G-20 Most Wanted

[james t kirk]

Hey I agree with you completely. Well, maybe not the part about terrorizing Toronto. They burned a few cars and broke a few windows. If they had been terrorizing anyone, I think the cops would have done something about it. And I might add that for the most part all those thousands of protesters did a fine job too. I hope the thugs in blue that were so disrespectful to the uniform will be charged and punished.

Horseshit.

Did you EVER even consider the possibility that the reason that no-one was injured by the criminals was that the cops were there putting it on the line doing their job to protect the people and property of the the City of Toronto?

I guarantee you that if there had been no cops in the streets shutting this crap down that the dowtown core would have gone up in flames in the name of an anarchist field-day.

 

[james t kirk]

Don't hold your breath.

By the way, I find the violations of charter rights more important than a few broken windows.

The Charter does not guarantee anyone the right to smash and destroy the City of Toronto last time I checked.

Maybe you should invite all the little darlings over to stay at your place for a while?

 

[danmand]

The Charter does not guarantee anyone the right to smash and destroy the City of Toronto last time I checked.

Not to mention blowing soap bubbles. That is a henious crime. Can you imagine the mayhem?

Maybe you should invite all the little darlings over to stay at your place for a while?

You are free to invite all the rogue policemen over to your place.

 

[Questor]

Horseshit.

Oh, you mean the horseshit left behind by the police horses when they charged into the crowd of protesters and made arbitrary arrests in the "safe" protest area at Queens Park?

Did you EVER even consider the possibility that the reason that no-one was injured by the criminals was that the cops were there putting it on the line doing their job to protect the people and property of the the City of Toronto?

I guarantee you that if there had been no cops in the streets shutting this crap down that the dowtown core would have gone up in flames in the name of an anarchist field-day.

Well, actually that is a different issue than the one I was addressing. No doubt anarchy would rule without police presence in our society. For that, I support the existence of police in society. However, that does not mean that police abuse does not exist. Do you think the public should be free to criticize the police? I would like to know why the police sat by for hours while hoodlums destroyed public and private property. And then arrested over 1000 people the next day when there was no vandalism or burning cars.

I was taking issue with the use of the word "terrorizing" to describe what Toronto was subjected to. I live in Toronto and I did not feel terrorized. So to clarify, I looked up the word. I quote the most relevant definitions:

terrorize to fill or overcome with fear. To dominate or coerce by intimidation.

terror intense, sharp, overmastering fear. Violence or threats of violence used as a means of intimidation or coercion. informal - A person is who is especially annoying or unpleasant.

Okay, so I will concede that the vandals that were allowed to run free for a couple of hours while the media got their obligatory "burning car" shots were quite annoying and unpleasant. But come on now, don't you think that use of such language is over the top? Terror and terrorism are hot button words nowadays that are commonly associated with Bin Laden and the World Trade Centre. People do draw those connections. I suggest that Toronto was not collectively filled or overcome with fear, nor dominated or coerced by intimidation. And lets not pretend otherwise.

 

[james t kirk]

^^^I live and work in the 416. I pay all my taxes, including property taxes.

The G-20 should never have been held here (or anywhere else) due to the crazies and their idea of a good time. (Lease the Queen Mary II and hold all future meetings at sea in the middle of the oceans and let the crazies swim out to protest in shark infested waters.)

Tell me, why did anyone need to be downtown? There is simply no justification. They could have had all their "peaceful rallies" up at Downsview Park - made all their speeches, danced, and sang kum bay ah. But that would be no fun would it. Nope, it's a lot more fun to march through the streets of Toronto (several times even over the course of the week - blocking traffic and harassing people who DO work and pay the taxes) and create a mob. (Whether the so called legitimate protestors like to admit it or not, they created the situation from which the violence sprang. They create the mob, the mob attracts the crazies, a riot ensues, the police are left to deal with it to protect the rest of the taxpayers who demand it (like me)).

The police sure as hell didn't want to be there. But when the Police tell you to leave the scene of a riot - you leave the scene. If you don't leave the scene, you get arrested, even for blowing bubbles. I don't care. It's a riot and you're making it worse by simply being there and emboldening the crazies.

The crazies and their duped Protestor Enablers put the police in an impossible situation. The Police contained the situation as best they could, no-one was hurt, no-one was killed, and yes, property was damaged, but it was contained by the Police doing their job.

At the last G-7 summit in 1988 in Toronto, the tag for security was 6 million bucks. Helmut Kohl went out for a stroll by himself in the beaches and stopped to talk to people. Margaret Thatcher would walk herself from her hotel to the Convention Centre. 20 years later my fair town is turned into a fortress and the security tag is a billion dollars. What changed? Crazies with no respect or common human decency have taken over and want to kill, burn, and destroy. That's what changed. It's fucked up, but it certainly is not the fault of the police.

 

[Questor]

I live and work in the 416. I pay all my taxes, including property taxes.

Good for you. Unfortunately, paying taxes and working in 416 does not grant enhanced citizenship rights. As much as you want to look down your nose at all those nasty protesters, they have the right to assemble and protest downtown. Yes, even if it blocks traffic for a few minutes.

The G-20 should never have been held here (or anywhere else) due to the crazies and their idea of a good time. (Lease the Queen Mary II and hold all future meetings at sea in the middle of the oceans and let the crazies swim out to protest in shark infested waters.)

I don't have a problem with this suggestion.

Tell me, why did anyone need to be downtown? There is simply no justification. They could have had all their "peaceful rallies" up at Downsview Park - made all their speeches, danced, and sang kum bay ah. But that would be no fun would it. Nope, it's a lot more fun to march through the streets of Toronto (several times even over the course of the week - blocking traffic and harassing people who DO work and pay the taxes) and create a mob.

Well, they needed to be downtown because that is where the G20 was and that was where the media was. Its not a question of "fun". Its a question of getting your message to world leaders and the rest of the world. That can't be done effectively from Downsview Park.

Why did you need to be downtown? Oh, right, because you work and pay taxes. LOL There's those enhanced citizenship rights you were talking about before. That's quite a fantasy you've constructed. Why didn't you relocate your office in Downsview Park for the week?

The police sure as hell didn't want to be there. But when the Police tell you to leave the scene of a riot - you leave the scene. If you don't leave the scene, you get arrested, even for blowing bubbles. I don't care. It's a riot and you're making it worse by simply being there and emboldening the crazies.

I don't fault the police for being there. And I expect that the vast majority of them did a great job. So let's distinguish between:
1.) bashing all the police (the institution, and all its officers),
2.) criticizing decisions or orders that may have been given by politicians and high ranking police officers, and
3.) a few rogue cops that went on a power trip and probably broke the law.

When I am critical of police, in this case, I don't mean 1.). I do mean 2.) and 3.) This is why I support a full public inquiry into G20 security issues. We need to distinguish between these 3 things.

 

[fmahovalich]

Damn..I wanna have some fun with this. Next time the black block shows up at an event...I PLAN TO BE THERE.


I'll fit in with my camera and track the most aggressive. Photos of the anarchy will be obtained. I will discreetly follow the Criminal Anarchist and sit around until he can be weeded out and clearly identified. Licence plates, whatever.....he will then be summarily turned over to the Constabulary..and that big smug grin will be wiped off his face. He won;t even see me coming.....then it will be me...not him.....disappearing into the crowd!!!

That is my promise..my vow...to deal with the stress of this G8

 

[Questor]

you are free to invite all the rogue policemen over to your place.

rofl

 

[anon1]

The cornerstone of a police state is to have the citizens inform on each other.

 

[james t kirk]

Good for you. Unfortunately, paying taxes and working in 416 does not grant enhanced citizenship rights. As much as you want to look down your nose at all those nasty protesters, they have the right to assemble and protest downtown. Yes, even if it blocks traffic for a few minutes.

I don't have a problem with this suggestion.

Well, they needed to be downtown because that is where the G20 was and that was where the media was. Its not a question of "fun". Its a question of getting your message to world leaders and the rest of the world. That can't be done effectively from Downsview Park.

Why did you need to be downtown? Oh, right, because you work and pay taxes. LOL There's those enhanced citizenship rights you were talking about before. That's quite a fantasy you've constructed. Why didn't you relocate your office in Downsview Park for the week?

I don't fault the police for being there. And I expect that the vast majority of them did a great job. So let's distinguish between:
1.) bashing all the police (the institution, and all its officers),
2.) criticizing decisions or orders that may have been given by politicians and high ranking police officers, and
3.) a few rogue cops that went on a power trip and probably broke the law.

When I am critical of police, in this case, I don't mean 1.). I do mean 2.) and 3.) This is why I support a full public inquiry into G20 security issues. We need to distinguish between these 3 things.

So you neither live in the 416, nor do you pay taxes here (if at all).

No, the protestors do not have the right to block traffic and inconvenience working citizens. Show me where it says that in the Charter of Rights.

They could have had their fun up in Downsview, but they wanted to be downtown to cause shit – simple as that.

You go to a riot – you run the risk of getting arrested.

I didn’t go the riot because I was smart enough to realize that my presence there would be counter-productive and no good would come of it. And imagine that – I didn’t get arrested either.

 

[Rockslinger]

By the way, I find the violations of charter rights more important than a few broken windows.

I'm far from a constitutional expert but is my property not protected by the Charter also? If not, then we need an amendment to the Charter. Even the U.S. Constitution has 18 (more or less) amendments.

 

[Questor]

So you neither live in the 416, nor do you pay taxes here (if at all).

Where did I say that? It appears that you have concluded that I must not live in TO or pay taxes because I don't believe that doing so gives a person more rights than someone else. Better check with Spock on that one Kirk. Your logic is failing you.

No, the protestors do not have the right to block traffic and inconvenience working citizens. Show me where it says that in the Charter of Rights.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

This is not a black and white issue. That's why we have a Supreme Court - to interpret reasonably how such freedoms exist in reality. I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit that I am not a constitutional scholar. Exiling protesters to Downsview Park might be a nice convenience for you with your "enhanced citizens rights", but I am suggesting that the Supreme Court might find that to be denying people several of their rights above.

They could have had their fun up in Downsview, but they wanted to be downtown to cause shit – simple as that.

You attempt to trivialize it by calling it "fun", while what you do is "work" and therefore, in your mind somehow more worthwhile. I don't think drawing attention to global climate change and 4 billion + people living in poverty is trivial at all. You sound like a master of the universe. You chose your handle well. But I don't think you are any smarter than the average protester, and the work you do is certainly not more important than trying to change the world for the better by protesting government inaction on these important issues.

 

[james t kirk]

And where does it say that anyone has the right to block traffic, create a public nuisance, and prevent people from going about their day to day business in order to get their point across? A point that many may not agree with.

I don't see that part in your list of freedoms. I would argue that one can easily peaceably assemble in Downsview Park, or rent meeting rooms and engage in debate without forming a mob that blocks both pedestrian and vehicular traffic by marching repeatedly through the streets of downtown Toronto thus creating the fuel for a riot and necessitates the sending of a billion dollars on security. (Or do you not agree that if the "legitimate protestors" were holding their rally in Downsview Park that the crazies would not have felt as emboldened in their quest for destruction?)

Lastly, you are growing frustrated with me and you have started patronizing me and belittling me in order to make your point.

How typical.

 

[johnny]

I'm far from a constitutional expert but is my property not protected by the Charter also? If not, then we need an amendment to the Charter. Even the U.S. Constitution has 18 (more or less) amendments.

Actually Rockslinger, this is where the Charter is rather weak. No your property is not protected by the Charter. But I believe property rights should have been included in the Charter.
Good luck ever getting an amendment to the Charter, Quebec is not a big fan of it....Charlottetown, Meech Lake....I dont feel like re hashing all that again.

 

[johnny]

And where does it say that anyone has the right to block traffic, create a public nuisance, and prevent people from going about their day to day business in order to get their point across? A point that many may not agree with.

I don't see that part in your list of freedoms. I would argue that one can easily peaceably assemble in Downsview Park, or rent meeting rooms and engage in debate without forming a mob that blocks both pedestrian and vehicular traffic by marching repeatedly through the streets of downtown Toronto thus creating the fuel for a riot and necessitates the sending of a billion dollars on security. (Or do you not agree that if the "legitimate protestors" were holding their rally in Downsview Park that the crazies would not have felt as emboldened in their quest for destruction?)

Lastly, you are growing frustrated with me and you have started patronizing me and belittling me in order to make your point.

How typical.

Of course the Charter does not specifically say that you have the right to block traffic to protest, but having said that, The Charter and the Supreme Court have always had to mediate and a find a balance of rights. The right to protest and peaceful assembly and free speech are highly regarded rights. If there is a protest once in a while, the courst have determined that these peaceful assemblies and the right to assemble and free speech, out weigh the rights of the people trying to get to work and inconvienienced by the protest. As an example, look at how unions regularly block entrances into work locations. This is usually allowed until it gets out of hand and then the courts will issue an injunction.
The G20 should have, or needed to balance the rights of citizens to peacefully protest, key word being peaceful, with the security concerns of hosting world leaders. It is my opinion that these 2 issues could not be balanced. There is no question the leaders needed prtotection, but if holding this event in canada meant that the Charter had to be totally disregarded, then it simply should not have been held here.

 

[Questor]

And where does it say that anyone has the right to block traffic, create a public nuisance, and prevent people from going about their day to day business in order to get their point across? A point that many may not agree with.

I don't see that part in your list of freedoms. I would argue that one can easily peaceably assemble in Downsview Park, or rent meeting rooms and engage in debate without forming a mob that blocks both pedestrian and vehicular traffic by marching repeatedly through the streets of downtown Toronto thus creating the fuel for a riot and necessitates the sending of a billion dollars on security. (Or do you not agree that if the "legitimate protestors" were holding their rally in Downsview Park that the crazies would not have felt as emboldened in their quest for destruction?)

Lastly, you are growing frustrated with me and you have started patronizing me and belittling me in order to make your point.

How typical.

Well Kirk, you are talking like you are so much better than protesters because you pay taxes and work. And that your work is so much more important than protesting massive world poverty and global climate change. And you talk about how smart you are to not get arrested. Do you think that might be a little bit disrespectful of protesters? That was quite insulting to me. So I gave a little back. Seems to me you are prepared to dish it out, but you don't like it at all when you get it back in kind. I find your condescending attitude to be offensive, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it frustrates me. All the same, I am glad we have had this exchange of views.

And if you read what I said, you will see that I didn't claim the Charter says anyone has the right to block traffic and create a public nuisance. What I said is that it isn't black and white, and that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Charter. I think Johnny was a little more explicit about that, but said essentially the same thing. So on top of everything else, I think you are being disingenuous.

How typical.

 

[lapdoggy]

I found this...

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=191162&id=191543066296&ref=mf

and this...

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/8e/df/9ce99f35439586312a9165bcf2d5.jpeg

They just ruined the "Canadians are nice."Fuckers

 

[james t kirk]

Well Kirk, you are talking like you are so much better than protesters because you pay taxes and work. And that your work is so much more important than protesting massive world poverty and global climate change. And you talk about how smart you are to not get arrested. Do you think that might be a little bit disrespectful of protesters? That was quite insulting to me. So I gave a little back. Seems to me you are prepared to dish it out, but you don't like it at all when you get it back in kind. I find your condescending attitude to be offensive, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it frustrates me. All the same, I am glad we have had this exchange of views.

And if you read what I said, you will see that I didn't claim the Charter says anyone has the right to block traffic and create a public nuisance. What I said is that it isn't black and white, and that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Charter. I think Johnny was a little more explicit about that, but said essentially the same thing. So on top of everything else, I think you are being disingenuous.

How typical.

So it doesn't say that one has the right to block traffic, create a nuisance, prevent people from going about their work, vandalizing personal property, and creating a riot.

Hence some people got arrested. (There are laws in Toronto against all of the above.)

And Yeah, I do pay my taxes and until the crazies do the same I doubt they understand what that means. (Or care for that matter.) I have a lot of sympathy for a hard working guy who WORKS HIS ASS OFF to buy a Starbucks, or a McDonalds, or any other business along the street only to have his property destroyed in riot by morons and good-for-nothings. I do not weep for the crazies and those who were part of a mob that accomplished NOTHING, absolutely nothing in their fun little riot that got their asses tossed in jail. All that they accomplished or changed was the wasting of a billion dollars and the destruction of public and personal property of hard working people. (And yes, I do consider those people who work, who take risks to run a business, who work and employ other people to be superior to the crazies.)

 

[oldjones]

Just for the record: Although there were some 20,000 police on duty†, the highest estimate for the peacefully demonstrating marchers was only 10,000. Of that number, no estimate of 'thugs, hoodlums, terrorists, vandals, criminals' hiding amomng them gets beyond the hundreds. In all the extensive picture coverage, there is none showing police preventing the property damage (no attacks on persons have been discussed), only responding well after the fact (and after the perps had fled), mostly with overwhelming force. There were some thousand people arrested, to charge only a few hundred with actual offences, mostly minor, and only a handful with the actual damage. Of the 38 Most Wanted pix many are repeats. For all their efforts the police have pix of only at most two dozen of the 'thugs', and by their dress some of those are much more likely typical Friday NIte hooligans than Black Bloc Anarchists. So far there's not been a shred of a suggestion that anyone seriously had designs on the leaders we spent a billion dollars to 'protect'.

An awful lot of effort, for very, very little return, with a gaping hole right where we citizens most want our police to be effective: being on the spot to prevent bad behaviour, and control and arrest those who engage in it. And just how much of all this follow-up effort to you suppose is being paid for by that billion-plus 'security budget'? Wanna bet ther's swivel servants even now memoing that 'routine vandalism' is a local policing cost, just like they've decided not to pay for the windows.

Undoubtedly some police, even some Toronto Police, behaved badly, no group is all angels. But TPS got sandbagged and co-opted by the ISU, who spent more than a billion dollars to 'protect' 20 leaders from us. An ISU who didn't care what happened to Toronto, or how dangerous their conscription of our police would make our city. What would you expect from Mounties operating in a HQ in Barrie?

In round numbers your every taxpayer in the country put out more than fifty bucks to deprive us of our police and mess up our city that weekend. Not one penny ever voted on, all by diktat. Ineffective or not, there are agencies to deal with the bad policing; the inquiry we need is into the ISU itself, and how it spent so much for so little and got our protection so wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------

†Mostly visiting, and with widely varying professional standards and behavious as was evident. I keep thinking of the article in the Declaration of Independence, about 'quartering your troops among us without consultation' as grounds for revolt. Thanks OTB

 

[danmand]

Anybody care to answer the question:

Whenever an issue with the police comes up, there are always a large group of terbites that argue that the police is always right and they should be able to do whaever they find necessary, i.e be given absolute powers. I find that the average canadian are much less willing to give absolute powers to the police.

Why is it that people who see SP's for sex are more willing to give the police absolute powers? Is it because they are vastly more right wing oriented? is it in psychological terms an example of over compensation becasuse they are doing something that is not legal? are they latent homosexuals? are they americans? are there a lot of policemen here or what is the reason???