[Peepers]

So one of their main responsibilities wasn't to protect the G-20 participants???

Actually if we are talking about the Toronto Police - which is the organization I would fault in all of this - their jurisdiction was OUTSIDE of the high security fenced in area. If you had driven around the perimeter of the fence you would have seen almost exclusively RCMP officers. The main responsibility of the Toronto police was to maintain peace and order OUTSIDE of the high security zone and in this mission they failed miserably. They allowed vandals to go on a rampage - they trampled on the rights of citizens to assemble and peacefully protest, they made illegal arrests, and on and on. Their performance was close to a 100% failure as you can get. As for the security of the G-20 participants this was not a difficult task since they were kept behind an impenetrable security fence and there were no public appearances by any of the major leaders who of course were fully protected at all time by their own top notch security forces (e.g. Secret Service).

 

[Fresh Start]

The majority of the arrests were not in the security zone.

Like no duh. I don't despise the city, btw, just the people running it currently whom use my taxes irresponsibly not to my community's benefit.

The most brutal violence appears to have been reserved for the media. Surely they HAD to be there; are you suggesting the media should have stayed away?

Surely the idle spectators whom had no business whatsoever being down there far outnumbered both the media and local residents whom were detained. They along with "freedom fighters" (lol!) comprised the majority of the 1100. And no, the media didn't have to be there, they could have covered the actual summit instead, not rebels without a cause whose affect on the leaders' proceedings was an absolute zero. They were there in hopes of sensationalism to grip an audience with... careful what you wish for.

 

[nfitz]

And no, the media didn't have to be there, they could have covered the actual summit instead, not rebels without a cause whose affect on the leaders' proceedings was an absolute zero.

Yeah, I thought you might say that ...

... because you'd much prefer that there hadn't been any media there to document the police beating people.

Your views are borderline fascist. Should we simply end elections and just keep the likes of Harper and Hudak in power?

 

[PinkLucy]

Can you imagine the uproar if the media hadn't been there? They would have been accused of not doing their job! So there they were, doing their job. What a concept.

 

[poppajojo]

D.C. agrees to $13.7 million settlement in 2000 mass arrest

By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 1, 2010; B04

A federal judge gave final approval Wednesday to a $13.7 million settlement between the District and people who were picked up in a mass arrest during a 2000 protest near the World Bank and International Monetary Fund buildings.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman said the class-action lawsuit, which has wended its way through the court for about a decade, will benefit "future generations" who want to speak out and air their grievances. He said it sparked a 2004 D.C. law that set out policies for police to follow at demonstrations, including a prohibition against encircling protesters without probable cause to arrest them.

Under the settlement, each person arrested and found eligible for compensation will be awarded $18,000, and the record of that arrest will be expunged. It also requires additional training for police officers.

"It is an important settlement. It's an historic settlement," Friedman said. "This is a fair settlement to the plaintiffs and in the interest of the First Amendment."

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the nonprofit Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, said the case has helped change the way police respond to large-scale protests and demonstrations.

"This has been an ongoing effort to make the nation's capital hospitable to cherished First Amendment activities," Verheyden-Hilliard said.

Brian Becker, who was arrested April 15, 2000, along with his then-16-year-old son, recalled police in riot gear surrounding a group of marchers peacefully protesting problems in the U.S. prison system. Becker, a group organizer, said he was arrested, spent hours on a bus, and later had his right hand and left foot cuffed together.

"The police made a decision to arrest us not because we were doing something illegal but because we were demonstrating," he said.

Attorneys said Becker and his son are among 464 people arrested that day who have come forward and are eligible for the award. They were in a group of about 700 protesters and bystanders arrested in the area of 20th Street NW and I and K streets. An additional 26 claims are pending.

George C. Valentine, deputy attorney general for the District, said in court that officials concluded that "settling the case in a fair manner was in the best interest of the public." The city, he said, "is paying a very high price."

Other lawsuits have stemmed from mass arrests in the District in recent years. Last year, the city agreed to pay $8.25 million to almost 400 protesters and bystanders to end a class-action lawsuit over mass arrests in Pershing Park during 2002 World Bank protests, according to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which also represents those plaintiffs. That case is awaiting final approval.

Ike Gittlen, 56, then a local official with the steelworkers union, was heading to dinner with a date in April 2000 when they decided to walk near the World Bank to see the protests. Both were swept up in the arrest.

"I was amazed," Gittlen said. "I came from a little town where you really do believe you have right to stand up and protest and, if you are peaceful, they will let you do it. I was truly amazed that in America this could happen."

 

[Darwinkgo]

^ doesn't really apply in Canada, American's have absolute rights, Canadians, on the other hand do not.

 

[nfitz]

^ doesn't really apply in Canada, American's have absolute rights, Canadians, on the other hand do not.

On one hand you are correct - however we do have certain rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our own Supreme Court issued a ruling last month that awarded damages against someone who was arrested and held at a political event without being charged, as it violated their charter rights. I'd think that hundreds of those arrested or detained for hours during the G20 would have a case.

 

[Darwinkgo]

If you read the link, the damages were for an unwarranted strip search. A more complete account of the case is here. No damages were awarded for the illegal search and seizure of his car, even if it constituted a charter breach. There were no damages for his arrest.

It would be tough to argue that the kettling at Queen and Spadina was as degrading as a strip search. The court has said the following test must be applied:

The first step in the inquiry is to establish that a Charter right has been breached. The second step is to show why damages are a just and appropriate remedy, having regard to whether they would fulfill one or more of the related functions of compensation, vindication of the right, and/or deterrence of future breaches. At the third step, the state has the opportunity to demonstrate, if it can, that countervailing factors defeat the functional considerations that support a damage award and render damages inappropriate or unjust. The final step is to assess the quantum of the damages.

Remember that to even get by the first step of the compensation test, the right violation has to fail the Oakes Test.

 

[nfitz]

If you read the link, the damages were for an unwarranted strip search. A more complete account of the case is here. No damages were awarded for the illegal search and seizure of his car, even if it constituted a charter breach. There were no damages for his arrest.

It would be tough to argue that the kettling at Queen and Spadina was as degrading as a strip search. The court has said the following test must be applied:


Remember that to even get by the first step of the compensation test, the right violation has to fail the Oakes Test.

Either way, it will be interesting over the next decade or two to watch this go through the courts. Given that many of the victims of the kettling were forced to stand in torrential rain for hours, that might effect the outcome of the compensation. And also the use of derogatory and sexist language by some police officers may also be a factor.

 

[tkip]

Wow. Made to wait to in rain for a few hours. The horror. One can only imagine the therapy these people will need to get over this trauma.

 

[tkip]

This is meaningless....watch TVO sometime, you might have seen Paiken talk about it...read a paper sometime, you might have caught the article....I don't really care that you and your friends aren't well informed, it proves nothing about the situation , other then your own lack of knowledge.



I don't know...your heads are buried in the sand? Why is it that you (and your firends) seem to be the only ones denying that this took place. Willful ignorance, perhaps.

Where's all this evidence with the media going nuts showing cops going nuts on protestors? Besides a handful of articls in the papers days after the summit, there's been little coverage since given to the so-called mass police brutality that threaten an entire city and traumatized so many citizens?

 

[Fresh Start]

Where's all this evidence with the media going nuts showing cops going nuts on protestors? Besides a handful of articls in the papers days after the summit, there's been little coverage since given to the so-called mass police brutality that threaten an entire city and traumatized so many citizens?

It's the illusion of salience. The media wants to whip us all up in a frenzy over alledged police brutality that never existed. I'm not saying that there weren't a few bad apples but c'mon, people need to understand that the protestors and bystanders made themselves a target in many instances by disobeying officer's pleas to cease and desist when going too rowdy, to the point of harassing officers. That's the beauty of video, the audience can interpret what happened any way the individual sees fit. From what I watched on the CBC, CTV, Global I don't see where the police used excessive force, that's my opinion. If the police used a drag net sweep detainment of people in order to identify and prosecute the criminals seeking anonymity amongst the crowd, that's not illegal.

 

[doug]

Where's all this evidence

Do you still need your hand held when you cross the street? You're going to have to do some of the legwork yourself, your willful ignorance game is boring and paints you as either extremely lazy or not quite bright enough to tie your own shoelaces.

 

[nfitz]

Wow. Made to wait to in rain for a few hours. The horror. One can only imagine the therapy these people will need to get over this trauma.

So basically you say it's okay to illegally arrest people, beat them, verbally abuse them, and degrade them.

I guess you must be one of Toronto's finest then.

 

[tkip]

So basically you say it's okay to illegally arrest people, beat them, verbally abuse them, and degrade them.

I guess you must be one of Toronto's finest then.

I think some people just have a problem with authority. I think as soon as the police decided to use force that weekend, there were people that were going to try and use this against them and scream abuse.