Welcome to Police State Canada

[Pep'rJack]

The really sad thing is that once again, our government pretends that we are above such things, and refuses to conduct or allow an investigation.

Ain't that the truth. The thing that increasingly frightens me is that the Canadian population generally seems to agree. There is a weird and disturbing naive delusionism in this country wrt gov't/authorities that seems eternally unaffected by events, and almost militantly resistant to such revelations. Canada is obviously nowhere near as bad as many other places in these sorts of ways, but isn't remotely as saintly as most of us seem to relentlessly tell ourselves. The door is always wiiiiiiiiide open here for serious state corruption, mainly because the large bulk of Canadians apparently simply don't believe it's really possible, let alone happening. It's an odd - and possibly unique - cultural quirk that isn't nearly as benign as it seems. We've merely been lucky so far, imo, that it hasn't gotten out of hand. This won't last forever - it never does:

"An inescapable requirement of true patriotism, love for one’s land, is a vigilant distrust of any determinative power, elected or unelected, that may preside over it."

- Thomas Jefferson
.

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

Quote:Originally Posted by BuildTO

"The really sad thing is that once again, our government pretends that we are above such things, and refuses to conduct or allow an investigation."

Ain't that the truth. The thing that increasingly frightens me is that the Canadian population generally seems to agree. There is a weird and disturbing naive delusionism in this country wrt gov't/authorities that seems eternally unaffected by events, and almost militantly resistant to such revelations. Canada is obviously nowhere near as bad as many other places in these sorts of ways, but isn't remotely as saintly as most of us seem to relentlessly tell ourselves. The door is always wiiiiiiiiide open here for serious state corruption, mainly because the large bulk of Canadians apparently simply don't believe it's really possible, let alone happening. It's an odd - and possibly unique - cultural quirk that isn't nearly as benign as it seems. We've merely been lucky so far, imo, that it hasn't gotten out of hand - this won't last forever.

I just grabbed a quote from Lordmandeep in another thread (on Panhandlers). This one:

"The worst way to solve a problem is to ignore it."

You just dropped down another about Canadians.

"We've merely been lucky so far, imo, that it hasn't gotten out of hand - this won't last forever."

Yep. We've merely been lucky so far that ignoring the problem hasn't gotten out of hand..."

 

[screenplaying]

I have been enjoying this thread immensely! The last few posts have commented on the ridiculous spin being put out and how easily it is fed to certain people. Feeding babies is harder... you at least need to put some thought into the tricks and games that get them to open wide.

This thread showcases it all. A 'wrong' is exposed. Some people require step by step proof... they get it. But... they still don't believe it. They then require someone to admit to it. Look at that... it happens! But... um, that outcome is ludicrous. Let's change our original opinion of 'wrong' and buy into the story that it was 'right' all along. Koolaid is much better tasting than what some of those other posters are offering.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331 (part 3 discusses the SPP and is 'MUST SEE' intertelevision, as is the whole film)

I wrote this on another site (the mention of which was banned here long ago - I'm not bitter)...

What is disgusting is that the mainstream media can't handle it. It's the saddest of cover-ups because it's so obvious (the arrested men don't exist apparently). Everytime someone's pants are pulled down, the media gets shocked into sheilding their eyes.

Elephant in the room
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elephant in the room (also elephant in the living room, elephant in the corner, elephant on the dinner table, elephant in the kitchen, horse in the corner, etc.) is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored. It is based on the fact that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to overlook.

A similar idiom is 800 pound gorilla in the room. This apparently originates from a blend of elephant in the room with a separate idiom, "800 pound gorilla," meaning a powerful contender. (Where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Wherever he wants!)

It sometimes is used to refer to a question or problem that very obviously stands to reason, but which is ignored for the convenience of one or more involved parties. The idiom also implies a value judgment that the issue should be discussed openly.

The idiom is commonly used in addiction recovery terminology to describe the reluctance of friends and family of an addicted person to discuss the person's problem, thus aiding the person's denial.

The idiom is also occasionally invoked as a "pink elephant", possibly in reference to alcohol abuse, or for no other reason than that a pink elephant would be more visible than a normal elephant.

The term is often used to describe a political hot potato that involves a social taboo, such as racism, which everyone understands to be at issue but which no one is willing to admit.

 

[BuildTO]

Now even the Toronto Sun has come out criticizing the police, calling for an investigation, and pointing out that police should not be able to investigate themselves.

I think I can see flying pigs from my window...

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331 (part 3 discusses the SPP and is 'MUST SEE' intertelevision, as is the whole film)

Hi there, screenplaying. I checked out your video and cripes is it depressing. I only watched the first part and it's like every single horrid image in the last ten years went into that. I had to quit. I accidentally saw the first seconds of footage of 9/11 that I refused to watch the first time.

I will go look at that part 3 as you suggest but for now I'm in too good of a mood.

You wrote:

What is disgusting is that the mainstream media can't handle it. It's the saddest of cover-ups because it's so obvious (the arrested men don't exist apparently). Everytime someone's pants are pulled down, the media gets shocked into sheilding their eyes.

Yeah, there's been mention of the media-that-isn't in other threads too. Wrote the Torstar just this week (twice) suggesting that same thing.

That elephant in the room was excellent. Thank you for that.

"Elephant in the room
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elephant in the room (also elephant in the living room, elephant in the corner, elephant on the dinner table, elephant in the kitchen, horse in the corner, etc.) is an English idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored. It is based on the fact that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to overlook.

That's like I said earlier. If oblivious-me notices, that's one huge elephant the media is ignoring.

It sometimes is used to refer to a question or problem that very obviously stands to reason, but which is ignored for the convenience of one or more involved parties. The idiom also implies a value judgment that the issue should be discussed openly.

Yep, in this case two levels of government and maybe even the Federal as well.

The term is often used to describe a political hot potato that involves a social taboo, such as racism, which everyone understands to be at issue but which no one is willing to admit."

BINGO.

I did a video on Edward R. Murrow and in it there's reference to "the terror is right in this room". Instead of ignoring it? Murrow takes the elephant head on.

EDWARD R. MURROW --JOURNALISTIC COURAGE

 

[Admiral Beez]

Because they're trying to incite non-police to do the same, so they can be arrested?

You need bait to catch fish. If you want to identify and arrest those that would partake in a riot you need to first spark the riot. The fact that no riot ensued tells us that either the bait didn't work, or the fish (i.e. rioters) were not there.

 

[unimaginative2]

I can't even begin to list the number of constitutional and other protections against police attempting to provoke people to commit crimes so that they can pre-emptively arrest them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I can't even begin to list the number of constitutional and other protections against police attempting to provoke people to commit crimes so that they can pre-emptively arrest them.

I've looked over the constitution and can't see anything that protects against police povoking or entraping people to commit crimes. I suppose any protections as such would be found in the Legal Rights section of the Charter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 8: right from unreasonable search and seizure (only if the authorities believe someone is a threat to another, to society or to themselves, is such a search justified).
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment.
Section 10: The right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Section 12: Right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination (this is most seen during plea bargains between the accused and the crown)
Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

Perhaps we can use Section 7's rights of liberty, but provided you don't break the law, you're free to do what you want.

 

[afransen]

It's like the story I read in the paper about a day where they hauled a bunch of people to court for soliciting prostitution, most of whom were isolated/lonely immigrants, many of whom didn't actually seek it, but had a really pushy undercover cop beat them into accepting sex for cash.

I absolutely hate entrapment, and I'm disgusted that police in this country think it is a legitimate crime fighting tool. Same with their often questionable interrogation (aka psychological manipulation and abuse) techniques. I wonder why we end up getting so many fake confessions, when after 18 hours of police psychological manipulation, they manage to convince a person they committed a crime they did not.

 

[salvius]

I've looked over the constitution and can't see anything that protects against police povoking or entraping people to commit crimes. I suppose any protections as such would be found in the Legal Rights section of the Charter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 8: right from unreasonable search and seizure (only if the authorities believe someone is a threat to another, to society or to themselves, is such a search justified).
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment.
Section 10: The right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Section 12: Right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination (this is most seen during plea bargains between the accused and the crown)
Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

Perhaps we can use Section 7's rights of liberty, but provided you don't break the law, you're free to do what you want.

Why would such protections be found in the Charter? In addition to the Charter, we have the criminal code, as well as the common law defences. In any case, there indeed IS common law protection against entrapment (stay of proceedings; functionally, the same as an acquittal).

I am not a crim law expert, but the police could possibly be charged under s.22 of the criminal code for starters.

What has happened here is inexcusable, and it's revolting. I wonder how often this happens.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Without provocation nothing could be provoked ... and no crime committed.

 

[Hydrogen]

When raising the issue of rights, we should accept the fact of the individual and his or her own agency. Responding to an alleged provocation is a choice of that individual person; they alone are responsible for their actions.

 

[doady]

Of course Stockwell Day or Admiral Beez would not mind anything the police try to do to leftists.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course Stockwell Day or Admiral Beez would not mind anything the police try to do to leftists.

I can't speak for Stock, but I don't care if you're right or left, if you don't break the law I support your right to protest. I also don't mind our police inflitrating any protest, be it lefties against Globalization or righties against whatever it it they care about, to seek out and even entrap those that would turn a peaceful protest into a riot. I've seen unmarked police cars intentionally inticing others to speed on the highway and then getting them with a ticket - again I see no issue with this.

BTW, why do we presume that anyone who protests against these Globalization confererences is a leftist? Some of the most ardent supporters of protectionist and isolationist politics are those of the far right.

 

[Hydrogen]

BTW, why do we presume that anyone who protests against these Globalization confererences is a leftist? Some of the most ardent supporters of protectionist and isolationist politics are those of the far right.

Very true. And many of the bandana-clad protestors ready to trash a Starbucks can provide only the most incoherent shoutings as to why globalization is always bad.