[Benc7]

I marched today as an independent:

Turn my city into a fortress!
Pass a law in secret and then tell me it was on the Government Webpage and all I had to do was Google it. Right!
Spend a billion dollars ....a billion dollars! On this?

Jeebus! I'm out again tomorrow! I hope the media, the anarchists and the government (who spent a billion dollars!) DON'T get what they want. I hope it's peaceful.

 

[nfitz]

nfitz, SQ openly admitted that they planted agent provocateurs in the crowd at Montebello.

Two or three people keep saying that. I've googled around, and found articles that say SQ denies planting agent provacateurs. I'm not saying there isn't an admission; but I can't find reference to one. Please provide a link.

 

[WillC]

There are numerous Google references to the SQ admitting they planted agents withing the demos, and there are also numerous links to the video showing them dressed as the Black brigade approaching the police lines holding large rocks, as if they were going attack the police with them.

But of course the SQ isn't dumb enough to admit they acted as agents provacateurs. Anyone can see that their actions were provocative, and had they not been stopped by the other demonstrators, they would have give the police an excuse to charge all the demonstrators who were there, peaceful or otherwise.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

 

[doady]

G20 law gives police sweeping powers to arrest people
Published On Fri Jun 25 2010 Jennifer Yang

"The province has secretly passed an unprecedented regulation that empowers police to arrest anyone near the G20 security zone who refuses to identify themselves or agree to a police search.........."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...-police-sweeping-powers-to-arrest-people?bn=1

It just proves all the protesters right. It just shows the governments care more about corporate freedom than personal freedom.

 

[nfitz]

There are numerous Google references to the SQ admitting they planted agents withing the demos, and there are also numerous links to the video showing them dressed as the Black brigade approaching the police lines holding large rocks, as if they were going attack the police with them.

What I'm looking for are links to the the admission that they were inciting the rioters. We all know that they had officers undercover (agents? since when did SQ have agents?). We all know they were moving with the protesters carrying rocks. It's the actual inciting of violence that is the issue - and I'm quite interested to see the source for their admission that a couple here insist happened.

 

[khris]

5) Shelter is a right (should work be an obligation? I only raise it because there were virtually no immigrants at the protest, just whites like myself)

There are no caucasian immigrants?

 

[jn_12]

"So because I live just north of Adelaide, and I am walking around and a cop randomly decides to ask me for my ID, if I fail to produce it, I can be arrested when just going about my daily life. That is a police state, no?"

Correct - "No". Fact is you are not allowed to walk just anywhere you please in a democracy. Not within 3 inches of a Prime Minister for example. The knuckleheads who infiltrate peaceful demontrations get close to fences so as to pull them down with chains & hooks. Unless you are acting like a total idoit you are not going to get arrested. Interesting how some people only choose to excercise their democratic rights (not obligations) during mass street protests, but not on other occasions.

So I was at College Park today and read my marching orders from the flags & signs:

1) End the seal hunt (before or after the swine hunt?)
2) Disband the G20 (disolve the actual countries, or simply disallow contact between the leads of Brazil, China and France?)
3) Nationalize BP (and have bureaucrats find our gasoline?)
4) Ban de-investment (not sure)
5) Shelter is a right (should work be an obligation? I only raise it because there were virtually no immigrants at the protest, just whites like myself)
6) Protect the Environment (short on specifics...)

Anyway, its the 1% who ruin things, but that is true everywhere. Perhaps the whole thing is just street theatre on all parts.

Something tells me that no matter what they were opposed to, you would find something disagreeable with it. Some of these are specific, and then when they go broad (protect the environment, which is a rather important catch-all anyways) you claim it's not specific enough.

Also, we're talking about signs. Are you expecting a policy directive to be written out on these signs in 12 font instead of these quick slogans? I'm sure if you approached the protesters and asked them what they meant by de-investment, they would have gladly explained it to you. Mind you, de-investment is the type of thing that you cover in a Politics 101 class, so perhaps you skipped that class? Either way, perhaps you shouldn't criticize them for your ignorance? Here's a nice little synopsis for you to educate yourself with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_restructuring#Institutional_arrangements

 

[nfitz]

I only raise it because there were virtually no immigrants at the protest, just whites like myself)

There are no caucasian immigrants?

Ah, good catch! Buildup, I'm an immigrant, and I'm white. I know a lot of immigrants who are white. What on earth are you trying to say? What does skin colour have to do with immigration status? What would someone say something like this?

 

[WillC]

What I'm looking for are links to the the admission that they were inciting the rioters. We all know that they had officers undercover (agents? since when did SQ have agents?). We all know they were moving with the protesters carrying rocks. It's the actual inciting of violence that is the issue - and I'm quite interested to see the source for their admission that a couple here insist happened.

The video showed that they incited it, by carrying large rocks approaching the police line. The SQ admitted it when they acknowledged that these provocateurs were their agents. If you hold out for a statement from the SQ that they broke the law by using agents provocateurs, and are therefore subject to legal sanction, you're just grasping at staws to support the police. You might as well wait for OJ to admit he was the real killer.

 

[toraerach]

There are no caucasian immigrants?

And no Canadian-born people who need help getting shelter either apparently.

 

[nfitz]

The video showed that they incited it, by carrying large rocks approaching the police line.

The video shows the 3 undercover officers just standing there, and not quite knowing what to do after they were outed by members in the crowd speaking in French. Oddly the guy shouting in English doesn't seem to have figured it out, and perhaps doesn't understand those shouting in French. They didn't so much seem to be inciting it, but moved to the corner and talked with the police, and then pushed there way in ... I expect after they were outed they just wanted to make sure they weren't with the protesters. I'm not seeing much inciting going on here ... more pant shitting than anything else.

The SQ admitted it when they acknowledged that these provocateurs were their agents.

Now you are just making stuff up. The SQ never admitted that they were provocateurs? Why do you find the need to lie about this?

If you hold out for a statement from the SQ that they broke the law by using agents provocateurs, and are therefore subject to legal sanction, you're just grasping at staws to support the police.

People here say was admission. I think they were lying, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt, as I haven't read much about this in 3 years. But I'm not coming to the conclusion that they are indeed liars - why I don't know.

You might as well wait for OJ to admit he was the real killer.

Isn't that what his book did? Besides, the court did conclude he was the killer when it awarded damages to the relatives of the people he killed.

 

[WillC]

I've got better things to do with my time than try to prove a point to someone who twists words, in an attempt to prove an argument. If anyone else is reading this, they can see the video and judge for themselves.

 

[Coltaine79]

Let's rename this thread "Did or did not SQ incite a riot in Quebec?" and let's move the G20 discussion to a new thread...

 

[toraerach]

^ When it comes down to it, all that matters is that what happened in Montebello establishes a recent Canadian precedent of a police force planting officers inside a protest group. That there is the possibility and some evidence that they were trying to provoke violence in an otherwise peaceful demonstration warrants concern whether the SQ admits that that was their gameplan or not. Now that a larger summit in the largest city in the country with a larger police presence and much larger protests is occuring, we should pay attention to the precedent as any repeat may put more innocent people - only exercising their right to peaceful assembly and free expression - in harm's way.

This time, if there are officers planted within the protests, I don't think we can expect them to wear their police-issued boots again. We should always be vigilant of police actions. Each officer commands a great deal of power, and there is always the potential that they may abuse that power. Given the huge concentration of police officers in this city right now, and the relatively tense atmosphere, extra vigilance is merited. Most police officers respect the limits of their power and act responsibly, but it only takes one officer acting irresponsibly to cause a great deal of harm.

 

[buildup]

"empowers police to arrest anyone near the G20 security zone who refuses to identify themselves or agree to a police search.........."

What reasonable person would refuse to provide ID or allow a search in a protest with a violent legacy? These laws seem intrusive in theory. But imagine a real example where some tatooed protestor with a t-shirt wrapped around his head and what appear to be rocks in his pocket refuses to tell an officer who he is, or allow them to check his pockets? We have rights in a democracy, I am not sure where anonimity became one of them. If your intentions are honourable, legal protest, why be afraid of indentifying yourself?

"Ah, good catch! Buildup, I'm an immigrant, and I'm white. I know a lot of immigrants who are white. What on earth are you trying to say? What does skin colour have to do with immigration status? What would someone say something like this?"

Welcome to Canada. Unless for some peculiar reason only white immigrants have chosen to march, then I will stick with my assertion that a crowd which is about 90% white, in a city which has perhaps a 30-40% visible minority, is not an immigrant protest. Chinese, Indians, Africans etc are probably working too hard paying their mortgages and saving for thier children's education. As an aside, they are probably happy to see the emergence of the G20.

nfitz, if you are a white immigrant I will guess based on your language that you are anglo and therefore dont have the same hurdles as most immigrants. And if you're from Scottland or Ireland you are genetically predisposed to marching, unionizing etc.