is no excuse.

Civil liberties should never be confused with violent civil disobedience. No one has an inherent individual "right" to do violence to others, or to damage public or private property. Any view otherwise would require a very clear rationale to support the individual case. Appeals to nebulous ideals need not apply.
 
They should also be aware that forceful measures may be used to stop them from carrying out such activities that may result in their injury.

...except for the G20 in Toronto, where the police stood idle as shops were looted.
 
So it's a completely subjective judgement-call by someone in a position inherent to an anti-liberty bias?

Sorry, what makes you say "anti-liberty bias"? Aside from that...sort of...I guess you could say that when suspending the civil liberties will prevent damage, then it is OK. Mind you, the frozen civil liberties were restricted to a certain zone. Like the wartime act, I think it would be handy for there to be a riot act that the province could enable for a location at risk of happenings such as witnessed that weekend. Having an act written down already, people will know what to expect, and reasonable limits can be imposed in the act based on discussion in government.

...except for the G20 in Toronto, where the police stood idle as shops were looted.

When people refer to the innocent being arrested, it's generally fair to assume that they are talking about Sunday when the violence was prevented, not Saturday.
 
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/children-police-kettle-protest

A protest in London today with thousands of teenagers against proposed tuition increases due to funding cuts was 'kettled'. See if you can guess why I posted this in this thread.


Some quotes:

"hundreds of police officers with riot shields, batons, dogs, armoured horses and meat wagons, then block the protesters into an area of open space with no toilets, food or shelter, for hours. If anyone tries to leave, shout at them and hit them with sticks. It doesn't sound like much, but it's effective"

"Behind me, some kids have started to smash up a conveniently empty old police van that's been abandoned in the middle of the road"

Kept them for 7 hours, on what was described as the coldest night of the year. ACAB.
 
Oh nice, things are about to get interesting...

Police officers not at fault for injuries during G20 protests: SIU

Brendan Latimer was knocked down by a herd of fellow protesters during a G20 demonstration at Queen’s Park.

Lying on the ground, police moved in and arrested the delivery worker. That’s when one of the officers allegedly struck him in the face, causing a fracture.

The 19-year-old’s case is one of six from the June G20 summit that has been probed by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit.

On Thursday, the agency announced no charges will be laid against police officers for injuries to civilians during the G20 protests.

In Latimer’s case, the agency interviewed nine witness officers from the Toronto Police Services as well a civilians. SIU director Ian Scott concluded that while there was “reasonable ground” to believe excessive force was used, they were unable to tell which officer caused his injuries.

“I’m let down, I’m very frustrated,” said Latimer, who says he also suffered two broken ribs and a deep cut to his head.

“They spent all this money installing cameras and surveillance devices . . . I’m enraged that they could use that stuff to catch protesters but not to catch police.

“It just seems like a double standard,” he added.

The SIU has a mandate to probe incidents involving police that result in death, allegations of sexual assault or serious injury.

Frank Phillips, an SIU spokesperson, said that only six complaints from the G20 were investigated by his agency because, “these cases met our mandate of serious injury.”

Dorian Barton, 29, was at a demonstration near University Ave. and College St. when he turned around to take pictures of mounted police officers with his cellphone. He was allegedly taken to the ground by a male anti-riot officer and suffered a fracture to his right arm.

Like Latimer, the officer could not be identified. Scott also said that Barton could not fully explain how the injury occurred.

“I ended up suffering a lot because of what happened to me and it’s frustrating no one is going to be held accountable,” said Barton.

In another incident, a YouTube video titled “Toronto G20, Peaceful Protester Tackled and Roughed Up,” shows Adam Nobody being chased by a group of about six uniformed police officers.

He is then tackled to the ground.

Because the officers all wore identical helmets and uniforms, it was impossible to identify which one is responsible for causing a fracture below Nobody’s right eye, said Scott.

Two officers were identified as having something to do with the incident, but exercised their rights, declining an interview with the SIU.

Nobody, 27, also alleged that two plainclothes officers took him behind a van, and repeatedly kicked him in the head. Scott said he found “no corroborative evidence.”

“It’s disappointing that the SIU felt that they were unable to get sufficient evidence to lay charges against any of the officers given the fact that all six of the complainants investigated did receive serious injuries,” said Toronto lawyer Peter Rosenthal.

“One would have thought the SIU would have been able to identify some of the officers.”

The Star recently ran a series of investigative reports examining a lack of results and accountability for police officers probed by the SIU over two decades. The series, “Above the Law,” found evidence that Ontario’s criminal justice system heavily favours police and concluded that officers are often treated far differently than civilians when accused of shooting, beating and running over and killing people.

“The record of the SIU has not been very good at pursuing charges against officers who have seriously injured people,” added Rosenthal.

Norm Morcos, whose complaint was also being investigated, said he wasn’t surprised. But not because the SIU was ineffective.

“The (SIU) officers I was dealing with were diligent and motivated,” said Morcos, who suffered a hand fracture, possibly from a police baton, while being corralled at Queen’s Park during the summit.

“I did not think that it would be likely that police officers would come forward and identify themselves as having contributed to my injury,” he said.

Toronto Police Association President Mike McCormack said it’s important to remember there were officers from across the country who came in to police the G20, “not just ours.” Responding to the SIU’s conclusions, he said: “Mr. Scott put it the best. There was insufficient evidence for him to the lay the charges.”

For Brendan Latimer, it’s all very frustrating.

“Just to know that they can say ‘Yes, we know this happened, but there’s nothing we can do about it,’ ” he said.

“If they can’t do anything about it, who can?”

http://www.thestar.com/news/toronto...ult-for-injuries-during-g20-protests-siu?bn=1

If these cops are knowingly withholding information about a criminal act - and are asked straight up about it, they should all be fired. Period.

Likewise, if cops can choose not to comply with SIU investigations, it proves that this organization is nothing more than a puppet show once and for all.
 
I guess taking off their identifying badges paid off.

And how can one refuse to be questioned? It's about time they were tried by the same rules as the rest of us. I'm tired of these special rules for those cops who are no better than the scum they are supposed to protect us from.
 
And how can one refuse to be questioned? It's about time they were tried by the same rules as the rest of us. I'm tired of these special rules for those cops who are no better than the scum they are supposed to protect us from.
They are the same rules. Unless you're under arrest, you too can refuse to be questioned by the police. Even if you're arrested you can refuse to answer any questions. The SIU asked to question the cops, they did what I would have done, refused their request unless I'm under arrest.
 
They are the same rules. Unless you're under arrest, you too can refuse to be questioned by the police. Even if you're arrested you can refuse to answer any questions. The SIU asked to question the cops, they did what I would have done, refused their request unless I'm under arrest.

So the police know not to talk to their police.

That should be a lesson taught to pre-schoolers along with ABCs and not hitting people. Never speak to the police, ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
 
They are the same rules. Unless you're under arrest, you too can refuse to be questioned by the police. Even if you're arrested you can refuse to answer any questions. The SIU asked to question the cops, they did what I would have done, refused their request unless I'm under arrest.
Then you arrest them ...

Or perhaps they can take a few swings at them like they do with the rest of us ...
 

Back
Top