Holding an unauthorized opinion is dangerous...

You need an authority figure to vet your opinions for political correctness...like the CHRC or a police officer.

Better yet, why not a friendly visit from the NKVD, Gestapo, or something not so terrifying the East German Stasi...who will just keep a file to make your life increasingly miserable.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Wait a minute, I didn't hear tell of any officer unloading their taser on this guy. Seems like a step forward for the cops.

Welcome to the "new" Canada.

"Holding an unauthorized opinion is dangerous"

Even more so when you realize the rules are constantly changing. The opinion you were lauded for holding yesterday is verboten today and will be a 'hanging offense' tomorrow.

Why dont you get a group together, and park yourself in the same spot earlier on Friday, and be the first there and see what happens with the rest of the evening.. Just a thought.

If one runs around taunting obviously delusional people in the commons, then in the name of peace and order the law enforcement folks will escort one away. In the commons, free to say does not necessarily translate into free to argue, especially if the later case is seen by society as being gratuitous. Look, if every time a few dozen nit-wits took a long walk off a short pier, another half-dozen zealots went ballistic on us, y'all would be complaining about the decline of law and order. Why not just ignore all few-dozen and a half of them? It's not like they actually matter, in the grand scheme of things. They are like the plague. Thus while we may debate endlessly the abstract considerations at hand, one's personal objective should not be to defeat them, it should be to avoid them. Walk around them, not through them. Spend your time, instead, on something that has some likelihood of success. Or at least just laugh at them, for as Oscar Wilde noted, "if you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they will kill you". Unless, I s'pose, one gets one's jollies being perennially pissed off, in which case either pardon me, please, for interrupting, should you find this an interruption; or if I've made you even more pissed off, you're welcome ;-)

I guess, for good reason, $hit-disturbing is illegal, as it should be. Starting a riot is generally frowned on, although, I would wonder if you were the group on that spot before the others, whether the cops would escort the Anti's to the other side of the street or whether they would push you out, with the help of the police. If they did, that would be wrong, no doubt about it.

This news is both disgusting and disturbing, but having spent 8 months in Ontario, I can't say I find this surprising either...

Well ya gotta realize "the peaceful protestors" were protesting the Pali's UN-given right to bombard civilians with rockets, mortars and suicide bombs.
The Police position/action/policy is bizarre----the offender is the one who strikes the first blow----sticks and stones doncha know----
BTW---some-one should canvass the cops as to who decides who has the right to be offended.

If Josephine, correct name?, is a "Zionist" doesn't that make her a member of an identifiable group that has protection under the speech laws?

If free speech is protected, doesn't an actual breach of the peace have to take place before Breach of Peace can be invoked as a charge?

The police discretion on this particular charge harks back to the bad old days when police could arbitrarily charge citizens with "loitering" and detain them or cart them away.

This doesn't bode well for Canadians who want to follow in the footsteps of the Protest Warriors or Tea Partiers in the U.S.A.

Did the anti-Zionist protesters have a license to assemble for a protest or parade?

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, what exactly do sections-

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

9. Everyone has the right not to be ARBITRARILY detained or imprisoned.

-really mean if not to protect citizens from arbitrarily being subjected to charges/detainment/loss of liberty by cops who think the word "catalyst" is a big word and no actual breach has occurred to the peace?

Isn't the purpose of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect citizens from the overweening power of the government and it's agents?

So, Vitruvius...

"the plague" "doesn't matter"? We shouldn't try to defeat our enemy, we should just ignore him??

Those people aren't "obviously delusional" to the thousands of Torontonians, who share their views.

And maybe you missed the part where the cops -- you know, those well funded guys with guns and authority -- sided with the "obviously delusional" folks trying to finesse Canadian law to get someone arrested for STANDING ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK and "DISTURBING THEM" by her very presence.

Thanks for coming out, Vit. Pour yourself a nice tall glass of shut the hell up. While you're safe and cozy at home with your thesaurus and your collection of 78s, some of us are actually risking our asses to DO something.

You can thank us later.

Jezuz.

But of course, dahling, you're welcome.

Weren't you a founder of the Libertarian Party of Alberta Vitruvius?

Why is it exactly that Josephine shouldn't have been allowed to exercise her liberty in a public place in this instance?

Shouldn't Josephine's exercise of her liberty have been at her own discretion and not subject to arbitrary police coercion here?

Time to fire up the ovens “The Joooos are back”!

Hama’s and Code Pink can dance hand in hand in the streets listening to the music of their screams.

Welcome to Canada folks, where anyone from the Tamil Tigers to Hezbollah can blockade roads, burn synagogues, fund and plan terrorist attacks on the US and the Canadian parliament under the full protection of the law.

Stand near them peacefully protesting and you will be arrested or worse. NICE!

Thank you Liberal left for all the multi cultural enrichment, Canada is a far better country for my children than the one I grew up in……….//

Hope yours thank you properly too…………………

o{}o

Kathy- Don't be too harsh. I read his comment, and don't have a clue what he was trying to say. He may very well be supporting you.

There have been similar incidents in Calgary. A bunch of sock puppets parked themselves in a SW business plaza, that happened to belong to some Jewish businessmen. It took over a week for the police to get around to removing them for trespassing.

The police seem to take the position that it's easier to remove the lesser evil. Sort of like manning check stops in stead of arresting gang members.

Where do you draw the line between liberty and assault, Oz? Remember, assault isn't the same as battery. So, do you have a grand new plan that will solve all our problems, or should we instead attempt to proceed on the basis of the lessons of history, which generally tend to tell us that one is better off avoiding gratuitous fights? If one wants to fight the Nazis, one doesn't do it, personally (as one may have noted I provisoed my original point with), by attacking a pack of Nazis. Thus it is that I argue that one is better placed spending one's resources on something that has some likelihood of success, rather than on just being perenially pissed off.

You're right, DP.

Vit is one of those pretentious would-be writers who tries to sound like he's typing with a quill pen.

With "friends" like him, though.

Oh well, while he's enjoying his cocoa in the debate club, some of us have actual hard, dangerous work to do.

Kathy, I'll tell you what I just told Josephine. The cops can break your face with a night stick if they want. Really. And faces take a long f-ing time to heal.

So it is dangerous and stupid to go messing with the cops. Personally when I see a demonstration I reverse course and get the hell out, too much experience with watching people slooooowwwwwly heal after being smashed to crap. Pain hurts. Avoid it.

If you want to demonstrate and shout down the a-holes, show up with DOUBLE the number of guys your opposition has. Then the cops will hassle -them-. Biggest group wins, because its easier to tell ten people to move along than twenty. Cops are lazy.

But frankly I think your time is much better spent doing speaking engagements and writing than getting in punch-ups on street corners with these Leftist imbeciles. Probably the pay is better too, eh?

especially if the later case is seen by society as being gratuitous.

Oh, for Chrissake Vitruvius, there's no such thing as "society" let alone a "seeing society" "deciding" what it "gratuitous". And you a libertarian!!??

This seems to be a piece with your own new agey, and quite frankly, tiring and patronizing tirades about anger and blogospheric dysfuntionality. Listen dude: we have shari'a law in Canada now. Not officially, of course, but operationally, just as does the UK and America. It's been installed gradually and incrementally with the assistance of the prevailing attitude which you express here: let's not bother; let's be BIG about this stuff; let's not be petty -- let's give 'em their footbaths! Let's let them rule the streets. (See Paris, where one city street near a mosque is taken over by muslims for about 3 hours every Friday).

OT/related to your earlier lectures: Do you think Ezra Levant and Kathy Shaidle SHOULDN'T be angry? Do you think Levant would have engineered the very first innocent verdict at HRC were he not constructively angry?

You crack me up, Kathy. What do I do? Hmm?
And based on that knowledge of yours, exactly
how dangerous is it that which I do? Hmm?

Where do you draw the line between liberty and assault, Oz?
~Vitruvius

I've been charged with assault so I know where the line is.
The charges were thrown out because I didn't cross the line.

The historic origin of the the assault charge in English common law involved a gentleman obliquely threatening another gentleman at a public gathering where the first gentleman said to the second, "If not for this public gathering..." and jiggled the hilt of his still sheathed sword while looking intensely at the second gentleman.

Today we have a new charge called "uttering a threat" but it has it's basis in the original charge of assault.

Bottom line, there has to be some sort of tangible threat, not just a feeling.

Next, the Ontario government announces the purchase of downtown Toronto. Hamas becomes the de facto government. Fantino will prevent anyone not carrying a Hamas passport from entering.

Hope you don't own any property nearby, Josephine!

You've been charged with assault? I'm not surprised.

Did you hear that? That's the sound of my notion of Canada crashing to the sidewalk at my feet.
Do you know why,Josephine? Because YOU stood there and took the beyootches crap.And you know her? My guess your mother or mother's friend.Go join Vit with the pen and 78's.If that had happened to me,I may be in jail for assault,but you can bet your Tarranno ass some "cop"(isn't that what the Nazis called them) and this piece of work would be in the hospital till fall.
As Kathy said,you are no better then the one's you are supposedly fighting.
And Vit...it is my liberty to shove your pretentious arm up your butt,with quill still attached.The assault part comes when I haul it out your nose.HEY.That's what you are advocating with your crap above,so fair is fair,right??

You clowns are just plain stupid,and dangerous,as you don't realize what you are fighting.Go write for the Lieberals and Dems.At least then Hezzbolla may only make you kiss ass,before they kill you.

Fascinating.

You've been charged with assault? I'm not surprised.
~Vitruvius

Standing up for your rights has it's costs.
Did I mention the charges were thrown out?

I think if Josephine had continued to exercise her liberty she would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and later had her charges thrown out too.

What has happened to you Vitruvius that you have lost your first love, the love of liberty?
You're old enough and wise enough to know that death comes by inches.

When a man gets to used to bowing, he forgets how to stand.

So Vit, a Jew, or a Jew supporter, cannot stand in a public place and respond to people who speak to said Jew, or Jew supporter. Is that the stand you take? That is what it seems to me.

Go ahead and get all polysyllabic on me, antisemitism is antisemitism with or without a vocabulary. And you, sir, are starting to walk down a very slippery slope.

We all live on a very slippery slope, Enkidu.

I do agree with Phantom in that, when they begin reading the Riot Act, I'm outta here! As for Vitruvius' point, yes I like being perennially pissed-off, does he have a problem with that?

Hell no, Larben, I just want everyone to enjoy
themselves. Whatever turns your crank, baby,
as long as you don't bother me.

And one point to remember....Vit took the name of a Roman that stood by while his empire fell.Freudian slip there,Vit?
Like Kathy said,you may thank us later for saving your sorry butt.But in all odds,it ain't worth saving.

If these were Neo-Nazis, Aryan type skinheads standing there holding an anti-Israel vigil or whatever. Just standing there peacefully. No swastikas, no seig heils, just standing around boycotting Israel instead of a bunch of ugly women & students.

What kind of response do you think that would garner from the police & passer-bys?

Would Josephine have the right to react then Vitruvius?

Or should she just ignore them?

Who's side would the police take?

I see very little difference in the two groups but one is an identifiable enemy, the other hides behind anti-zionism and leftism and they get a pass. Even though their aims are the same.

Destroy Israel and destroy the jews.

If you don't confront evil it will confront you and everything you hold dear. It has been happening here in Canada, slowly & methodically but it is happening. Drip, drip, drip.

Of course: but how? That is the question.

Let us stand fast together, oh Gilgamesh, and defeat Humbaba to safeguard our first love.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
~Benjamin Franklin
(not a Quaker)

Speaking of being P'd off, and racism etc. - in a local paper, David Suzuki and someone called Dr. Moola, did a critique (if you can call it that) of the movie Avatar. As one would expect he criticizes "Right Wing commentators" who have condemned the movie as being anti-business, anti-Christian, and of being pantheistic and pointing out the exploitation of Native Indians by European types Etc.. Well the really, really, nasty guy is a middle-aged White male marine, and the next most evil is a Jew,(don't ask me how I knew, I just did)
Someday when Cameron grows up he may make a movie about men who look like they came from Japan and who indiscriminately kill people who look like peaceful Chinese in places that sound like Manchuria or Nanking.

'It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog'. I guess if we used vits logic all small dogs would refuse to fight unless they had some "likelihood of success", how do da no dat? I once heard 6 cops discussing what the word incongruent meant. They reached no conclusion.

Of course not. The small dogs would learn how to
gang up on the big dog, just like we humans have.

Vitruvius hasn't got time to defend the indefensible when he has to put on SDA Radio starring AnnaMaria Alberghetti. He's just trying to stir things up.

If this happens every Friday, get a group of people together to stand around and point and laugh at them. Aging feminists hate being laughed at, they think they are saving the world and they have no sense of humour.

“Standing up for your rights has it’s costs.” – OZ

Verses

“Walk around them, not through them” – Vitruvius

One statement represents freedom and liberty, the other represents the politically correct cowardice that brought our nations to this mess.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." – Thomas Jefferson.

One statement reflects the rationalization of much, much better men………….

Vitruvius said: "If one wants to fight the Nazis, one doesn't do it, personally... by attacking a pack of Nazis."

Yes, I agree.

The proper course of action is to BEND the government to your will. Y'all will have noticed there's this Conservative Party in Ottawa right now, who have made it a party policy that the Gun Registry will be repealed. Next session the repeal is due to come into law.

You think that happened by itself? Nuh uh, it happened because hundreds of thousands of cranky people like The Phantom quietly bent people's ears, wrote articles, wrote letters, and basically kicked the asses of the political class in this country for 20+ years. (Never forget Kim Campbell!)

Were there mass demonstrations? No.

Were anti-gun Leftist zealots beaten up on street corners by pro-gun demonstrators? No.

Did we sway the MSM to our side of the argument? Hell no!

Instead, we gun owners campaigned. The Alliance didn't come into being by itself, the PC Party wasn't reduced to two seats and destroyed by a miracle, Harper didn't get to be PM by magic. It happened by WORK, dammit. By a zillion hours of thankless, boring, friggin' work.

So Vitruvius is 100% right, and Kathy Shaidle is 100% wrong. Polemic belongs in print, not being yelled across a police line just before the bricks start flying. That isn't how we do it here.

Code Pink has a right to be the biggest, stupidest spectacle they can possibly manage. We all have the right to mock, boycott, smear, and generally point and laugh while we defeat their sorry asses in the court of public opinion.

We do NOT have the right to physically intimidate them or do psych warfare with cameras and etc. Not legally, and certainly not morally.

Don't be a problem. Let THEM be a problem. Let THEM get arrested, busted up, bankrupted, and ultimately defeated.

Remember folks: pain hurts and teeth don't grow back.

Aye, Hunter.

We don't all live on THAT slippery slope, Vit. I put it to you that suggesting that they STFU and get the F out of sight was probably fairly common advice to Jews in pre-war Germany, all in the name of keeping the peace, no doubt. You appear to be comfortable on that slope. Enjoy the ride.

I posted a big long thing that got caught in the filter, but basically what Hunter said.

Singing rude songs works too.

Following people with cameras and being a menacing problem, not so much.

Bubble zone.
If you tolerate something, you will get more of it.

Right on Celina!

Vit is right you know, the little old black lady who refused to move to the back of the bus, SHOULD have chosen a proper time to stand up for her rights, an empty bus would have guaranteed her total success while never confronting anyone or the actual object issue

which brings to mind, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to.......

Vit, do you like the taste of shoe leather?

30 meters seems like a reasonable restriction, depending on the crowd--course talking about the isra-pali types aint no normal crowd. Set your milkcrate anywhere on the square and wail away i say.

Thanks for the link, Kate.

"Singing rude songs works too.
Following people with cameras....not so much"
Why not? Nowadays everybody follows everybody else with cell-phone cameras. If you put it on You Tube don't you think it will not work?
****
btw on google christianity is (still) a lie and (after) islam (there) is (nothing).
I guess the google algorithm is still the same - [better to leave "islam is" with nothing after than get bombed.]

GYM >

Remember GYM that these are the same people who subconsciously do believe that blacks belong at the back of the bus and the Jews should have no place on earth to call their home.

That’s why they support Islam and affirmative action simultaneously – First through welfare handouts “keep em economically enslaved and on the other side of the tracks” and though Islam to “wipe Israel off the face of the map”. Thus facilitating the Nazi’s utopian dream while continuing to subjugate and murder Saharan Africa.

A win win for the left with the added bonus of using our legal system and tax dollars to fund and protect their efforts.

C'mon now, people.

Vit is clearly indulging his constitutional right to ingest fermented beverages, and no doubt disappointed that neither "T" nor "new" have shown up to stir the pot, took it upon himself to spice up Saturday night.

It's quite possible that, after some sleep, a few gallons of water, and some Aspirin, he'll regret some of his remarks.

Then again, maybe not.

Good job, Vit.

"The Alliance didn't come into being by itself, the PC Party wasn't reduced to two seats and destroyed by a miracle, Harper didn't get to be PM by magic. It happened by WORK, dammit. By a zillion hours of thankless, boring, friggin' work."
~the Phantom

I did that work too, Phantom.
I stuffed envelops and went door to door for the Reform Party to build up the grass roots here in Calgary.
That work of winning hearts and minds neither precludes nor replaces taking a public stand or demonstration against the opposition.

You aren't against the Tea Partiers or the Protest Warriors are you, Phantom?

Everyone considered him the coward of the county.
He never stood one single time to prove the county wrong.
His mama named him tommy, the folks just called him yellow,
But something always told me they were reading tommy wrong.

Now He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison.
I looked after tommy cause he was my brothers son.
I still recall the final words my brother said to tommy:
Son, my life is over, but yours is just begun.

Promise me, son, not to do the things Ive done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it dont mean youre weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope youre old enough to understand:
Son, you dont have to fight to be a man.

Theres someone for evryone and tommys love was becky.
In her arms he didnt have to prove he was a man.
One day while he was workin the gatlin boys came callin.
They took turns at becky.... there were three of them!

Tommy opened up the door and saw his becky cryin.
The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand.
He reached above the fireplace and took down his daddys picture.
As the tears fell on his daddys face, I heard these words again:

Promise me, son, not to do the things Ive done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
Now it dont mean youre weak if you turn the other cheek.
I hope youre old enough to understand:
Son, you dont have to fight to be a man.

The gatlin boys just laughed at him, when he walked into the barroom.
One of them got up and met him halfway cross the floor.
When tommy turned around they said, hey look! ol yellows leavin.
But you coulda heard a pin drop when tommy stopped and locked the door.

Twenty years of crawlin was bottled up inside him.
He wasnt holdin nothin back; he let em have it all.
When tommy left the barroom not a gatlin boy was standin.
He said, this ones for Becky, as he watched the last one fall.
And I heard him say,

I promised you, dad, not to do the things you've done.
I'll walk away from trouble when I can.
Now please dont think Im weak, I didnt turn the other cheek,
papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when youre a man.

Evryone considered him the coward of the county.

Phantom, you got to keep working and hopefully win some, most likely lose some, but don't give in or they will win.

You can not fight off the Bolshies by your self when they want your place, but you can fight them off as a part of a committed group if you start early enough.

What the f is going on with everyone tonight? Did I miss another memo? Is it random pissy-mood rabid-dog ad-hominem night again? Must be a full moon.

New moon last night.

Sometimes the path of least resistance is the best path when dealing with idiots. I think the "Zionist" did the right thing by staying but also would have done the right thing by leaving. By staying she should realize that her actions would have consequences though. Right or wrong. I still think the point she was trying to make deserves some serious consideration. That point being that if you look Jewish you can be told to move on by Muslims for no other reason than you look Jewish. There's the real slippery slope.

"That point being that if you look Jewish you can be told to move on by Muslims for no other reason than you look Jewish. There's the real slippery slope". - Posted by: gord at January 17, 2010 12:37 AM

Bingo! The point indeed.

It's ON!
Lord Monckton got KO'd in KO-open-noggan, because he followed the Red Cross Rules of Crowd Behaviour.
Let it be known the cops are facing the wrong way.
They will be staring at you from now on.
See- Caladonia, Tamil and all the anti Israel marches.
You should go to one.
Don't wear roller blades or bring kids if you want to rub in close to one of these things either.
It's serious, they don't have tractors pulling decorated hay wagons with pumpkins and bunting.

Awesome comments; Kathy and Vit. are both right, (edge Kathy for the huge huge risk factor the hard dangerous work and cool tunes are much appreciated, all.
Keep your powder dry.

*exception
The cops will probably be staring in the direction of the Richard-Gere-penis-list-chicks this night.
JDL Solidarity Rally for Geert Wilders Jan. 20th 9:30 pm 788 Marlee Ave,
I'll bring a few extra Infidel hats.

duoh, wrong time, 7:30.

I note, with no surprise, 'set you free' damning Vit. with praise.
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/eng/eng-stork.html

A few decades ago, the leftists wanted to fight the "pigs". Nowadays, since they've gained power, they've recruited the "pigs" to fight and crush dissent.

I strongly suspect the cops' actions stem from "sensitivity training", which police have been required to get in recent years. Since the cops are ordinary people and not generally great intellects (this is not meant as a sarcastic putdown), they don't think things out and just do what they're told.

Certainly the cops should not engage in any kind of racism, but "sensitivity training" done by lunatic left "anti-racism" extremists should not be tolerated.

Vituvious reminded me of a little parable taught me by a proud member of the IDF........

The scene is the Pale of Russia, 1890's or so.
A Pogram is underway and two jewish guys are stood against a wall, with a firing squad assembled.
The officer in charge, approaches and mockingly asks..."any last requests?"...
The one chap says "A last cigarette would be nice."
His companion, the other so-to-be victim, snaps at him....."SHUT UP...DON'T CAUSE TROUBLE."

Dear Vitruvius,

You really need to revisit your attitude. I have always respected your views and your strong intellect, but in this case I am at a loss to understand what your coming from.

Is it really ok that a law-abiding citizen is forced by the police to remove him/herself from a position just because some morons are offended?

No, it is not.

And, by yielding for this fascist bs you are actively assisting in the internally fueled erosion of individual rights, such as freedom of speech, which is one of the main causes of the decline of the west.

Instead, we must all defend the right to offend, especially the right to offend intolerant fanatics.

Perhaps it would have been sensible just to ignore these fruitcakes, as Vitruvius suggests. I mean, weren't they just a bunch of nutty old hippies? They sure came off that way. But I can't imagine how Josephine was breaking the law, and therefore I need to conclude that the cops must have been.

I do wonder whether they would have behaved the same had Josephine been a Hamas-fancier confronting a group of pro-Israel demonstrators. Knowing the answer to that would tell us a lot.

I'm wondering how many Jewish cops there are? I'm wondering how many Muslim cops there are? How come it's always Muslim feelings that have to be catered to?

When I read this item I was thinking, hmmmm, whose rights are being trampled here?

I don't like the direction things are going in Toronto. I used to trust police officers. 'Not so much now.

Jewish cops? Naw. In general, Jewish families steer their children away from "blue collar" jobs like that, or anything with a uniform, and they really hate guns. It will be their undoing.

You people don't get it.
The pinko protest is organized by those, who control police. Can anyone connect the dots and arrive at logical conclusions anymore?

not in Isreal Kathy , not in Isreal

> If one runs around taunting obviously delusional people in the commons, then in the name of peace and order the law enforcement folks will escort one away.

Thanks for showing your true colours again, Vit. And your occupation too. Kate, take a note about whom you granted some control of the blog.

I'm with vitruvius on this. He's right.

Josephine was being deliberately provocative to the demonstrators. It's irrelevant whether the demonstrators were protesting Israel or Hamas missiles or the HST tax. They were protesting - quietly - and that's the end of the story.

Josephine was deliberately trying to provoke them to an emotional - not intellectual - reaction. Her outline of her experience is subjective and focuses around her own sense of moral superiority. But what is being ignored is: She had deliberately moved into 'their space' or area of protestation.

Think of the protest, which is a physical spatial area...which 'takes up space'..as ONE organism. Josephine was moving into that physical space! Or think of that space as ONE voice. Josephine was interrupting that voice. The police were right in asking her to move out of that space.

Don't confuse the issue that is being demonstrated against (Zionism) with the reality of one person moving into the space - and I mean 'the space' of a visual articulation'.

Again, it isn't the content of the protest. If the demonstrators had been supporting Israel and Josephine, as an anti-Israel proponent, had walked into their space, I think you'd be upset at her disrupting their freedom of speech.

And remember, freedom of speech is what is at issue. Josephine, cloaking herself in a self-assumed moral superiority, was actually violating their rights to that freedom.

What could have been done? Well, nothing about Josephine; she's self-involved with her own sense of moral superiority. But, if you are that chuffed with the topic, then, next Friday, set up a counter-demonstration in favour of Zionism.

Or, argue the topic (for and against) on TVO. Remember, a demonstration is a visual articulation. It's like ONE WORD. It's not a speech, where you can break in and debate the issue. It's meant only to be heard. Or ignored.

And no, ignoring such demonstrations won't enable them to take over the govt. Debate the issues in the correct places...but..do you confront everyone who gives you the finger in traffic?

My comment was lost, so I'll try again.

I'm with vitruvius on this - he's absolutely right.

Josephine was being deliberately provocative, moving into the private space, and I mean private space, of a demonstration.

She wasn't attempting an intellectual interaction, which really can't happen at a demonstration, but an emotional provocation. The police were right to ask her to move out of the demonstrators' space and into her own.

It has nothing to do with the topic of the demonstration. They could have been protesting the HST tax. Their freedom of expression is what is important and Josephine was trying to endanger that freedom.

The topic? Debate that in another venue, which is open to debate. A demonstration is something like a word, one word, it's not open to debate.

Was the protest promoting violence? No. Therefore, they had every right to demonstrate. And Josephine had no right to set herself up as morally superior and invade that space.

"Perhaps it would have been sensible just to ignore these fruitcakes, as Vitruvius suggests. I mean, weren't they just a bunch of nutty old hippies? They sure came off that way."

Riiiigggghhhhtttt.And ignoring them has got us where?The Euro-wienies ignored Hitler too. Good grief.Just what are they (not)teaching in school anymore?

justthinkin - I disagree with your analogy.

Josephine was not debating the people in this demonstration, nor was she debating their opinions. She was setting herself up as morally and intellectually superior - without debate. And, in that lack of debate, was invading their 'opinion-space'.

By 'opinion-space' ..and it's a terrible phrase but I can't think of anything other at the moment, I'm trying to say that, given the vital importance of freedom of speech in any community that is interested in truth - we have to give people the 'space' to express their opinions. Then, we can debate that opinion.

This includes opinions that we might reject, and that others do NOT reject. Such as the opinions promoting AGW!

BUT, the debate might not take place at the same time! That's because an opinion-space might be confined to only expressing the opinion. Much like the Press before the days of the Internet. Countering that opinion would take another 'opinion-space' - another article in the press. Or holding a debate where BOTH sides can argue.

As I said, I support Vitruvius on this; he's right. This was not the time or place for interaction. And this lady was not interested in debate - neither side was; she was being provocative and invading their 'opinion-space' and violating their right to freedom of speech.

Don't bring in the Third Reich on this. That's a false analogy. No-one is talking about ignoring the content of freely expressed opinions - but, in allowing them to be expressed and then, in the correct time and place, openly discussing and, if you want, rejecting them.

I always avoid confrontation at the street level. It usually never turns out well. It is the lowest point of engagement. There are more potent ways of fighting this sort of evil. It is far more effective when your enemies do not know who you are or where you are hitting them from.

In other words, keep a low profile and work in the shadows. That is much more effective and much scarier. Just gather information on those who are pissing you off and get to them in whatever ways you choose. That way, you control the action and they become your victims.

I hope this is not too abstract a suggestion for the meek who may think that merely sending stern points of view via Email to your local politicians is the way to win anything. And forget the Marquis of Queesbury rules, we are way past those more genteel times.

Abe Froman - ahh, so, according to you anyone who holds an opinion contrary to yours is an evil enemy.

Then, you go after them personally. Not their opinions. But the person because you have defined the person as evil and an enemy.

Just out of curiosity, how do you 'choose' to get at them? Hate mail? Violence? Ad hominem? How? Since you don't debate their opinions but just go after the person who voices an opposing opinion - what are your tactics?

There are more potent ways of fighting this sort of evil. It is far more effective when your enemies do not know who you are or where you are hitting them from.
~Abe Froman

I think that was Josephine's point.
My guess was that she was getting digital pictures for her blog in an innocuous anonymous way in order to create a very different thread than what turned out.

In no way did Josephine engage these people.

"Josephine was not debating the people in this demonstration, nor was she debating their opinions. She was setting herself up as morally and intellectually superior - without debate. And, in that lack of debate, was invading their 'opinion-space'."
~ET

Rubbish.
Read Josephines piece again up to where the women approaches her and begins to make demands.

She was downtown and happened to come upon them.
She was taking pictures with her phone in a public place and they engaged her in an aggressive manner.

"Abe Froman - ahh, so, according to you anyone who holds an opinion contrary to yours is an evil enemy.

Not unless they threaten my liberty, well being, peace of mind ... such as they are doing to Jews for example.

Then, you go after them personally. Not their opinions. But the person because you have defined the person as evil and an enemy.

This would be considered a small nasty group with really bad dangerous ideas. Destroy the small group and the issue is set way back. I know you cannot destroy an idea with any means, but you can keep it in the closet where it belongs. When it become too painful to get our there and spew hate, people find something else to do.

Just out of curiosity, how do you 'choose' to get at them? Hate mail? Violence? Ad hominem? How? Since you don't debate their opinions but just go after the person who voices an opposing opinion - what are your tactics?

That's the scary and effective part. You just don't know .....

One more thing ET. There is no debating with these Jew Haters. They are acting on a belief, no logic there to debate. Just a lot of barbaric emotion. That is not something we should tolerate.

Dr. Evil...er, Justthinkin @11:46 - I'm not saying the cops were in the right, although I do think (hope) they were acting as bullies, not enforcers. It's their behaviour I find disturbing, and I think that was the point of the original post.

With respect, I don't agree with ET either, because I think the demonstrators were being "deliberately provocative" (I'd find it provoking), and show me the law which says you cannot photograph or peaceably confront (as Oz points out, they confronted her, but no matter) people demonstrating in public, or that they get squatting rights over "their space".

I'm not saying Josephine was in the wrong.

I just think it's pointless seeking out a yelling match (what else could it have devolved into?) with the more pathetic species of hippies and anti-semites. Attending pro-Israel demos is one thing and I would (no, I haven't yet. I live in Halifax. Yes, I should probably fly to Toronto for the next one. Don't bother calling me all me all talk and no action on demos, 'cause I just did it for you).

And I call Godwin's law on you. I'm not saying there's never a place for nazi analogies, but nobody wants to be the little commentator who cried "Hitler". I meant that I personally would have ignored these particular fruitcakes, not that we should ignore Israel-haters and confused Sharia-fanciers in general.

This is the nastiest thread I can recall, so I expect to get called names.

Am I the only one that thinks that Josephine chanced upon an opportunity to get some original material for her blog, in a public place, with no intent to be a "catalyst" and then had her Charter Rights under sections 7 and 9 violated by the police?

Aren't intent or actions of any import any more?

Some people here are ascribing things to Josephine that are pure bias on their part.

What was going to be one thread topic for Josephine's blog morphed into another issue altogether because of the action of the demonstrators and the police.

Does anyone think that Kate would have acted much different than Josephine here?

Kate, did you link to this issue because you have a problem with what Josephine did here?
I don't get that impression from the headliner.

Don't we want to see original content on blogs that are within our legal rights, and by legal I mean Charter Rights, to gather just as the MSM photogs that were there were gathering in a public place?

Does anyone see a problem that we seem to have Charter Rights and Freedoms only up until the point that we actually want to exercise them and then, POOF, they evaporate like frost in sunshine as soon as we exercise our rights?

oz- nope, I disagree. There's a great deal of hard factual data left out of Josephine's post.

Such as whether she just accidentally 'happened' on to the demonstration, and why she didn't simply walk on by. And how she seems to, as she herself admits, have a history of going to anti-zionist rallies. And even, knew the woman from previous times.

And why a young man called her a racist - what did she do to provoke that? And why the woman approached her. Note how our author objects to their taking pictures of her - and yet she takes pictures of them!
And SHE called the police over, despite no violence having occurred!

Abe Froman - I continue to disagree with you.

First- 'liberty, well-being and peace of mind' are hardly equivalent. So, your assertion that someone is an enemy because they threaten your 'peace of mind' is quite hostile. That means that any contrary opinion that disturbs you is unacceptable in your view; that person immediately becomes an enemy and must be silenced. Sorry - I don't like your type of society.

No, your statement that they are a 'small nasty group' is your opinion. And it's yalso our opinion that it ought to be silenced. I disagree. Your hostility to people who disagree with you is actually comparable to those anti-zionists! No difference.

Black mamba - I don't see where the demonstrators were being deliberately provocative. Remember, our data base is only from this one blog and from what she writes, it seems to me that she was the provocative one.

Again, both sides have a right to speak their opinion.

"First- 'liberty, well-being and peace of mind' are hardly equivalent. So, your assertion that someone is an enemy because they threaten your 'peace of mind' is quite hostile. That means that any contrary opinion that disturbs you is unacceptable in your view; that person immediately becomes an enemy and must be silenced. Sorry - I don't like your type of society.

Currently, Jews have as much liberty as the rest of us, but do they enjoy well being and peace of mind in our society when groups who want them all dead have more sway in our society than those who would defend them? There can't be true liberty without well being and peace of mind. So they are more equivalent than you suggest.

"No, your statement that they are a 'small nasty group' is your opinion. And it's yalso our opinion that it ought to be silenced. I disagree. Your hostility to people who disagree with you is actually comparable to those anti-zionists! No difference."

You suggest that I would silence anyone who disagrees with me. You don't know me at all and you are making grand assumptions. The fact is that I find many, if not most people I meet or hear about in disagreement with what I value and live by. Especially in socialist, multicultural Canada, but I have no particular desire to 'silence' them. However, the point I have been making here, which you continue to miss, is that Jews face an existential threat from not only the Islamic world, but many of Canada's 'old hippies' and union members some of whom gather every Friday to make their disgusting point.

If I were a Jew, I would definitely work to silence those hate groups who threaten, my liberty, well being, peace of mind as well as my very life and the lives of all Jews.

What part of that can't you get your bulging head around?

"An attitude of permanent indignation signifies great mental
poverty. Politics compels its votaries to take that line and
you can see their minds growing more impoverished every
day, from one burst of righteous indignation to the next."
-- Valery

I'll try again. Last post in response to Vitruvius's self-aggrandizing up-my-nose quote disappeared.

YES, inchoate anger is bad, corrosive.

But what about organized, expressed, constructive anger. Again, would Ezra Levant have succeeded in winning the first innocent "verdict" at the Star Chamber had he not been very, very angry and had he not sustained this over a very long period of time?

Moreover, Vitruvius, don't make the mistake of projecting a poster's persona HERE as being the sum total of that person's being.
When people bitch here they do so 'cos Kate created this venue as a much-needed outlet where there hadn't been one before. Read her declaration. Wasn't that constructive anger, and therefore healthy?

I just checked the two places where comments that don't go through end up, Me No Dhimmi, and there is no record of your missing comment. The server did suffer a few fits over the last couple hours, so in this case your previous comment may actually have been lost. Thanks for posting it again.

I certainly agree with your advice to all to not make the mistake of projecting a poster's persona here as being the sum total of that person's being, with the proviso that it is also a mistake to take personally anything someone posts about oneself here (unless one knows said commenter personally, of course). Furthermore, I think it is good advice to all to recall Aristotle's note that: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Lastly, note that Mr. Levant does not suffer from permanent indigation, which was the substance of Valery's quote. Ezra knows when to turn it on, and when to turn it off, and by default he keeps it off. Far too many blog commenters, on both sides of the isle, don't know where their own off switch is.

I assuming, for some posters, the amazing "off switch" kicks in after 13 posts in the same thread.

Nothing in Josephine's post leads anyone to believe that Josephine did anything other than come upon the demonstration by chance and then attempt to gather some blog fodder to generate a thread on her blog.

Am I the only one that thinks that Josephine chanced upon an opportunity to get some original material for her blog, in a public place, with no intent to be a "catalyst" and then had her Charter Rights under sections 7 and 9 violated by the police?

Aren't actual intent or actions of any importance any more?

Some people here are ascribing things to Josephine, outside of what is available for us from her own blog thread, that are pure bias on their part.

What was going to be one thread topic for Josephine's blog morphed into another issue altogether because of the actions of the demonstrators and the police.

Don't we want to see original content on blogs that are within our legal rights to gather, and by legal I mean Charter Rights, just as the MSM photogs that were there were gathering in a public place?

We keep talking on this blog about how happy we are to see the MSM self-destruct and be supplanted by blogs.

Just where are bloggers supposed to get original material to blog about if they are interdicted by police in this manner?

Does anyone see the problem that we seem to have equal Charter Rights and Freedoms only until the point that we actually want to exercise them and then, POOF, our rights evaporate like frost in sunshine as soon as some of us exercise those rights?

One can't turn indignation off, ∞², if it is not first on.

Is this thread supposed to be about indignation?

Isn't it?

Appears to be so from the thread title.

It also appears from the thread title that indignation, about what the police have done in Josephine's instance, is warranted.
Your mileage may vary.

So your position is that the "indignation switch" which was turned on by the thread topic should have been immediately switched to the off position, Vitruvius?

Just how long do you think this blog would last if it only consisted of your saccharine musical programing?

No, Oz, that's not my position; I've said no such thing.
Try reading what people write, instead of making it up.

Oz @ 5:55 wrote:

"What was going to be one thread topic for Josephine's blog morphed into another issue altogether because of the actions of the demonstrators and the police.

"Don't we want to see original content on blogs that are within our legal rights to gather, and by legal I mean Charter Rights, just as the MSM photogs that were there were gathering in a public place?

"We keep talking on this blog about how happy we are to see the MSM self-destruct and be supplanted by blogs.

"Just where are bloggers supposed to get original material to blog about if they are interdicted by police in this manner?

"Does anyone see the problem that we seem to have equal Charter Rights and Freedoms only until the point that we actually want to exercise them and then, POOF, our rights evaporate like frost in sunshine as soon as some of us exercise those rights?

Precisely.

You mean, Vitruvius, how some people on this thread have made up the idea that Josephine, the victim, was the cause of trouble here because:

ET- "Josephine was being deliberately provocative to the demonstrators." or "Josephine, cloaking herself in a self-assumed moral superiority, was actually violating their rights to that freedom." or "Josephine was being deliberately provocative, moving into the private space, and I mean private space, of a demonstration. She wasn't attempting an intellectual interaction, which really can't happen at a demonstration, but an emotional provocation."?

"oz- nope, I disagree. There's a great deal of hard factual data left out of Josephine's post."
(wow, ET's true life persona is the Amazing Kreskin! to be able to know what has not been revealed)

ET-"Such as whether she just accidentally 'happened' on to the demonstration, and why she didn't simply walk on by. And how she seems to, as she herself admits, have a history of going to anti-zionist rallies. And even, knew the woman from previous times."
(Josephine knew the woman from previous activist venues perhaps? The woman that is an ardent provocateur who thinks she is on a JDL list, Josephine doesn't say where she knew the woman from, but that gives no one the right to assume just how or why)
(Josephine didn't just "walk on by" because Josephine is a blogger with her own blog and saw the opportunity to record the demonstration for blog fodder)

If I were to assume that Josephine were purposely attending the demonstration, I would think that she would have used a better camera than a cellphone and been able to record the demonstration from a greater distance, say 30 meters away or more.
I have cameras that could do nicely from over 200 feet away, at night.
If I were Josephine, I would have had a voice activated recorder to record the conversations of both the demonstrators who approached her and the cops she dialogued with.

ET-"And why a young man called her a racist - what did she do to provoke that?"
(Yup, anti-Israeli activists are always provoked, never the provoker, that's why Israel, the victim of rocket attacks, is the bad guy to them)

Josephine was approached by them while she quietly, innocuously, recorded shots of their demonstration to use on her blog.

Can I ask you, Vitruvius, what the purpose of the Valery quote was if not to smear your opponents on this thread with having "permanent indignation" and thereby possessing "daily more impoverished minds"?

Why that particular quote, Vitruvius, or am I mistaken and was it aimed at Josephine who was the victim here?

Why that particular quote, who are you attempting to educate with it, and to whom does it refer here, Vitruvius?
What is your position on indignation here, Vitruvius, if I am so mistaken.
Don't be coy.

Josephine, since you are monitoring this SDA thread, will you answer these questions:

a) Where did you know the "JDL list" lady from?

b) Did you just happen by the demonstration unaware that it was taking place or was your appearance there premeditated?

c) Why did the young man call you a racist, was it because you look Jewish, you said something/anything to elicit any response, or some other reason that you can think of?

Thank you in advance, Vitruvius and Josephine.

No, that was not what I meant. No, that
was not the purpose of the Valery quote.

I'm with exetaz here, what's up with the venom flying around tonight? From a blogger's version of an incident that apparently no SDA commentators were witness to, everyone knows what when down and all the underlying motives. Y'all crazy tonight.

Sandra Ruch of Code Pink(The JDL List Lady)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztC9xvXQwo

Clearly, Ruch is a celebrity or celebrity wannabe who is shocked when she is recognized.

Thank you, Vi truvius, now, respectfully, will you please tell me what precisely you did mean by the Valery quote and what the purpose of quoting Valery was so that I am no longer mistaken as to the purpose and meaning of it being quoted here on this thread?

Thank you, again, in advance, Vi truvius.

BEFORE SO MUCH AS A SINGLE ONE OF YOU POSTS SO MUCH AS ONE MORE COMMENT, READ THE ORIGINAL POST FOR MY NOTICE RE: COMMENTING RULES HERE.

THANK YOU.

Forgot to mention, that the LEFT often uses an accusation of anger to silence/delegitimize their opponents.

Somewhere on the web a few days ago, a cat told about seeing Algore, with companions, at a restaurant just a few tables away.

When the Great Man was leaving, said diner piped up to The Great Man, "Heh, Al, how's that global warming working out for ya?". The Great Man was said to have spun around and glared at the denying diner and muttered sotto voce something along the lines of, "wow, you have a lot of anger ...".
SO, in some circles, the anger accusation is not unlike the raaaaaaacist one, eh? A subtle way of avoiding an actual debate by demeaning an opponent as unworthy due to his anger.

All that said ANGER in debate IS very often counter-productive. I watched the great Caroline Glick in a debate on Israeli TV with a uber Jewicidal moron, talking stuff and nonsense about outreach and understanding, yada, yada, yada. Caroline lost it and went a bit off the rails, and I said to myself, "You lost Caroline ...".

Right, Sorry for that.

Abe

OZ:

a) Non-political, more than a decade ago. That's all I'm willing to say. I have a good memory for names and faces. (Sandra Ruch is not the person who got too close to me and talked about Richard Gere.)

b) I knew the protest was happening because a friend (who is also not a member of the JDL) told me about it. I had an appointment downtown, so I decided to stop by on my way and check it out. I did not write in my blog post that the protest took me by surprise.

c) I believe he called me a racist based on my Zionism but he did not explain his statement and I did not question him about it. I said nothing to him that could be construed as racist.

So, Vitruvius & ET and some others:
- Is it, or is it not, my right to peacefully monitor a public demonstration and take some photos thereof?
- Is it, or is it not, my right to publically offend, deliberate or not, a particular point of view?
- When one party beats up on another, is the prefered reaction by the police to forcefully remove the attacked or the attacker?

Johan i Kanada....the simple answers to your questions @Jan 18,3:38 AM are as follows...
Question #1,yes and no....depends who you are monitoring....the one's preaching the hatred,or the ones trying to expose it.Here in Kanada you can't go around trying to expose hatred...it's non-PC,you know.
Question #2,yes and no.If you are defending the Pali's,that is your right.If you are defending the Jews/Israels killed by said Palis,that is not your right,here in Kanada.
Question #3...here in Kanada(or at least Ontario)...the police will automatically arrest the one trying to defend the freedom to speak to,and oppose,those who are deemed to be politically correct,even if they(the PC types) are preaching the killing of all infidels.Or not even that.Ask the residents of Caladonia(sp) how they feel about their police protection against a group of PC thugs.
Bing Chamberlain,Edward the 6th,Wallace Simpson, and Hitler.That worked well for them,or did it?
And sorry Kate...I know...take it to email...but I don't have johan's....if s/he would like to contact me....snafu200951@yahoo.ca

Hey.My post showed up as 8:38 when it is only 6:45(now) here???? Oh right.That east coast server thing...darn...I hate time zones

> She had deliberately moved into 'their space'

Thanks for showing your true colours, ET.
The shadows are starting to come out to light, finally.

So, you believe that informal groups own areas of public space in Canada that they consider theirs?

> There are more potent ways of fighting this sort of evil

This is an excuse of the coward. In reality all you are doing is most likely typing in the blogs from time to time.

If the nutbars are not confronted, they control public opinion. This is how we have LTTE and Hezbollah marching in DT Toronto and assaulting police, reporters and others.