Turns out the local CFS-affiliated University was housing some of the violent ones after all:

http://takebackyourschool.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/your-student-dollars-at-work/

So much for the CFS protesters being blameless in the rioting.

Every honest Canadian must be appalled and protest a secretly made amendment to CCC which gave police power to arrest anyone near security perimeter who refuses to identify himself.

Under Canadian law CC is a federal matter and provinces can't create new offenses by regulation.

The federal government fubared G20.
These idiots don't understand that it's their undoing. And the idiots on this blog don't understand that they've been had on the promise to allow you to keep your guns. Harper is not a conservative - he is an opportunist. He saw a business opportunity in promising you gun and property rights and you swallowed that lure. He is still riding the bandwagon he jumped on and you are still giving him excuses for not delivering on any promises he had made.

Poor you.

The commmie/socialist/progressive lefties are going to be in for a surprise at some point. Aaron, those guns we never gave up. Come and get 'em proggy.

Marko, the libs who will be elected next have a semi-auto ban already drafted. They will lay in wait until the cons fubar their support enough. There will be liberal government in Canada one day and PMSH seems to be hell bent on bringing that day closer.

I can take my guns elsewhere, but not everyone has that luxury. Plus I don't want to leave over the single issue.

You are dragging me along supporting that shepp in wolf clothes.

[quote]University of Toronto administrators are hauling in leaders of their Graduate Student Union Monday to explain why a union-run campus building was used to house out-of- town protesters over the weekend.[/quote]

There are a "Billion" reasons why criminal charges MUST be brought against ALL those involved, including U of T administrators... This is not trivial behavior that can be shoved under an administrative cover-up...

The CBC dropped the story, now reporting on the lack of five star room service in the lockup... Journalists that think a security clearance is an administrative process. Drivel by the drivel network

All those involved in the demonstration are guilty of the riots & thug's they enabled,
regardless of personal involvement...

The Names, Pictures & background of all those involved, in the NOT peaceful demonstration, MUST be made available to the general public. This must include names, etc. of the parents of those under 18... Combating International terrorism, riots, conspiracies require large funding (1 billion) and taxpayers deserve to see the "end" results.

I think deadly force, at the boundary fence, is cheaper & morally justified...Let the host city pay it’s own cost for childish civil disorder

Aaron, we've had this argument before. You aren't going to get every damn thing you want, right now, from any political party. Ever.

Yes, hosting G20 was dumb. That's a given. But look at the spectacle the Left has made of themselves here, and give thanks for this silver lining in the billion dollar cloud. The people of Toronto finally got their noses rubbed in the cost of tolerating the loony Left, and from all accounts they're disgusted. That's good. It isn't enough of a payback to make up for a billion bucks, but I'll take it.

The way the Canadian political process works is -slowly-. You take a little bit, you wait a while, then take a little bit more. The Liberals understand this, and they are LAUGHING at you if you vote for them in protest against Harper or spoil your ballot in a fit of pique.

You want to be laughed at by jackals, that's cool. Me, I like to defeat them and hang their tails on my barn.

Oh by the way, your guns aren't going to help a lot when three hundred cops show up at your house. With a tank. Ask David Koresh about that, eh?

You have to beat that problem at the ballot box before it happens.

After reading the the Torontoist it sounds like its time for "normal" citizens to gather for a Thank the Cops rally. Or have a morning where people are encouraged to applaud when they see the police.

Whatever their orders were, the guys and gals on the line did a great job.

Phillip G. Shaw said: "I think deadly force, at the boundary fence, is cheaper & morally justified...Let the host city pay it’s own cost for childish civil disorder"

Phillip, I share your frustration. But the use of deadly force is best left to individuals protecting their property. Governments tend to get carried away with the whole deadly force thing, as we know to our cost.

I think it would be more productive to have the G20 at a remote location and arrest -everybody- who shows up to break stuff. Let them go nuts breaking the forest up around Timmins.

I will say that the strategic application of -non- deadly force could have been much more well done. Stomp on the first dickweed that throws a rock through a window, and he will be an object lesson to the others. Cops are going to be made to look bad no matter what, they may as well look bad while getting the job done than look bad not doing it.

Agreed Stephen.

Normal as in not Shaidle the 50 year old teenage attention seeker, or Arnie "I'm on a public sidewalk and who cares if there's a riot" types.

Being one of the ones to call for a renaming of the Beaches as "Heads Smashed In, Rioters Put Down" on Saturday, I'd be loathe to exempt Shaidle from that simply because she's an activist I tend to agree with more often than not.

I dunno, maybe her and Arnie could set up a blockade busting flotilla to break the line because she's acting like a Hamas apologist.

But I'm also sure the irony is lost on her.

For an opinionated woman with no fear of sharing that opinion, she sure takes offence to mockery, but then consistency isn't something you expect from Shaidle.

OVER THE TOP REACTIONS, yes. Consistency, no.

Why was hosting the G20 dumb? Is Canada declaring that it is unable to host such an event?

These leaders have to meet; we cannot live in a world where it is impossible for them to meet and discuss issues! This has to be in a large city, because of hotels and airports.

As for the 'protesters' - they are 90% naive and ignorant juveniles who are out for a weekend of fun, and 10% criminal thugs who are out for the sheer power of destruction. Many of the latter came in, by bus, from Quebec (famed for its riots over hockey), and were housed, illegaly by the U of T student union.

What did the naive 'protesters' want? Well, those who had any idea of why they were there, apart from the fun, talked in vague amorphous terms of..the usual. Poverty, increase in welfare..oh, and some wanted free university and college tuition. In other words, a life of remaining a child.

Of course, the criminals have the usual mantra as well: anti-capitalism, anti-corporation, anti-American. They utterly ignore the fact that the buses they came into town on, were built by corporations and capitalism; that the buildings they stayed overnight in, were funded by corporations and capitalism...and etc. Their ignorance is astonishing. But their real reason is psychological; they love to destroy.

And those who were detained - their complaints were: the water they were given was 'dirty' (?); only a sandwich was offered, the rooms were cramped and cold. As I've said before, all 4 star hotels were booked solid and I'm sure the police and government told these demonstrators that beforehand.

Aaron, I can't see any problem with arresting someone near the security fence who refuses to identify himself. After all, to go through an airport check-in, you must identify yourself. To get medical care you must...; to cash a check, to enter a secure building or condominium or gated community, to..etc etc. What is so outrageous in your mind about, just as you identify yourself in other security zones, identifying yourself at a security fence?

"Stomp on the first dickweed that throws a rock through a window, and he will be an object lesson to the others."

Precisely. Things would have been a lot different had police stomped the first 10-20 protesters that took it upon themselves to vandalize vehicles and storefronts.

Nothing will cause a person to think twice more than the potential of immediate physical pain.

Phantom,

This si a constant meme, hold it somewhere else. Here is the problem, it doesnt matter.

When the leaders gathered in Kananaskis in 2002 where did the proto anarchist groups gather, the nearest metropolis, Calgary.

Did the protestors go to huntsville? No, they gathered in Toronto....and not just because the G20 was here. Cities are their ebvironment and holding it in a remote location only splits the security forces. What explains the violent rally in Vancouver, over 3000 km away?

Second point, are you only able to hold politcal acceptable meetings in Toronto? The problem isnt the meeting, the problem are the criminal protesters. Dont fall for the argument that says its trees fault that the axe cut it.

Security resources are better concentrated. The only argument for the remote location would be to better defend against a terrorist attack. the mob attack will always go to an urban environment, no matter where the leaders are.

Aaron: You obviously missed the memo. I'll quote it below.

Dear CPC Members: We are all progressives now.

As far as the G20, my opinion is that one should not blame the officers on the line. They take orders and are constantly looking over their shoulder at the progressive hacks in power who will make an example of any officer who steps out of line; not to mention the progressive media who will even manufacture crisis. Like soldiers, it's their job to basically do as they are told as set out in statute. Ontarians elected a progressive power, and the police simply reflect that. Sadly, they get crapped on from all sides.

> Aaron, I can't see any problem with arresting someone near the security fence who refuses to identify himself.

Then you are my sworn enemy, ET.
If you like to be randomly asked for papers, move to Russia.

> Why was hosting the G20 dumb?

Because 2 lunches and a photo op costing a billion dollars means that Canada made a bad decision and paid lots of money to the wrong people.

At the same time our hockey rinks are disappearing and our children get substandard education at schools. How much more quality of life could that billion dollar buy Canada instead? Lots.

Thank you, Cjunk.

Aaron:

Choosing to stand at the perimeter of a defined security zone excludes you from the definition of "random" bystander, so have your papers ready, or walk away.

Kate McMillan adds, “Any city that stands aside to photograph itself burning — deserves to.”

Nice line.

aaron,

do you drive? You have to take your license with you. Did you go to college or university? Cant get into a bunch of places without your student card. Gone to concert, hockey game or baseball game recently, knapsacks and purses are searched.

While I am sypathetic that people should be allowed to move around public spaces without ID or search it doesnt apply in this case.

Do you believe you could hang around the fence of a military base without being asked for ID? Do that in fron of a police station or a government building for any length of time and the same thing happens (under THIS very law)

Stop hyperventilating about this. It is minor, temporary and clearly justified. Comaprisons to a police state only reveal your innocence and lack of understanding what a police state REALLY is.

Your "hockey rinks are disappearing"?

Then build one. Just like most of rural Canada has - and operates - with volunteer labour.

Off-topic, but Senator Robert Byrd is dead. This now deprives the Dems, once again, of their 60-seat filibuster proof edge in the Senate.

First, Kennedy, now Byrd. Wonder which aging gasbag will be next?

Aaron,

One more question. Have you ever been part of a club or a group of friends who have gatherings or parties. Essentially, the meeting moves from one house to the other and the host pays for snacks and drinks etc....same with kids soccer.

We wont have to do it again for 20 years. Unless you are saying we should be part of the club but never contribute.

Now that I think about it that must be the issue, no summit meetings under a non conservative government for a generation.

I guess you also complain that we dont have enough influence in the world.

Aaron being randomly asked for papers does not apply in this situation. If you are walking down the street enjoying the sun and a cop demands to see your papers then your analogy would apply. However this was a secured area which meant you had to have proper ID to enter. For example: The last time I was on the flight line at CFB Cold Lake I had to produce ID to get there and ID could have been demanded of me at any time while on the flight line. Had I decided to evade security and wander the flight line the Military Police would be within their mandate to demand proper ID and should I fail to produce it arrest me. Its called security.

I'm pretty much tired of listening to those who are trying to convince me that they have the right to wander the streets as a public citizen during a high security event where violence had already broken out. The only purpose that these individuals want to project is to 'test' their rights. Well, go ahead, and you will find that your rights are actually limited. Police have always had the right to ask for identification and your business whenever you are in the public and particularly during a secure event. That isn't some sort of vast conspiracy to subvert your rights - it is part of being part of society. If you want to live off the grid in an isolated place - go ahead, but as soon as you agree to live in a community where there are multiple interests competing and receive any of the benefits of that community there is a trade off.

I lost a lot of respect of Kathy Shalide this weekend - her actions (and those of thousands of others who were only 'watching") just compound a tense situation where real danger is possible. You can choose to help a situation (for example not rubber necking at an accident thereby increasing the danger of those working the accident) or you can hinder a situation - Kathy you were an hindrance.

Lance there was no riot. We were on Bloor Street well away from any protest activity. The 30 or police on hand to subdue the 6 cuffed and seated miscreants were more than equal to the task of handling any sudden outburst of violence that may have spontaneously erupted from the passing parade of Sunday shoppers and any of the other citizens photoing the activity. The officer demanded we stop filming and move along, we refused, he became frustrated at his inabilty to intimidate and thus prevent us from engaging in a lawful rightful activity.

Allowing the cops to do whatever they want to do because you say so isn't any argument at all.
You may wish to live in a society where your rights are fundamentally undermined on the arbitrary whim of an unprofessional cop. I don't.

the cops did a wonderful job making sure things did not get totally out of control. saturday especially, they refused to get provoked into nasty incidents. but sunday, the cops were much more aggressive. very likely in reaction to saturday, but i think its fair to at least question some of their tactics.

no matter what, your are totally correct kate.... it wasn't FORCE. and i am thankful for that. nobody got killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heb9BXjYcII

We are discussing two different sets of cops here.

The cops dealing with anarchists were doing their best AFTER the rip on Yonge St. on Saturday. I still question the absence of cops in that situation.

However, can anyone explain why Arnie was told to stop his camera at a pro-Israel rally?

> so have your papers ready, or walk away.

Now you completely exposed yourself as a collectivist and of the most fascist kind (you are pretending you are the opposite).

> For example: The last time I was on the flight line at CFB Cold Lake I had to produce ID

Comparing being in DT TO to flying commercial airplane is comparing apples and oranges. One you can't help if you are a resident and another is voluntary acceptance of a business offer.

1) The secret regulation created by the city vaguely defined the arrest area as near security perimeter.
2) Municipal and provincial government can't create criminal offenses.

So Blazing, I guess you will be first to the barricades when a cop stops some brown guy with a camera and asks him why he is filming the Stock exchange or union station.

Come on, I thought you guys had more common sense than what you did. Or did you not notice that lots of the idiots who were causing problem looked like you, white, normal and with cameras.

A little unaware werent we?

> stops some brown guy with a camera and asks him why he is filming the Stock exchange or union station.

They can't. If they could, they'd had to stop Google.

Ring me up when you can actually make some sense Stephen.

Oh please, Maureen.

Do you think the guy who filmed the Rodney King beating was "hindering" something?

I have a right to walk on the streets I helped pay for, and use a camera in a public place.

And the pro-Israel rally was held to try to take advantage of the international media present at the G20. I don't think it did so successfully, but many groups do likewise, at all these sorts of events.

It's normally ineffective, but it's a pretty established tactic.

The misplaced and over-heated hostility I'm getting from so many normally intelligent people over this shows way more about them than it does about me.

Lance's name-calling is particularly embarrassing -- for him. Why so touchy, sonny?

Aaron,

They have and they do, or have you missed all th ecomplaints of racial profiling when the cops do this, on occasion.

But you missed the point because Blazing would normally defend that kind of police behaviour.

In both cases it is generally a "shoo fly" move on behalf of the cops. If there is other behaviour creating "probable cause" or suspicion then they can ask to see what you were up to, and take you into custody if you refuse.

This isnt collectivist fascism....goodness are we going to see the badly misused term neo con soon.....its simple policing.

Back to your original point, you can dance all around the former security zone tomorrow to your hearts content. So whatever problem may have existed no longer does, relax

I just don't see how this is going to work. How can Canada become the police state it seems to want to be when the police are just not up to the job?

Most pathetic police state EVER.

arne,

Give me your number and I will happily call, no hostility, just think you guys misread the situation.

Why on a weekend when the cops are probably wound tighter than a drum would you act like that. really, common sense should prevail.

A review of the last few days...

Bad: cops coming to your house warning you not to take part in real or imagined protests

Good: cops coming up to you on the street, warning you not to take photos of (non) protests.

Got it.

I don't see any "overheated hostility". In fact, until I posted this, I saw a lot of unthinking support from the usual suspects.

I mean - where was the force, really?

You described a pretty routine exchange between lippy bystanders and a cop practicing routine police work that could have happened anywhere in Canada, on any given day, and yet decided it was worth singling out a specific police officer over it?

The fact that people disagree with you just means that they disagree, Kathy. The comment about it "saying more about them than it does you" is a little thin skinned.

Remember, they're reading your account of the incident - not mine.

> So whatever problem may have existed no longer does, relax

It was a dry run, dude, following 4 year history of willful undoing of almost 400 years of human rights protection originating from decapitation of king Charles I by Cromwell.

Canadian provinces have been attempting to suspend the rule of law in favour of certain groups and individuals since bread was sliced, so nothing new here. Worst thing you are accepting that at face value as it does not immediately bother you until you are not gassed.

You're right Kate. And Kathy, you've shown that all of the addled aren't on the left.

"I mean - where was the force, really?"

Kate who said anything about use of force? Neither of us mentioned it. As for being "Lippy" we were in fact exceedingly polite, deliberately so until the officer became agitated when he realized I had turned my camera on. His uncivil tone triggered Kathy's response not the other way around. Having fudamental rights trampled on whether by one or a hundred cops in an arbitrary manner is an issue for us and many others.

Read the Wikipedia account of the aftermath of the Battle in Seattle 10 years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/l6waan

Executive Summary? The Seattle mayor and police chief lost their jobs, the city lost millions in legal settlements, and the anarchists considered it a great victory.

In a situation such as this there tends to be, ah, collateral damage, i.e. harassment, physical harm, and/or violation of civil rights to reporters and innocent citizens.

That "collateral" damage is regrettable and deplorable. Had it happened to me or mine, I'd be as personally furious.

Still, the real villains in all this are ultimately the blackguards in black, and we shouldn't forget that.

"Kate who said anything about use of force?"

Please review the quote provided.

"You you might hear from my lawyer....I have 10,000 readers, including politicians."

I was half expecting Shaidle to say that Mark Steyn had words of praise for her book.

Pathetic publicity/vanity stunt.

> the city lost millions in legal settlements

Million is 1/1000 of a billion.

Aaron,

Trying to parse the argument here.

Is your argument that the government is unequal in its application of protections and rights to groups and communities? If so, then there is a bunch of common ground.

But I fail to see what that has to do with saying there is a temporary security perimeter protecting a bunch of heads of government.

Now the "law" that was used is an existing one and the added the security zone to it. Was it done in as transparent a method as possible....no...do I have trouble with what they did, as opposed to how they did it, no. So the complaint is one of process not result, and a reasonable complaint.

buuuuuut, in the list of things to worry about at this time, this is pretty low on the list due to its limited nature, a post hoc review of its responsible use (lack of abuse) and the high impact of it not being available.

By all means lets discuss the process and review the law and its application....but it isnt so egregious and there are numerous examples to show it isnt unprecendented in other parts of every day living that we accept.

So, it seems that the issue emerging here and some of the other disputes on this thread are about the apparent contradiction in police strategies and actions. Thats worth discussing because it is worth examing and there are legitimate viewpoints on both sides

1) Why the difference between Sat and Sunday
2) Why not crack heads
3) Did the cops focus too much on protecting the security zones at the cost of property damage
4) Is lives over property always a legitimate policy

Lots to both sides and there are more questions.

I hope I didnt misrepresent your viewpoint.

Being a pragmatist I've learned to pull in my horns with certain people in positions of power. High on the list are cops, judges and camp cooks. They can all make your life miserable.

Some of then I came across were in fact a$$holes but I managed to overlook that in lieu of a spit laden meal.

Syncro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ze4F1Oetiw&feature=related

The cops may have been tightly wound, I suspect they were; but I know that they were horribly lead and managed. The trashing of Younge Street was entirely preventable - but it would have lead to some fairly hard core photos which would have been bad for cop and city PR.

The arrests on Sunday were largely pointless.

As for Arnie and Kathy - either you have rights or you don't. If you do then taking pictures in a public place is certainly one of them. And if a cop thinks he can tell you not to then, in fact, you don't have the rights you think you do.

I suggest for future security where protesters and mobs are hell bent on taking over the agenda our security and police save millions for Canadian Taxpayer and bring these demonstrations to an immediate halt by loading their water cannons with pig sh-t and telling the mob they have 10 seconds to clear the area. I am sure it will be very cost effective and the clean up will cost peanuts in comparison to coddling of the anarchists with our present security measures. Hey and our measure is also going green - that would even keep some demonstrators very happy.

Cjunk nailed it so well it needs repeating !!

"As far as the G20, my opinion is that one should not blame the officers on the line. They take orders and are constantly looking over their shoulder at the progressive hacks in power who will make an example of any officer who steps out of line; not to mention the progressive media who will even manufacture crisis. Like soldiers, it's their job to basically do as they are told as set out in statute. Ontarians elected a progressive power, and the police simply reflect that. Sadly, they get crapped on from all sides."

> what that has to do with saying there is a temporary security perimeter

I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. Guess you are not familiar with the verbiage of the temporary law, allowing police to arrest anyone who refused to identify themselves.

Arrest is a criminal matter. Police services act of Ontario allows police to arrest only those, who can be lawfully taken into custody. To take someone into custody lawfully police have to act on a criminal code offense related complaint.

Do you still see no harm in a city creating a new criminal offense w/o legislative approval?

But let me sum it up one last time: you'd have to live in a socialist country to recognize socialism. I do recognize it when I see it, while you don't. Sometimes even Canadians have to listen, no matter how humiliating this concept may sound.

They should have held it in Montreal as it would have been peaceful there.
Montreal Riot April 21, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hRvTjc4FLI

Aaron,

Its a fair discussion, although apparently the law has been on the books. This is typical of government, administartive changes to laws...that is an observation not a justification.

Its fair to question whether this process of designation was abused. My understanding of the law is that it currently applies to the legislature, the courts and police stations. Apparently any "public works" project is covered, that would include highway construction, and better yet sewar construction (usually dont by municipalities)

So the question becomes, do they need to add and gazette out each new address of a court or police station or are they covered under type.

I have a hard time getting worked up over this example because I dont have any issue with they did ultiamtely, and it wasnt that if you didnt id yourself you were arrested, it was if you stayed and didnt id yourself, thats a little different.

Anyway, fair nuff for the lawyers to work this out and get it clarified. For the moment, no harm no foul....challenge it and get a court ruling on its appication in the long run, in extreme anything can be declared a public work (especially if we lived ib Venezuala) so its worth circumscribing it.

I am appalled by even your attempt to justify random arrests in Canada. Clearly there is something wrong with your thinking.

> I dont have any issue with they did ultiamtely

That's definition of the problem, not an excuse.

If Canada can't host a G20 summit who can? We are a democracy, we operate under the rule of law. People who disobey our laws are dealt with. Hooligans, thugs, anarchists, terrorists cannot endanger our people or those who visit us or our properties.

Given how well it was handled, let's have more of them, to do otherwise is handing the crazies on the Left of the spectrum victory. We cannot surrender to such scum.

Kathy
"and the pro-Israel rally was held to try to take advantage of the international media present at the G20"
I think that for police a protest is a protest is a protest. They can not know whether your protest could become violent or whether someone from outside will make your peaceful protest violent. And the fact that your were "going to the pro-Israel protest" does not have anything to do with police guy asking you for ID. Your mentioning it in the description of event is a "red hearing".
I am not surprised that after Saturday police were jumpy - if you were in their shoes you would also be jumpy. And afer hearing your exchange with a cop I am sorry to say but you are in the wrong - you were not " in fact exceedingly polite" - you sounded like you were sneering at the cop, the police guy was courteous and you were bitchy.

Aaron

Stop saying that "only I can recognize socialism." I assure you many of us can recognize socialism or totalitarizm having lived in such countries. I think you are so scared of any possible similarities that you are oversensitive - see similarities where there are none.

Anarchy ... bringing you the world's best example of it, Afghanistan, one broken window at a time.

> I assure you many of us can recognize socialism or totalitarizm having lived in such countries.

I never said I was the only one who can identify socialist tendencies. Moreover, I was directly talking to Stephen, who never claimed he ever lived in a socialist country.

And you are wrong saying there are no similarities. Today's Canada looks more like USSR than today's Russia.

i just heard the arrest count is up to 900. apparently the black bloc has more members than the green party.

To summarize, the cops totally blew it by being AWOL and doing ZERO during Saturday's trashing of property ...then they blew it again trying to prove how tough they could be (AFTER the fact) on Sunday. Whoever was the chief cop in charge of this weekend's amateur performance needs to get his ass fired. About the only thing they might have done right was their raid on the U of T residence that housed the Quebec rioters, although they treated THEM with kid gloves!

I did security in my younger days. We've put 3M window film on all glass that could be broken if security could be compromised by that.

Well, look at the pictures from Toronto "riots" - jewelry store glass being shattered by 2x4. My jaw dropped: the owner apparently does not worry about his windows being smashed. Otherwise he would have spent a few hundred bucks and secured his window.

That demonstrates clearly that neither property owners nor police had any concern for broken windows. Entire $1 billion went towards "G20 security" vs. Toronto and its residents security.

Sure glad I don't live in Toronto any more. There must be something in the air that makes people crazy.

Aaron,

Driveby arrests? Dont think so.

What I dont have toruble with is that they designated the extra 5 m as an area that they can ask for ID for you to remain within...it wasnt for driveby arrests.

My lack of problem is also associated with there being a justification, a legitimate security zone, and short time frame that it was in effect. It is now gone since it is no longer justified.

Do you have any issue with its current applicability, legislature, court houses police stations, expansion beyond those areas, the way in which the expansion was done or the whole law?

Would you have trouble with crime scene restrictions as well? You arent allowed in even if its a public park. There is clearly a justification for that.

Nobody lives in the court houses and police stations. Like I already said. Apples and oranges.

I've asked on several threads: Who was 'in charge' over the w/e?
RCMP? OPP? or Blair?
I appreciate your summary davers6.
Or was a it a clash of egos, with no-one in charge?

I've frequently praised Kathy Shaidle in the past but she's way off base here. Indeed, normally anyone has a right to stand on public property but this past weekend was an insane situation where police didn't know who was friend and who was foe. Her and her husband might look "middle class" but I wonder if the 30-something ringleaders of the hooligans might not look middle class as well.

This insistence about everyone in Toronto being able to do whatever they wanted (you can't infringe upon my civil rights!) is at the heart of the problem.

I know her ego was bruised but she should have known better.

Aaron,

"Apples and Oranges"....are both fruits.

People dont live there but people work there and they are public spaces, as in being available to the public that we are supposed to have access to. So once again, I am trying to understand what exactly your objection is in this case.

Is it the law was applied in the wrong area, put in place by wrong method or shouldnt exist in the first place.

By this time I usually give up on individuals who don't understand after so many times.

Stephen, do you clearly not understand that being on a public street for any purpose - walking for pleasure, shopping, commuting - is in no way, shape and form similar to being at the courthouse, police station or inside fenced road construction excavation?

Further, don't you understand that until someone is accused of an offense there is no legal justification for requiring ID from that person?

If they are accused, then get their ID, suit yourself. But if police have nothing to accuse them of, then IDing them serves no useful purpose in a free society that Canada seems to strive to be.

Shaidle doing what Shaidle does best, described so accurately further up by lance. Indeed, as Kate said, most of us reasonable folk don't rubberneck when driving by a car accident. We certainly don't pull over, get out, and snap photos at the side of the road (you know, the road we pay for). We would certainly expect, if we did, the attending police officer would ask us to move along (you know, the one whose salary we pay). Nobody would begrudge the police officer for doing so.

Not really much difference here (indeed, with the attendant violence in the area, the G20 situation is arguably worse), yet Shaidle seems to want copious amount of sympathy directed her way.

Shaidle's behavior was discourteous (to be charitable) at best, and definitely over the top. I almost expected the discourse to degenerate into her saying, "Do you know who I am?" It would have been only marginally more disrespectful than the 'salary' comment.

Shaidle is that most remarkable of political creatures -- able to offend the sensibilities of both like and unlike political persuasions.

I would like these thugs to go to hell but before they do, they should be airlifted directly into Pyongyang. Where is their courage in Kim territory?
And there is nothing progressive about allowing mob rule.

ET and Stephen, IMHO hosting the G20 in downtown Toronto was dumb because it cost a BILLION DOLLARS of my money. Holding it elsewhere would be significantly cheaper, assuming it was A) not urban and B) defensible. Lake Louise would be a good spot, rent the whole place and use the Army for security. That's why we have an army, after all.

Stephen, if rioters rioted in the nearest city that's fine, they could all damn well rot in jail there for six months afterward too. I don't see a down side.

I don't object to holding the G20.

I object to paying a billion dollars to hold the G20. I object to a "security" force that allows vandalism to happen right in front of them (obviously because they were ordered to do so). I object to stripping the rest of the country of police for a week so as to assemble said force. I object to liberal policies that make it illegal for people to protect their own businesses from rioters. I object to government unions holding "peace" marches so as to provide cover for said rioters.

Also, frankly I object to the fact that the Federal and Provincial governments have the power to shut down the biggest city in Canada, for a week, to throw a -party-. They shouldn't be able to do that for anything less than a plague, a flood or other such disaster, or open war. Close Toronto for a frickin' photo-op? Are you kidding me?

Its a symptom of how much freedom we have lost that nobody finds this outrageous.

Now as to Kathy Shaidle and BCF: If Hamas shows up with cameras and their Hamas flag at a Jewish parade do the cops tell them to move along? Not a chance in hell, not even if the Joooos start in getting fractious and threatening. 200 cops will form a cordon around the little pustule of Hamas a-holes to "protect their right to free speech". Which is what they are supposed to do!!!

And we know this because that's what happens every single time the Indians burn a pick-up truck in Caledonia. You have 50 Indians screaming and throwing rocks, one (stolen) burning pick-up and some burning tires all on stolen land they aren't supposed to be on, then 200 cops in full-up riot gear facing -away- from the Indians and toward 100 locals from Caledonia who want to know why the G-dd@mn highway is shut AGAIN, and when are they going to be able to get to work today.

Kathy Shaidle shows up with a Jewish flag and a camera to the Hamas rally, she gets moved along in no uncertain terms. Blazing Cat Fur gets assaulted by Hamas lover/union thug who crosses the road to get to him, right in front of a fricking cop, BCF gets told to stop causing trouble and get lost.

Or, The Phantom drives past the Indians illegally occupying the DCE with a camera. And The Phantom then gets tailed by a cop car all the way through Caledonia, out the other side, and then pulled over by said cops in a full-up tactical stop with shotguns and everything. The Phantom then has his license number, name, address and etc. announced on the cop radio where the "demonstrators" can hear it clear as day because the cops are not using encrypted radio. Oh, and they searched my truck too. Nicely, but searchily.

The Phantom then politely asks the nice young man if it would be ok for him to leave town as fast as possible, the nice young man says "we're not running you off, its ok". Thanks kid, I'd believe it a lot more without your partner and his shotgun at the ready.

Its called two tier policing, where some are more equal than others. Y'all are on the wrong end of that equation by virtue of race, colour and creed.

Robert W

Absolutely right. Kathy had the right to;

1-not go downtown and add to the crowds of onlookers that the violent types were using to hide behind
2-to have some sympathy for cops who had working 12 hour shifts for a week in hot weather while wearing bullet proof vests
3-to exhibit enough common sense to understand that the cops just might have a little frayed nerves

Instead, she chose the right to be a total dickhead.

i agree with la shaidle and bcf

what kind of a gumshoe can't differentiate between a couple of middle-aged squares and two troublemakers on the make then he ain't no trained observer...

the badge in question was feeling his oats is what....a lot of cops do that you know....they actually enjoy being legal bullies as well as clock-watching do-nut scarfing time serving louts.......cause they can... see?

go bust a criminal i tell them....i'm a taxpaying law abiding citizen ferkrissakes...

BLUETECH ...nobody is rushing forward to claim they were the one in charge this weekend. On Saturday night Chief Blair spoke publicly (I watched him on CP24) and made an amazingly inane speech about the "great job" his police were doing (after we had just witnessed them live on TV doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while property - including their own vehicles - was destroyed) ... then on Sunday night (again on CP24) a different senior cop (Superintendant McGuire?) came out and praised the wonderful job the police did on Sunday ... it was surreal to watch them both, however it is worth noting that in both cases it was Metro Toronto senior cops and not RCMP or OPP senior cops who defended the "great work" of the police.

I'm very much a kick ass & take names kind of guy who admires cops who beat the snot out of bad guys but this weekend's police performance in Toronto was breath-takingly misdirected ... tough on little girls, while DOING NOTHING against the burners of cop cars and breakers of Yonge St. windows.

Phantom,

The rest here DON'T GET YOU.

It will all go over their heads because they don't have a CONCEPT OF FREEDOM.

What they have is a few quotes from those who DO HAVE A CONCEPT OF FREEDOM which they strangely liked and memorized. That's the definition of Canadian mainstream conservatives. The same mainstream conservatives think that libertarians are just a bunch of drugged nutjobs.

Aaron,

Of course there is a difference. But the law you are objecting to was about people loitering within 5 m of the fence. They were not arrested if they couldnt or wouldnt produce ID, they could be arrested if the refused or couldnt produce ID AND did not move back beyond 5 m. They had the right to refuse identify themselves.

As for the people within the security zone, well they fell under a different circumstance that had nothing to do with the law you mention.

I am not trying to be argumentative but I just think you are making the issue to be bigger than it was. That being said, I understand your concerns about how the law was put in place and about how it might be applied in the future, all worth challenging. For the moment it was no harm no foul (there werent the drive by arrests you spoke of) but the obscure law and admistrative implementations, as opposed to legislative, have now been flagged are being tested, for some of the concerns you have.

Stephen, I'll repeat one last time in capital letters so that you understand: in a free society you don't ask people for ID w/o accusing them of an offense. If Canada/Ontario/Toronto does, it's the definition of the problem, not an excuse.

My question is which is the bigger tyrant? Is it the 'government' and its agents who for security reasons block off a designated area for a short period of time? Or is it the twits who seek to show the 'government' by entering the secured zone that they won't be pushed around? Personally I can see a reason for the security zone. I can not see a reason for anyone not authorized to be in that zone. Maybe its just my sense of civic duty.

I find it hilarious and ironic that Shaidle went straight into threatening the officer with legal action. A tired cop tells a pain-in-the-butt rubber necker to move along during the worst riot in city history and she's talking about getting lawyered up.

Afterwards she can't understand why people side with the cop.

> Afterwards she can't understand why people side with the cop.

That's why Canada is not and will never be free. You don't have a concept of freedom. For you "the end justifies the means" (c) Joe Stalin.

Joe - but can we simply grok up front that Kathy & Arnie weren't in any sort of "secured zone" when they were given a taste of authority's short temper and lack of proportion? I know Toronto's a long way away from where most folks here are posting, but Bloor & Bay is nowhere near where the looting happened, and it's far from the G20 fence. "Police always right" is a dangerous slogan to rally around, as far as I'm concerned.

Aaron says:

"That's why Canada is not and will never be free. You don't have a concept of freedom. For you "the end justifies the means" (c) Joe Stalin."

Two rubber neckers get told to move along, who then get lippy with a cop, who then goes away. Excuse me if I don't think Canada isn't the USSR under Stalin quite yet.

Simple common sense. They weren't victims. Shaidle's remarks were tasteless and provocative. The cop was the one that walked away. Then she's up there doing Al Sharpton-style whining on her site. The grandstanding was shameless, and I'm not the only one who thinks that, considering the comments on this thread.

Phantom,

The costs of security might have been lower if they had been able to hold both conferences in Huntsville. But I am saying that the protests and the riots would STILL have happened in Toronto, the only difference, most of the police owuld have been in Huntsville and riots and damage would have been worse.

As for shutting down the city....yawn. People went to work, there was still shopping going on at the eaton Centre and Dundas square. It was held on a weekend. There is probably just as much disruption from Pride and Carribana in terms of gumming the city up. Add a riot to either of these festivals and its begins to approach the problems in terms of traffic etc.

The issue is the security zone. A better venue might have been the exhibition grounds....but then you have issues about hotels and shuttling the delegates from meeting halls to location. Thats what made the convention centre a requirement.

The right location isnt as simple as some people want to believe it is....but as I said, we have now done our turn and we wont have to do it again for 20 years, assuming it hasnt changed yet again, or we havent been kicked out or left.

We will see how the choice of Seoul works out for the G20 in November. I suspect the Korean police wont be as nice, but there will be riots there as well.

brick:

Amen.

"Excuse me if I don't think Canada isn't the USSR under Stalin quite yet."

Sorry typo, should be:

Excuse me if I think Canada isn't the USSR under Stalin quite yet.

aaron...I 'get' Phantom...don't try to speak for me.
You seem to be having a difficult enough time speaking for yourself.

It might also be your right to be in a hurricane, and the storm won’t ask to see your ID before hurling you against a nearby immovable object. At times, one should just avoid some places. Freedom allows stupid choices,but doesn't forgive the consequences.

I don't know about you Aaron but I do have a concept of freedom and its called reasonable compromise. My freedom to go anywhere I want ends at your front door. My freedom to throw a punch ends at the point of your nose. Your freedom to shoot a rifle ends when someone else becomes the intended target. There are two deadly sins of government one is too much government like the Soviet Union. The other is too little government like Somalia. Both have tragic consequences. The art to forming a free society is knowing where to draw the line. Pushing the limits as happened in Toronto over the weekend is not the way nor the time to set such boundaries.

Aaron,

I guess you dont drive a car or fly on an airplane.

And while I generally agree with you that a free society doesnt do that there are always exceptions within that society. They need to be justified and reasonable.

There are just too many exceptions within life to make your statement an absolute.

I say again, the specific law you mention only required you to produce ID if you were going to stay within 5m of the fence. You dont want to produce ID, move along.

I get your point....you continually avoid acknowledging or even countering anything I have said. I think we have exhausted this aspect of things because I am not sure what your solution was. Given that the secuirty zone was there do you believe that everything up to the fence should have remained a free zone? (a legit position)

Sorry but the police brass farked it up, stop blaming Harper he had no say in the way the police brass allowed rioters to run amok. The brass had no problem with their officers man handling law abiding citizens beit journalists or lookyloos. I don't blame the officers, I blame management it's appears that on day two they gave the police the go ahead to publcly harrass at will, as for the rioters good luck that kind of leftwing trash blends into their environment.

> Two rubber neckers get told to move along

Yeah, I know: 'because there is nothing to see here'. According to a cop. Thankfully it's two 'rubber neckers' who decide if there is or there isn't something to see. In a free society cop can't approach them. In a police state he/she can approach, ID and arrest them.

Your post proves my point that you don't have a concept of freedom.

Stephen, I remember seeing the city hall district in Seoul evacuated after a protest. Bricks, stones, ect. The Korean cops won't take any guff.

> There is probably just as much disruption from Pride and Carribana in terms of gumming the city up

Except that pride and carribana are Canadians voluntarily participating in a traditional event, versus foreigners invited here against our will.

During those two you know exactly when and where they occur. One example of piss poor handling of G20 for your 'don't see- don't hear' approach: thousands of drivers sat in traffic for several hours on Wednesday the 23d, few days before announced meeting, because Ontario/Toronto government decided to close HW 427 w/o announcing that on the incoming highways.

People were coming up on 403 and down on 410 as well as from Dixie Rd etc w/o knowing that 427 was closed.

Even more: we were told that 427 South was closed, but weren't told that Renforth Dr was closed too. Renforth is the last exit before 427 and some thought that they would be able to bail out onto there and still get to Mississauga locations via city streets.

They neglected the interests of thousands of Canadians in favour of a bunch of foreigners. That's disruptive enough for me. For them we are just cattle who can be herded onto the HW for hours and denied going to our destinations.

If you don't see it, you are willfully blind and not willing to see beyond your small village mentality.

I'm sorry Kate for using your blog, but since Kathy doesn't allow comments on her site...

Kathy - you may have 10,000 readers, but as of today you have one less. I don't know why anyone would be interested in being a police officer these days given the carp citizens think they can throw at a person who is doing their job - and quite frankly citizens have no idea what police do (which is demonstrated time and time again when people who have never had to take down a person resisting arrest has indepth knowledge about how to do it!).

The police in this situation were set up from the beginning - the constant yapping from the federal opposition parties, bloggers, protesters, and the media about the costs of security, the way that the police were implementing security, how protesters would just peaceful groups promoting their cause (when everyone knew from the beginning there would be people in the protests whose main purpose was violence) etc. made it a pretty clear bet from the beginning that whatever the police did or didn't do, they would be criticized for it. And you went right along with all the other useful idiots to demonstrate that this was the case. Well, congrats, you have lost one reader and a person who contributed to you defense fund - don't come asking again!!

brick60, you don't have a problem when cops come and roust you for standing across the street filming them? How about for just standing there? Me, I don't like that.

Try riding a motorcycle and getting pulled over -weekly- for them to "check your license and insurance", that'll give you a different attitude. Years go by that I don't get pulled over in my truck, days went by that I didn't get pulled over on my bike, for -nothing-.

Our government and our police forces have far too much power and far too much money. I think it would be excellent if a future government had to cancel their G20 megaplan and have it at the airport Hilton because of a budget shortfall. Bignuts world leaders could stay on their aircraft and bring their own beer, union thugs and fellow travelers could get shot in the @ss with rock salt trying to break the windows at Starbucks. By the owner.

Its a symptom of how much freedom we have lost that nobody finds this outrageous.

What? That they can with no legislative authority shut down part of Toronto? Force businesses to close without compensation? Arrest people for walking around? Violate the constitution on a whim? Dude, Canadians don't care about this crazy 'liberty' and 'freedom' stuff. The vast majority don't pay any attention and the partisans only object if it's the other guy doing it. It is too bad that there are so many conservatives that are reflexively pro-police (who hate every other bureaucrat oddly enough) and even a few who want the state to be more brutal in repressing people (i.e. the posters above who wanted them to shoot and beat people). I'd quote Franklin but they'd probably tell me he was a hippy with long hair...

Aaron: "Yeah, I know: 'because there is nothing to see here'. According to a cop. Thankfully it's two 'rubber neckers' who decide if there is or there isn't something to see. In a free society cop can't approach them. In a police state he/she can approach, ID and arrest them."

-----> You have no sense of proportion. In the video, the cop comes across as more reasonable, and is the one who stops the escalation by walking away, after giving his badge number. After long shifts, horrible riots, angry brass, can we cut the guy a little slack? He's not a Gestapo thug.

There are real incidents of police over-stepping their bounds. This is not one of them. It's two whiny grandstanders, who lack the self-awareness to realize they are the one that look bad in the incident. Hoisting one's own petard.

> given the carp citizens think they can throw at a person who is doing their job

If he was doing his job, he would not have walked away w/o arrest. He was not doing his job, just being a control freak trying to intimidate as many people as he could, and he chose the weakest in his opinion.

aaron:

Ah, the old freedom from responsibility chestnut.

> can we cut the guy a little slack?

No, we can't because they never cut a slack for us. They can lie to us with impunity while for us it is a criminal offense to lie to them.
They can use any force on us, even kill us, while for us to defend against them is a criminal offense.
They are unionized government employees while we pay them to do things they sometimes refuse to do for no good reason.

No slack allowed.

It's a few hours after my earlier comment. I'm listening to the VERY WISE Lorrie Goldstein on Adler's show. He echoed exactly what I said previously.

Kathy Shaidle, absolutely love your writing much of the time and in this recent case you may have been legally in the right but you clearly left your common sense at home.

I'm just glad that neither you nor your husband were hurt.

Aaron,

Ulm, Caribanna and Pride may be community events but they require government permits so that they can shut down and restrict sections of the city. And they include lots and lots of "foreigners"....xenophobic much? And you said I had a village mentality....too quote you...DUDE???!!!

Each festival is a creation not a traditional event, whatever that means.

If I read you correctly you are saying that a cop cant even talk to you unless you are committing a crime?

So I take it from your statement that your just angry the G20 was here in the first place, and anything that flows from that is wrong, no matter what.

Thats ok I can accept that as a position..I just thought you were willing to discuss the particular law. Hard to know what you were so angry about since it seems to be, well, everything.

Phantom:

"brick60, you don't have a problem when cops come and roust you for standing across the street filming them? How about for just standing there? Me, I don't like that."

Phantom, I don't like it either. But major crimes were committed the day before, the cops were angry. Common sense says stay home and watch the movie matinee on Turner Classic Films. If not, don't be surprised to run into testy cop or two.

Like another poster said, if there's a hurricane, get out of town. Don't be surprised when it hits. Common sense.

Pakin or the NP photographer getting busted are one thing, I'll grant you. But Shaidle and Arnie gave more than they took, and are acting like victims. They aren't victims.

Aaron have you ever thought that maybe your watch spring is wound a little to tight?

I don't see any real need to debate this to death, some people in the free speech movement saw this as an opportunity to dramatize what we all know is a gradual erosion of our rights and freedoms, others saw it as a misguided effort that prompted predictable reactions from officers under stress (and plausibly without the best of training or orientation).

It would not be worth any permanent divisions or bad feelings. We need to get back to the task of challenging lawfare, Section 13 excesses, and the general over-ripening of political correctness in Canada. The details are not that significant here, and the events in Toronto did not really change the fundamental equation.

The whole problem is that our conservative political forces are diluted almost beyond recognition, yet they continue to do enough good things to keep the "free speech movement" as broadly defined in two minds as to whether to bail out totally or keep hoping for improvements.

I really think the focus needs to be on a united appeal to the PM this summer, as in Stephen Harper, listen for once, it's the death of a thousand cuts, and not in the right places. We get caution, but these are troubled times and we need action more than delay ... and your time to act is running short.

I'm getting the feeling that some posters here are confused about where Arnie and Kathy were. They were BLOCKS and BLOCKS away from where the G-20 protesters were rioting/demonstrating.

Surely, it's their right to take photos/videos at a very small pro-Israel rally at a completely different venue. Pro-Israel rallies in Toronto have never been known to be rowdy, unless you factor in the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel crowd.

I'm pretty sure that Kathy and Arnie have seen how the police here in Toronto treat law-abiding, pro-Israel folks -- not well, asking them to move along and stop asking questions -- in contrast to their acquiescence to hopped up, hate-speech- calling, pro-Hamas/Hezbollah supporters. (And, BTW, given the absolute mayhem here this weekend, overall, I think the police did a pretty good job, except for allowing the thugs on Yonge Street to smash windows with no arrests and torch police cars all over the downtown core.)

IMO, Arnie and Kathy are getting a bum rap here by some posters who either think they were taking photos at the G-20 protest or who think they should have been more sensitive to the police. Although I'm totally on the side of law and order and am a scrupulously law-abiding citizen (right down to signaling my turns whether or not there's someone behind me at 2:00 in the morning), as far as I'm concerned no police officer should be let off the hook when it comes to respecting citizens' rights IF those citizens are being peaceful. Come on; taking photos doesn't constitute any infringement of the law.

Sadly, policing today in hyper-multicultural Toronto has become very much more politically correct than it used to be when upholding the law scrupulously and blindly was the norm. It seems all too common that police officers are counseled to avert their eyes and suspend usual practice when dealing with anyone who is a member of a visible minority of which neither Kathy nor Arnie qualify.

Police officers seem much more prone to hitting on individuals and groups they can be pretty sure won't take them to the HRCs, while tip-toeing around some outrageous, and even illegal, behaviour if it's perpetrated by a visible minority.

I live in Toronto and navigate our multicultural mean streets every day. I can relate to Kathy and Arnie's POV.

The only thing revealed by this debacle. Was the timidity of the Police. In the spirit of political correctness that has become Canada.

With its tiered legal system (Law its not, nor equal) of multicultural confusion. Part of the CHRC Kangaroo courts delusions. Seeping into Canadian reality, from its Marxist cave.
This mentality will splinter this Nation into tribes & clans. With the most vicious like bullies in school, the most protected by whats left of any semblance of law.

It was not Toronto under judgment this week.
Both PC with its willing slave multiculturalism.
Run by fanatical thugs who are lawless themselves.
Moral revisionists, pretending to righteousness. What a joke.
These baboons where the true ones being looked at by the public. They failed, how could it be otherwise from savages?!!!!
JMO

RE: police

What Ice Cube said.

Also, I think ET’s initial comment best sums-up my POV

Aaron

I get your argument, and agree somewhat; your view is reasonable. What's not reasonable, is your inability to recognize the validity of the opposing argument. You tact is seriously hampering your arguments persuasiveness. JMO

Most of you have no clue as to the geography and size of Toronto.

Kathy and Arnie were far from the rioting - perhaps somewhat close to the U of T quarters where the Quebec anarchists stayed - but definitely on the edge of the most chi chi part of twon - Yorkville, the Collonade, Hazelton Lanes, etc.

Arnie likely had his camcorder for the Israel demo, and I don't think it's unreasonable for him to have put it to use on Bloor when he saw some perps in police custody.

Sorry, the mayor and the cop leadership, like the scum, are in the wrong on this. They go for the easiest marks. They did nothing when Yonge Street got busted up on Saturday but then they got tough with a bunch of metrosexuals on Sunday night.

I wish they'd take that act to Caledonia, but I won't hold my breath.

oops, bad grammar...

Your tact is seriously hampering your argument's persuasiveness.

fixed

Hey, Revnant Dream! We're channeling each other -- or is the Holy Spirit speaking the same message to us?

As we have both pointed out, there's no longer equality before the law here in Alice's Wonderland north of '49. 'Used to be that the cops would arrest ANYONE smashing private property or torching a police car. Now, they have to stop and ask themselves WHO's doing the smashing and torching. If they're a member of a visible minority or belong to a certain political class, the police step gingerly and, from the POV of blindly administering the law, they don't seem to be doing that anymore.

We're in big trouble. The train that exploded off the track this weekend has been barreling down the track for a long time -- and there are lots more coming.

Starting again.

2000 people outside Police HQ, rumours of Black Bloc in the area.

All peace and love....lets see what happens

> Aaron have you ever thought that maybe your watch spring is wound a little to tight?

At least I am not shoving my fists into anyone's faces.

"Most of you have no clue as to the geography and size of Toronto."

Apparently they were close enough to the action that the police had protesters apprehended. But that's beside the point. "Move along, please, there's nothing here to see" doesn't qualify as police over-reach, whether those requested to move be gawkers filming a protest on Queen street, or gawkers at a crash on a rural highway.

It's legitimate police work to keep traffic moving.

The cop was right - with rights come responsibilities. One of those includes acting like a grown up in a potentially volatile situation. At no time was there any indication that the police were inappropriate towards those arrested. Indeed, one gets the sense that the mere fact that police on the scene outnumbered the suspects was something to ridicule.

I frankly don't get it. When it comes to rights issues, there's picking your battles, and there's picking your battles. Then, there's creating something out of nothing to prove a point.

Wrong time, wrong place, wrong motivation.

Correction to my above post: Kathy and Arnie were not at a pro-Israel rally on Bloor Street, but as citizens of the city far from the core of the agitation, they were within their rights to photograph the arrests they witnessed.

Heck. Look at all of the cameras clicking on Saturday. All of my other arguments stand.

I think you're all being a little hard on Shaidle and her spouse. She's one of the good guys. If you think she screwed up, so OK. Don't take one small incident and use it to vilify her.
Personally I don't know what to think about the issue other than her detractors seem to be a little bit knee-jerk.

Wrong time, wrong place,

Right on Kate.

Reminds me of my buddy back in the '70s taking pictures of the flight line at CFB Bagotville. A rather imposing Military Police Officer squinted at the sun through my buddy's newly exposed film as his heel ground buddy's camera into the tarmac. Wrong time, wrong place just as he had been warned.

It's legitimate police work to keep traffic moving.

They were on foot. Across the street.

At no time was there any indication that the police were inappropriate towards those arrested. Indeed, one gets the sense that the fact that police on the scene outnumbered the suspects was something to ridicule.

I don't get that sense, although there were 15 thousand cops in the city making double time and they did nothing on Saturday when Yonge Street and Queen Street got trashed. So if that's the "sense," it's understandable given that the police choose to do nothing about real lawlessness and instead chose to dream up some imagined lawlessness.

The cops had no problem letting the rubber neckers hang around the streets for the entire night, look at the videos all over the net the riot tourists were having a grand time. So why did the cops allow those leftarded flakes roam the city all night but the next day they were shaking down journalists and law abiding citizens. Sorry but I suspect the media's negative reporting on the police's failure to stop the damage of private property spurned them into making a public spectical of being all nice and law and orderly except the bad guys were gone so they appear to of decided to pick on law abiding citizens.

Perhaps there was no abuse of the arrested because the cameras were rolling, who knows?

There was no cameras outside of Jonathan Logan's home when he was strip searched for hunting groundhogs.

Careful with what you call for, Kate.

Stick with the program here. A specific cop has been singled out and identified by badge number, along with an allegation that he somehow acted inappropriately. That badge number has now been carried into the greater conservative blogosphere.

This wasn't about "15,000 cops", or Queen street, or police deployment, or rules of engagement.

It's singling out one cop as an individual, who does not have the professional right to respond in public.

Well, I didn't see him acting inappropriately. I didn't see him use any "force". That's my beef with this incident, and trying to attach the alleged misdeeds of other police, at other times, in other places, towards other people is just sloppy defense argument.

This isn't the complaint of a third party witness. If rights were violated, then file the damned complaint, and follow it through. If they're worth filming and bleating about, they're worth defending the hard way, right?

Using the blogosphere in such a manner is just dirty pool.

It's a simple matter. Shaidle posted a piece of victimology, grievance theatre that many adults didn't buy. She reacts to the fair criticism with:

"Disappointing that some of you (even some of you allegedly on our side) still don't get it.

Your visceral negative reaction to the sound of a woman asserting herself and defying "authority" says more about you than it does about me."

I had to double check to make sure that I wasn't reading Arianna at the Huffington Post.(Or Hanoi Jane.)

Nope, it's Shaidle. This is the same person who has a running gag on her site that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Leather jacket, check. Water skis, check. Shark tank, check. Shaidle jumps.

> A specific cop has been singled out and identified by badge number

They all act by the rule book.
They use every opportunity to polish their suspect control and their investigative wits.
And they don't get any crap from the brass for doing so - rather opposite.

> If they're worth filming and bleating about, they're worth defending the hard way, right?

That's just one person's opinion. Another one might have thought that publicity and ridicule were more appropriate. Are you, like, trying to bully Shaidle into compliance with your behavioral ideals, which is the first sign of inner collectivism?

There is more than one way to assert rights Kate. One of them is to actually use your rights and defend their use if a police officer attempts to abridge them.

And putting the film up on your blog is an effective, cheap, way of holding the officer to account. Not account in the sense of hearings and such like; rather just a simple reminder that "To serve and protect" means just that.

Kate accused of being a collectivist.

The swarm of locusts must be next because I am sure thats one of the signs of the apocalypse.

Stick with the program? As in allow your rights to be trampled because it's coming from some guy with a badge?

Sorry, not interested.

This is the problem with policing in Ontario. Significant lawlessness - Yonge Street, Caledonia - is ignored because it's troublesome to the politicians and cops, but the picayune somehow draws their attention.

Aaron :

In the West we have a saying. Get off the pot or piss. Folks out here get twitchy when personnel details with added Innuendo ( I believe them ) are blared about an individual. Particularly if their in a position to be fired or hurt. Without first trying to patch it up personally. In private first. Than if they don't fess up we call em out.
Its a cultural thing with us.

The riots and protests in Vancouver during the Olympics fizzled because (as Rex mentioned) the crowds in Vancouver let it be known they wouldn't put up with their crap. But Toronto is Left central, and expect the nanny to look after them.

Jay, batb, rose, and others:

I would be two-hundred percent on Kathy's side in the situation if the exchange in question occurred on a normal day, but we're talking about a day when a massive, rolling, quickly-shifting riot of historic proportions was going on. It should reasonably be expected that one may be inconvenienced on rare occasions during an out-of-control public disturbance - like a Stanley Cup riot, for example - by a cop telling you to move along, and that they're not going to get it right one-hundred percent of the time. It seems to me that by backing off, the officer was tacitly acknowledging that his request couldn't justifiably be turned into a demand.

Context is important. If I'm standing with a friend on a typical day, watching the world go by - or if I'm watching a procession of non-violent protesters whom I disagree with - and a cop tells me to move along, the cop would be in the wrong, and my reaction would be functionally identical, if less quick-witted, than Kathy's. But if I'm on the street when there's a large-scale riot going on, and cops are mildly directing foot traffic, I'm not going to pick that moment to assert that some harried cop's request for me to move along is an outrageous violation of my rights. I might not agree that his request is a reasonable one, but I would feel more inconvenienced than outraged. And if he backed off completely, as the officer appeared to do, I'd have even less reason to be outraged or to single him out for public criticism.

I can see both sides of the argument, and although I disagree with her subsequent actions, I can understand Kathy's - almost limbic - reaction at the time - except for her assertion to the cop:

"I have ten thousand readers. Including politicians."

I'm missing something. Was Kathy suggesting that the officer treat her differently than he would treat someone who has only thirty-two readers, none of whom are politicians?

It's probably just the way I was raised, but to me it's never - ever - acceptable to utter any kind of quasi-threatening variant of "do you know who I am?", whether you're in a restaurant, or a government office, or in a lineup at Tim's, or...when talking to a cop. Cops, more than anyone outside of impound lots, hear this sort of rank-pulling every day - typically at around 2:30 a.m., from some pompous asshole in an expensive car.

Kathy, it seems to me, has historically done a superb job of smacking down politicians who try to pull rank on regular folks, so it's a bit confusing to see her hint at having power by proxy ("including politicians.") One can certainly stand up for one's rights in situations where one feels one's rights and privileges are begin violated without trying to invoke relative social/power privilege - "you can't do this to ME, because I'M...." That particular note was a bit large-L Liberal in my opinion, especially in the context where one is dealing with a civil servant, and it seemed inconsistent with Kathy's ongoingly-expressed worldview, as far as I can tell. I'd call that one a mulligan.

As a motorcade driver at the G20 Summit I talked to a lot of officers, RCMP, OPP and police from across the country. I stood there at the Sheraton on both sides of the barrier as the protestors taunted the riot police, photographing them, blowing horns in their faces but these guys just stood their ground sweating in their equipment. This was not by any means everyone in the march, most were there because it was exciting and they were leftist university kids or older hippies.

Pissed me off when idiots marched by waving Marxist flags and attacking Canada but that is their right in our society but smashing vehicles and defacing streetcars are over the line. First time I have seen mob violence and it is frightening.

One guy blowing his horn in the officer's face beside me would have had any of us wanting to shove the thing down his throat but these cops just took it, as the officer said later, as part of the job. One tactical guy even cautioned me when I started to argue with a protestor, just let it go.

Many cops wanted to stop any kind of violence on the Saturday but the message was out to allow minimal collateral damage and not overreact as this is what the media was waiting for as were the Black Block and their allies. It takes two to fight.

In my view I think the riot act should have been read on Monday and any violence would not be tolerated and met with instant force as happened on the Sunday. Any violator would be charged, tried quickly, and sentenced if guilty to long years in jail. Remember a lot of these protestors are international and this is what they do. They could care less about protesting, they are here for the violence.

Aaron, you wouldn't want to be in the restricted zone as your ID hanging around your neck was checked constantly all day long.

I feel and discussed this that the Chinese businessman in Kensington Market, Caledonia and the Saturday violence are examples of the police turning on the very ones of our citizens that should be protected yet because they are easy targets, unlike the armed Mohawk Warriors, the police justifiably are getting a bad name as in the Air India and Vancouver airport debacles. The cops are being politicized in my view. They are great guys and ladies doing a tough job caught between a rock and a hard place.

Kathy should not have been bothered IMHO but the cops are twitchy with too many different bosses telling them different orders that change by the minute. She should have considered that and moved on. Choose your battles carefully.

It is not just the G20 now; it is a G33 with the additional observer groups like the IMF, EU, UN and NGOs attending. Huge logistics to set this up and coordinate everything. This Summit is growing and must be held in certain locals with airports and large conference centres now

I don't see that holding the G20 in some isolate place will stop the thugs who use the event to create havoc. They'll simply hold THEIR violent 'reaction-to-the-Evil-Capitalists' in the nearest large city. It could have been held in Muskoka - and the riots could have been carried out in Toronto or Ottawa.

Second, I don't understand the rationale for holding a pro-Israel rally at a time when the international press members will be focused only on the G20 and will presumably neither have the time nor interest to go find the rally. How, operationally, would this rally help Israel when it would effectively go unnoticed or, even, might have been used as a diversion by the left..and attacked? Remember, these G20 political activists are the left and the left is anti-Israel.

Third, were the people who were being arrested asked if they wanted their pictures taken by Kathy and Arnie?

Fourth - I think we are getting carried away with the term 'fundamental rights'. There's no fundamental right to not provide a police officer with one's identification - particularly in an area during a major international conference with known threats and known acts of violence. This can't be understood as a random request; Aaron refuses to recognize the context of the event.

And you don't give your ID AFTER a charge but before one. Does a police officer who pulls you over for...first charge you and then ask for your ID?

And there are no fundamental rights to photograph anyone or anything. It doesn't, unfortunately, say a word about this in the charter. But there is common sense. Dave's post and those of others, shows this common sense.

The arrogance of many of the protesters, who, as I said, for the most part, have only a shaky and superficial notion of what-to-protest, and yet, who feel that they have some inalienable right to rant and yell at the world about their agenda...incredible.

Kathy's 'do you know who I am' has shades of Obama's 'I'm the President' tone.

Aaron - your complaint that police 'all act by the rule book'..is that a complaint? Do you prefer that they ignore the rules?

My own view is that the police acted superbly and professionally this weekend. The thugs and the spineless leftist protesters..acted like thugs and spineless leftist protesters.

EBD - I'm with you, I see both sides of this. While it would never occur to me to try to speak for Kathy - or anyone, but especially Kathy - I think her "I have 10,000 readers. Including politicians" remark probably wasn't an attempt to pull rank. My guess is that it was more along the lines of letting the officer know that he had mistreated (as she obviously saw it) someone who was in a position to publicize the fact.

ET, you write, "There's no fundamental right to not provide a police officer with one's identification - particularly in an area during a major international conference with known threats and known acts of violence. This can't be understood as a random request; Aaron refuses to recognize the context of the event."

Actually there is. A police officer must have probable cause to detain or question you or require ID. Now they are certainly allowed to politely ask for your ID and you have the option of refusing to provide it.

Your remark as to the area Kathy and Arnie were in are beside the point. They were not in the security zone.

As to the right to photograph things: you can photograph buildings, people and even arrestees who are in public. That is what "in public" means. Now, a person might assert some sort of privacy claim against your publication of the photograph but that is very hard to win.

I agree with you as to the spineless protestors; however, while the officers in the line behaved well their leadership completely dropped the ball. It was insane not to anticipate and be prepared for the vandals on Yonge Street and Queen. The manpower was available but the will was not.

And this is what you get if you don't take the need to assert your rights seriously:

"It happened just a few minutes ago. I was sitting down on University Avenue, when a group of police officers approached me and said they wanted to talk to me. Stunned, I opened my mouth getting ready to reply to the request, when one of the officers at the top of his lungs yelled: "I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!"

Another officer said they didn't want to hear about my rights.

They then proceeded to demand I remove the earphones from my ears, forcing me to get off the phone with my colleague. I told them I was on the phone to which another officer responded, "we don't care."

Then they said they wanted to search my bag, because I was "wearing a black shirt". To which I replied, that I did not consent to any searches. I told them that I would not resist them, and that any search they conducted was under protest. They simply said, "we don't care. We want to make sure you don't have any bombs to kill us with."

They demanded I present identification, once again I complied under protest. To which they told me they didn't care again. mike brock, western standard

Cops know that bystanders taking video of an arrest draws more bystanders and that, just like a pack of dogs, mobs are unpredictable and dangerous. The cop was doing his job and Ms Shaidle and Mr Shaidle are being juvenile.

What you're missing, EBD, is Kathy. Kathy, like Aaron, and most of us, have most of the experiences each of us have because those are the experiences, deep down, each of us wants to have. We unconsciously allocate resources to achieve the effects we desire. Interestingly, perhaps, experienced observers can "smell" those resource allocations, and the entertained officer in this case probably first smelt that Shaidle is a difficult loudmouth, and then ascertained that she is a harmless crank, and so he then chuckled off to attempt to deal with something interesting.

Yeah, sure, gratuitous ad hominems are not called for, yet for years now we have regularly read first- hand report after report from people like Kathy and Aaron (and, fortunately, not most of us) that their lives are an endless litany of being unreasonably put-upon. What's the common thread in each case, across all (at least to the knowledge of our reports) circumstances? The hominem.

Which brings us to the perhaps interesting question of: why do we behave the way we do? My theory is as first presented above: we continually tend to experience what we report because that's the legacy of our investment.

IMO Kathy does far more good than harm, Vίtruvius, and we need more people like her. We certainly have enough Canadians who don't feel even slightly put upon when, oh, I don't know, their *neighbour's* house and property is taken from them by native thugs, or when someone they go to see speak can't do so. We'd need the "hey, it doesn't affect me" crowd to balance things out if not for the fact that we've already got way too many of them.

Recent events - speeches canceled by mob-rule threats - show that the public square is increasingly off-limits to conservatives, supporters of Israel, etc. Militant Muslims and leftists have been effectively shutting down public expressions of opinions they don't like, both here and in Europe. This *will* have consequences down the road. People like Kathy and Arnie have been out there at the front lines doing what other citizens (albeit, not all of them; that's a given) will probably find themselves having to do in the not-too-distant future: stand there and say "I will not be intimidated into silence. I'm standing my ground."

As for being "put upon," Kate and Mark Steyn and Ezra and Kathy and many others all make the case, in their own manner of speaking, that we're being "put upon," whether we've completely realized it yet or not, by idiots who want to rule everyone else. I think that they are, in each case, just a little more principled and, especially, more prescient than others, and that it's this prescience, as much as any mis-allocation of psychic resources, that explains the difference between them and the average Joe, who tends more to not want to know about anything that doesn't effect him yet.

Does Kathy ever step out of bounds? Well, just take a look. But I suggest that in the Canadian context, she's been one of that select group who have been advancing the ball up the field, as it were.

Like I said, it's a mulligan. Or she stepped out of bounds. Pick your metaphor; point is, those events are just part of the game.

batb

Its getting pretty apparent to all. That this period of time is becoming more Chaotic by the year.
If one reads the Bible nothing is surprising these days. IMO we are in a Biblical era of great change.
In the end. We people of the Book have known this day was coming for a long time. In fact I don't think there is an era more talked about than this one we inhabit prophetically in scripture.
Of course its not the end of the World, but a new beginning.
Sadly no Nation lasts forever. The center (as the poem says) will not hold for long. When men with minds like swords run with vigorousness to cleave whats good by twisted word, while gorging on iniquity. Calling it truth
JMO

Jay Currie 9:36

Your friend's situation is not cool.

But that's not what happened with Mr. and Mrs. Shaidle. The cop showed restraint and left the scene. Still, they proceeded to taunt him. Shaidle clucked on about her web stats and says she knows "politicians." It was pathetic, and people are rightly calling her on it.

Jay,

I wouldnt know whether the guy from the Western Standard was telling the story as it actually happened, embellishing it or underselling it. All I can say for sure is that he is one side of it.

Additionally, why didnt he outright refuse rather than protest if he felt those were his rights. The cops didnt threaten him or physically manhandle him in the quote.

And Jaysus, wearing a black T shirt at a protest two days after the Black Block tactic was used to violent effect. While its his right, its also obtuse given the context. Maybe thats why the writer knew to provide consent under protest, because in this context wearing black with a backpack means probable cause.....and I bet a court would agree. A month ago it wouldnt have been, and a month from now it wont be. But today it is.

Its a charming quality, this innocence we have as Canadians.

jay currie - I didn't remark about the 'area Kathy and Arnie were in'. I was talking about Aaron's rejection of such a request from a police officer.

My comment about Kathy and Arnie was actually that I don't think that it's a 'right' to take anyone's picture! That includes those being arrested. I can understand taking a picture of a violent act (burning cars, trashing windows) but to take pictures of people arrested - seems intrusive to me.

Equally - the officer, Jay, couldn't have said that he didn't care about the person's rights UNLESS that person had already started to talk to that officer about 'his rights'. Again, his statements that their search was 'under protest' was equally irrelevant to the reality. The reality was that black shirts was a symbol of a specific group of criminal activity at the demonstrations and his claim to 'rights' was not relevant to this. And his claim that he was 'talking to a colleague' was equally irrelevant; he could have been talking to someone else in the 'Black Bloc' agenda. How were the police to know he wasn't? So, his feelings of having been a 'victim' are empty and vain.

Batb "(right down to signaling my turns whether or not there's someone behind me at 2:00 in the morning)"

I do that too! When I have young adults with me in the car they think I'm nuts for doing so though!

Stephen,

Are you for real? This is in the neighbourhood where I live, and I was nowhere near a protest. They were totally power tripping, and they took advantage of the fact there were no nearby witnesses to totally verbally abuse me.

I did not resist them for the same reasons. I noted that I was complying under protest. Which in a situation where I had no third-party observer to back me up, was probably the tactically right thing to do.

They likely would have used any intransigence on my part as an excuse to charge me with "disturbing the peace", thrown me in prison for 23 hours, and then dropped the charges and let me go the next day, like they've been doing with many other people.

Excuse me if I didn't want to be subjected to that. I have a wife and daughter to come home to.

Mike, just out of curiosity - and I don't mean to be confrontational here, I'm a curious agnostic on the matter - why were you "sitting down on University Avenue" in a black T-shirt during the riot?

It was a disaster.

I was two feet away from the arsonist as he lit the last police car on fire in Toronto.
I was the second guy he tried to borrow a lighter from to light it,
and the only one within earshot speaking out against it. I also figured after a while I was about to get cracked over the back of the head with a rock if I kept yapping.
I called 911 and walked 10 feet toward Spadina.

It's was really unbelievable to witness.
No cops...

The cops should have driven into the middle of it and filled the patty-wagons, there's no mistaking the guys with bandannas over their faces they were the ones there to wreck shit and should have been locked up for wearing a disguise.
There were a lot of young kids, amateurs and guys from the neighbourhood, but the pros all covered their faces they should have been stopped.
A few teams of ten cops could have walked down Queen St and handled the punks who smashed the windows and set the cruisers on fire.
The cops were lined up in hugely overpowering numbers around the corner, protecting the imaginary line of nothing as Queen St burned.

For those that disagree with Arnie and Kathy come to Toronto for any...ANY demonstration and witness for yourself the fact the cops are always looking the wrong way.
Just like Caledonia here in Toronto the cops are always making sure that the Hamas and Hezz flag wavers are not getting harassed at their Anti-Israel marches, and University and the core gets shut down any time the Tamil Tigers or any other terrorist supporting group of identifiable @**#*!s and their brothers decide they want to.
The cops are always "protecting" the bad guys and in your face for every "checkin za paperz" routine imaginable for the locals.
With the barricades and 15,000 extra cops this week it was full police state over the top freak show disaster.

Mike, oh yes they would have. And been really happy about doing it too.

I've been in the back of more than a couple of cop cars in my day, being questioned over not a g-d d@mn thing. Just driving down the road, doing the speed limit, surprise! Guys with guns are up in my face telling me to roll up my sleeve to make sure I'm not some other "The Phantom" who has a scar on his right arm or we go downtown and I don't get to go home tonight.

You know what? Kathy's response to a guy who walked all the way across the street to get up in her face is 100% solid f-ing gold.

Cops have power over the rest of us. A lot of it. When they abuse it, its good they get a rap on the knuckles. Next time some pinhead having a bad day gets up in your face, ask them if they want to be famous.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Mike, just out of curiosity - and I don't mean to be confrontational here, I'm a curious agnostic on the matter - why were you "sitting down on University Avenue" in a black T-shirt during the riot?

Posted by: EBD at June 28, 2010 11:03 PM
----------

Actually, 2 nights after the major rioting, although the same day of an OCAP and others protest in front of police HQ on Bay.

University is one of Toronto's finest avenues, with flowerbeds, fountains, benches, and as EMG pointed out, the occasional ugly statuary running up the middle.

The Ontario legislature is near the top. Behind it is the beautifully treed Queen's Park, and beyond that the ROM.

Lots of places to sit on a nice night.

I've seen reports on TV of people being repeatedly stopped and searched - during daylight hours - on Yonge today.

Was there a memo or something from ether a) the PMO, b) the Premiers' Office, c) City Hall, d) the Police Chief that I missed which said every cop at every moment was doing a brilliant job and all the people with cameras or, perish the thought, a black t-shirt, were dirty anarchists and potential bombers?

Damn, I hate it when I'm left off the talking points list.

Well Jay, you can either nab the guys as they're busting windows, or you can wait two days and grab everyone on two legs, hoping that a few bad guys are in the mix.

I'd go with the former but what do I know.

No Jay, there wasn't any kind of memo. The salient point is that if one is going to complain about cop behaviour - if one is concerned about violations of civil liberties - one's complaint would have more merit and efficacy if it originated at a time when there's not a massive riot going on. There's a huge difference between a cop telling someone to move along during a massive riot and a cop doing so for no good reason on some other quotidian occasion - it's night and day. It's beyond me why so many people are dramatically, mulishly disinclined, to the point of obstinacy, to even begin to acknowledge this distinction.

Nobody in their right mind would cross a yellow crime-scene tape and stand there and claim their rights are being violated by a cop telling them to move on. Well, it's sadly the case that when enough lowlife scumbag leftists are mingling with rubbernecking bystanders, the whole scene becomes a - nominal - crime scene. The only proper thing for the rubberneckers to do in such a situation is to *get the F out of the area,* or, if they live in the area, give the police a break by staying in their homes, and then, in the days and weeks to follow, put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the idiot leftist rioters.

Would a Stanley Cup riot, for example, be the best place to assert your right to stand and mill about wherever you want? Or would it maybe be better - assuming one's concern is with the violation of rights - to focus on non-riot moments of 'violation'?

There's a world of difference between cops violating civil liberties in a non-riot zone (as was the case, I would strongly suggest, when when some cop approached Arnie and made it seem like he was the problem after he'd been menaced and threatened by an anti-Israel protester) and cops telling someone who's almost pruriently standing up for their "rights" - all of a sudden - at the precise moment when there's a large-scale, mobile, street-by-street riot going on. Acknowledging the distinction between a normal city scene and a riot zone doesn't amount to a concomitant claim that cops have a right to violate people's civil liberties whenever they want. Anyone who suggests or implies otherwise is either looking a little too hard for a personal drah-mah that suits their particular narrative or is living too much in the world of ideas; they're not being reasonable, in the most manifest sense of the word.

A lot of us who are absolutely staunch, end-of-the-world supporters of freedom of speech and civil liberties understand that anyone who heads straight for the precise location where liberties are *temporarily* and justifiably buffered for security reasons are just providing cover and justification for the plaintive cries of rioters who - always, because it's essentially their only point - claim that human rights are being violated. Why not just stay off the streets when there's a riot? Why would anyone who opposes the rioters, and the disruptions they're causing, choose to mill about among them and then subsequently blame the police for being unable to properly differentiate between a troublemaker and an innocent-appearing rubbernecker?

The cause of the liberty-oriented crowd is just, but the timing, in this case, is not only selfish, and mulish, but dumb. It's counterproductive to the point of being *retarded.*

Life 101: if a bunch of stinky rioters whose cause you oppose are rampaging through the streets, don't stand among them and start harassing the cops. If it's just a normal day, and cops tell you to move along for no good reason, well, have at 'em; reasonable people will actually listen to your complaints about how you were treated. In a riot situation, *get off the streets*.

Brick60 stop pulling on Kathy's pig tails we all know you secretly lurve her.

Shaidle to retreating cop: "I have 10,000 readers, including politicians."

Recent Shaidle post: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2010-06-26-0008/

"I get hundreds of emails a day. And some of them are actually important, but I can't find them easily because you keep telling how to blog.

I don't care what you think.

Like most people who are "trying to help," you are making my life worse.

PLEASE stop writing.

Your endless email stream of itty bitty comments and complaints and suggestions and not-very-useful "tips" are making me want to kill you."

No wonder the gal doesn't allow comments on her site. How he heck does she maintain a readership?

Brick 60 as i mentioned above. Me thinkith you protest too much.

Unconscious Objector:

"Brick60 stop pulling on Kathy's pig tails we all know you secretly lurve her."

----> I take writers for what they write, male or female. I'm too old to have a crush and I'm not going to disrespect her for being a female.

The word "unconscious" just about covers it.

UO: "Brick 60 as i mentioned above. Me thinkith you protest too much."

----> Same goes for you. Perhaps you're the one with a personal stake? Sorry, I get a kick when a phony like Shaidle gets exposed.

]in a free society you don't ask people for ID w/o accusing them of an offense.......That's why Canada is not and will never be free. You don't have a concept of freedom. For you "the end justifies the means" (c) Joe Stalin
Aaron
What society you are talking about? You think of theoretical society in theoretical country not of real society in real country. It is this dream some people have believing that theory equals practice You live in theoretical society like the TO protesters - they also live in such theoretical society where police are "pigs", government is always "bad" and others are always right (even if they aren't). I can't believe that you ever lived in totalitarian regime.!

Mississauga Matt

POlice everywhere were jumpy. Not only downtown.
As for political correctness -yes, that's the problem. I think pc was probably the reason why police did not react properly but even so they were accused of brutality. Kathy was downtown on Sunday and majority of people after Saturday tried to be as far from downtown as possible. How could police predict that Sunday would be quieter then Saturday?
******
BTW You do remember what was the weather on Sunday night in downtown TO don't you?

It's funny, because when I was searched and detained this past evening, I didn't see a riot. In fact, there wasn't a single protester to be found.

I certainly wasn't protesting. But apparently, at some point an Old Navy black tee became restricted streetwear. I certainly didn't get the memo.

In fact, I was under the impression, that on Monday afternoon, the whole G20 thing was over, and that my neighborhood had stopped being a police state. How presumptuous of me! There I was, sitting down, talking on the phone in what was by that time, a quiet portion of the financial district.

What tenacity I had, to expect a patrol of jackboots not to show up, yell and swear at me in my face before a single word came forth from my mouth, tell me they find my black t-shirt suspicious, and demand I submit to a search of my belongings under penalty of arrest.

What unrealistic expectations I had.

I don't think any reasonable human being could have witnessed what happened to me and considered it anything short of harassment.

Some people have suggested they just have frayed nerves. Others suggest they're angry about how they can never win.

The truth is, I don't care. They put on the uniform and sometimes it's crappy job. But they're ostensibly sworn to uphold the law, the highest law being mine and your fundamental rights. If they are unable to perform this duty under stress, or in a matter consistent with what my due process rights demand of them, I ask that they step down from their jobs and pursue a line of work that better suits the limits of their faculties. Failing an introspection as such, I expect their superiors to make that decision for them.

I think this is a reasonable position. But I sense some here are not so reasonable.

I'm thinking that a lot of people don't understand that there are regulations for conducting a protest. You need a permit, you need to say how many participants you expect and whether it's a street march or a gathering. You have to get the route and the times approved.
It looked to me that what some (including the media) were calling 'legal protests' were really just roving gangs. That seemed especially true on Sunday. The way they suddenly decided they could sit down in the middle of street and that should be okay. It doesn't matter whether you appear peaceful and/or sing nice songs, it is still unlawful conduct without a permit. It is also unlawful to block traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, so when you are asked to move along, compliance is correct response...and even more so in those circumstances. From what I understand, the media was forewarned not to expect special treatment. No doubt mistakes were made but as of now, my sympathies are with the police.

Okay Toronto, you knew there would be payback for turning your backs on Stephen Harper, keep it up and the whole damn United Nations will be meeting there next year.

A Few Figs,

Do you live in downtown Toronto? Were you caught up in a siege by hooligans and police while going out for a walk like you always do on Saturday afternoons?

Do any of you not find it a little strange that so many people from the political right are calling foul on the police? Does that assessment not give you pause?

Is it beyond the scope of your worldview to accept that what I witnessed on the weekend and experienced this past evening has some veracity?

Apparently Mike you have become "them"...who knew?

richfisher: "For those that disagree with Arnie and Kathy come to Toronto for any...ANY demonstration and witness for yourself the fact the cops are always looking the wrong way."

This perhaps is the crux of the matter and I was thinking about it when I woke up this morning. I suspect that policing in the ROC might be a completely different kettle of fish than here in Toronto.

Too many of us have witnessed the police being politically correct: harassing law-abiding citizens exercising their civil rights by being present at Hamas/Hezbollah demos, while turning a blind eye to outrageous behaviour and taunts by the Hamas/Hezbollah demonstrators.

It makes your hair and lip curl to see our laws being turned inside out and upside down by the very people entrusted with the safety and security of Toronto citizens.

I am predisposed to be very supportive of the police. By and large they did a very good job this past weekend (except for allowing the trashing of Yonge Street and the torching of cars without lifting a finger or making an arrest), but I am discomfited by the increasing political correctness getting in the way of pressing legitimate authority onto unruly citizens and situations.

It's a recipe for disaster. And, yes, we need more people like Arnie and Kathy to point it out, to stand their ground, and to encourage others to stand up for their legitimate rights when all too often those rights are being abrogated by, of all people, our law enforcement authorities.

The times are out of joint. Now's not the time to lie down and become surrender monkeys.

Here is an officer's comment from the Sun's Joe Warmington's column. As we have discussed the politicization of the police at Caledonia, hamass marches, Tamil take over continues with these socialists like McGuinty and Miller. This is basically my take on taking to many officers during the weekend.

"I also wonder if Blair owes an apology to his frustrated police officers, who showed incredible restraint, professionalism and calm during the rampage on Saturday while a small group of thugs took over the city and set police cars ablaze while smashing and looting everything in their way.

A number of officers have told me they were keen to take the dirt balls down and end it early.

“We were all embarrassed beyond belief on Saturday,” an officer named John, who I got in touch with, said in an email to AM 640’s John Oakley. “Our guys wanted to wade in but our senior officers and our socialist mayor would not permit it.”

Is this true chief?

This officer with 28 years on the job said for “months we have attended endless training for this moment and when the day came we were not allowed to react and left to watch law breakers and malcontents go on an unprecedented rampage.”

He said he is “absolutely shamed and saddened” that “we were told to stand down as we did not want to appear over aggressive.” He said “we had to sit on our hands and watch these clowns make us look stupid” and “our rank and file, almost to a man and woman, are angered over this.”

How about that chief? Any response?"

mike brock - I think you are overplaying the hapless victim image.

Could you provide some evidence that 'so many people on the political right are calling foul on the police'? I'm aware that you are using this to bolster your own point of view.

Were you 'out for a walk' in an area where demonstrations were going on? That's hardly a common sense mode of behaviour. To claim that it's your 'right' - what an ambiguous word that is - to do what you 'normally' do is to act like a robot. If the contextual situation changes, then, a common sense and reasoning reaction would be to also change. Why were you in that area?

And to be wearing black - and surely you, someone on top of the situation would hardly be unaware of the 'black bloc' theme and the black clothes and masks worn by the thugs...and sitting talking on a device - all within an area of potential demonstrators, is a robotic act. Someone who was thinking rather than robotic would consider that a provocative act.

When you speak of 'the highest law' being 'fundamental rights - that's utterly ambiguous. What are these 'fundamental rights'? The four fundamental rights, for example, referred to in the charter, are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". That is, there are limits, which you, determined to act in a robotic manner, seem to ignore.

A common sense view acknowledges context. Therefore, you don't go out on a day when violent demonstrations are taking place, in an area where they did or could occur, wearing a symbolic colour defined as a key identifier of this event's violence, and talking via earphones to others. The context you were creating (location, colour, earphones) was screaming out: 'I'm a member of the Black Bloc tactic". So, claiming that you were 'just out for a stroll' is a bit naive and pretentious, in my view.

Mike,

Johnathon Kays piece a city of wimps applies.
http://tinyurl.com/2em2bm3

All the extraneous, its my neighborhood, I have a wife and child etc is completely unimportant to what happened, since the cops wouldnt know, nor care, nor should they.

And the protesters dont have to be nearby, the whole MO of the black block tactic was to lay in wait in other areas nearby.

So lets summarize, the cops had probable cause to ask you questions due to location and an identifiable characteristic, black clothing, backpack etc. They did not manhandle you, they spoke harshly to you (boo hoo) and then they moved on.

A week before or a week from now I would be with you on being upset, but not that day because there looks to be context for the action. But that context is fast disappearing.

So I'll look for the signs that indicate its your neighbourhood next time, so I know where I am....

My sympathies here hinge on how volatile the situation still was on Sunday and how close Kathy and BCF were to any security zone; I've read the whole thread but I'm still not clear on this.

Dave - thanks for your post. That's exactly what has been happening; it isn't the police themselves who have been politicizied but the administrators who run them are political hacks. Above all, Miller, who is aligned with the unions and the left.

The police have several times said that they were not allowed by the administration to fight back against the Saturday violence. All in the name of 'not appearing brutal'. But, this changed on Sunday when public angry reaction to the lack of police presence at the violence became apparent; then - Miller/Blair, allowed the police to act.

Miller/Blair refused to allow the police to move the Tamils in their sitdown on a major highway a year ago. This has been the pattern: no confrontation with groups.

By the way, the tendency of the attacker to claim victimhood is the theme today. Many of those arrested are claiming themselves as 'victims of police brutality' - and the complaints move from their surprise at being arrested for having 'an old Swiss army knife that I've had since a child' in my backpak..in the midst of the demonstrations, to anger at 'so what if there was a hatchet and knife in my car'?

The black clothes types, many of them from Quebec, are doing 'an Obama' - which is to define their actions with different words. Just as Obama refuses to recognize the reality of Islamic terrorism by refusing to use 'those words'; these people declare that their actions of smashing windows and cars are 'not acts of violence'. They are valid acts against 'capitalism'. But who gave them the right to act in such a manner against capitalism?

Oh, and the ones who came in on busses from Quebec to carry out these noble deeds, are now claiming that the police are 'anti-Quebec'. Proof? They were arrested. Now, how did the police know they were from Quebec? They didn't know. But, smashing windows has, although a long history in Quebec, nothing to do with 'being Quebecois'.

Reminds me of the claims of injustice of my students who received low marks for bad work.

Mike Brock:"I think this is a reasonable position. But I sense some here are not so reasonable."

Jay Currie: "Apparently Mike you have become "them"...who knew?"

Mike, I've looked on this thread for a comment that could be construed as being an "unreasonable" response to your experience or questioning your veracity in any serious way - and I can't find one.

I can't figure out who "them" is, either.

A couple of people have asked questions, and others have posted general thoughts related to the weekend, and yet you seem to believe you're being challenged. (Your response to A Few Figs was especially odd, as the comments were both 100% valid, and had nothing to do with you.)

A couple of points though. I'm in Saskatchewan and I know that police had asked the public to avoid wearing black, and that searches of backpacks were turning up weapons. I know that more protests were planned for Monday.

The tactics used by the anarchists are to blend into the scenery until the moment of action arives. So, while it's not a pleasant experience to "fit the description of the suspect" when the suspect is known to be armed and violent, that in essence, is what you managed to do.

Yeah Mike, next time try not to blend in with the scenery.

Dave @ 8:44:

"We were all embarrassed beyond belief on .... “Our guys wanted to wade in but our senior officers and our socialist mayor would not permit it.”

There it is folks.

That is exactly what I suspected. If Miller was at the 'command post' things were bound to be screwed up.And he had the audacity to suggest (during press conference yesterday) that he wants Feds to pay for the damage.
Did he plan all along to have PM Harper wear this?
So proud of that cop for speaking up.
Miller should be exposed, tarred and feathered.
Did he also influence the over-reaction on Sunday??
I hate inquiries. I'd rather spend the money catching those anarchists.But if an inquiry reveals more about Miller's mess I say go for it!!

bluetech - Miller is in huge financial trouble. He's after money any way, any how.

He's double-taxed Ontario car registration, i.e., you have to pay double the Ontario tax if you live in Toronto; he's double-taxed home sale registration. His parking minions are rabid cash scroungers. He has so overloaded the financial capacity of the city with his unions salary, benefits, pensions, overtime increases - that there's no money for infrastructure, for repairs. Nothing.

That's why he's not running again for mayor this fall; he knows he's in deep trouble. I doubt if the Toronto citizens really know how bad Toronto's financial situation is.

So, Miller will use this event - and Saturday's fiasco was his fault - to try to extort money out of Ottawa. He won't use that to pay the store owners for broken windows! Heck no, he'll use it to help deal with the massive debt he's run up in Toronto.

Kate, it should be pointed out that black is what pretty near -everybody- is wearing every day in downtown Toronto. You can tell who's a tourist by who's not wearing all black. They look like Mennonites.

Those guys picked Mike because he was an easy target. Plain and simple. Lone white guy, safe to vent on.

There's really nothing like being screamed at by armed men who are begging for an excuse to f- you up. Its happened to me in the past, so as a crunchy old grown-up I avoid all venues where that might happen. Like the entire city of Toronto until the fence is down and all the police have a chance to sleep off the trauma.

But if you live downtown and have a job, its going to be pretty hard to avoid. Roving bands of jacked-up, stressed out cops looking for some payback outside your front door. What a great way to live.

This is why I always say government is the most dangerous thing in our lives. If punks come after you, you can at least go down fighting, with preparation you can beat them. When the cops come after you, over NOTHING, you are stripped of all defense, legal and physical.

Mike just had that forcibly and loudly shoved up his nose, his experience leaves my head ringing with echoes of when this has happened to me. Mike isn't -ever- going to forget that, and he's -never- going to see police in quite the same way either.

I'm not complaining that some cops are jerks. Everybody is a jerk some days. I'm saying this whole f-ing thing was a manufactured debacle that didn't need to happen. The government waved a big red steak at the Lefty jackals and wonder of wonders, the Lefties grabbed it and ran with it. Gee, how did that happen?

Not only did we pay money for this to happen, we all get caught in the gears too. Even out here in Hooterville the OPP had a speed-trap derby all last week, just to remind everybody who's boss. Its not good, and I'm not happy about it.

You know what? If they'd staged this thing to sucker these f-ing protester weasels out and bust them all because they are a danger to Canada (which they are) I'd be all for it. I'd be happy to help. But that's not what's going on here. What's going on is Big Brother threw a party and stuck us with the check.

Bottom line Kate, stuff like the G20 and Caledonia is grinding up our society. You're supposed to be able to trust cops in this country, and because of LIBERAL POLICY, we -can't-. They are being ordered to ignore crimes in one context and crack down on whoever is handy in another. Pretty soon cops are going to be hated by everybody who comes in contact with them. Then Canada will be like Mexico, with payola, crooked cops, crooked judges, the works. It won't be hidden, it'll be in your face. Prices will be posted on the web.

That's the danger here, and that's the true damage from this weekend. That's what Kathy and Arnie are pointing up on their blog, and that's what roughed up Mike Brock.

Now is not the time to be reasonable. Being reasonable is what got us here.

Yeah, and I once had my car pulled over and searched 8 times in three hours by the RCMP.

We had a name for that, back when I was in high school. It was called "Saturday night". The Carlyle, SK RCMP detachment had 21 officers - for a town of 1200. They had to keep busy doing something when they weren't up at White Bear or scraping bodies from Hwy 13. We got over it. In fact, policing in 2010 is far less arbitrary than it was in our parent's day.

So, will someone please tell me how police are supposed to track down young men matching the description of black bloc anarchists without actually stopping and searching people who fit the description?

I'm disappointed in you. When it's middle class men educated in a Pakistani madrassas near a high security zone, you're all in for profiling.

But when it's middle class men educated in Canadian universities near a high security zone, the rules become different.

A little consistency, please.

phantom - I think you live in a fantasy world of your own authorship.

I don't think that Mike was an 'easy target'; he was an obvious target because of his visible behaviour: black clothes, earphones and communication device; in a zone of potential violence. Why was he ignoring the context of the day, when these images were clear indicators of a possible connection to the 'black bloc' tactics?

I'd like some evidence that police are 'armed and out to get people'; that they are 'roving bands' looking for 'payback'. Nor are you 'stripped of all defense- legal. [And that's the only defense in any such situation.]

And why exactly was this event a 'manufactured debacle'? It's a fact that it was a G20 meeting. It's also a fact that a lot of leftists love to demonstrate and yell and shout about the most vapid and empty issues, which they themselves have no plans or even operational will to deal with (poverty, welfare are the usual). It's also a fact that anarchists love to destroy. So, what is 'manufactured'?

When a govt announces a G20 meeting, the left and the anarchists each plan to do their thing: demonstrate and destroy. The anarchists hide themselves in the demonstrations..and destroy. How is this 'manufactured by the govt'?

I fully agree with you about Caledonia. That wasn't due to the police but to the political; McGuinty's Liberals. And I agree that this was a violation of the rights of the people who live there. He and Miller did the same when the Tamils were blocking the Gardiner highway. And..Miller and Blair did the same this weekend. So, it's not the police but the politicians.

Come on Kate. Monday afternoon, University Avenue, financial district is almost a mile away from the G20 site? Its all over by then, no more super security zone, supposedly. This is pure Pre-Crime harassment, and it damages the relationship of civilians and police like nothing else can. Illegal search is ILLEGAL, and for a reason, right?

"So, will someone please tell me how police are supposed to track down young men matching the description of black bloc anarchists without actually stopping and searching people who fit the description?"

You arrest Black Block vandals in mid-smash, is what you do. Something they should have been doing on Saturday but didn't, and then started doing on Sunday but not very well by all accounts.

Or, gee whiz, don't hand out parade permits during the Super Security G20 and arrest -everybody- who shows up to be a jerk. I'd be all for that too.

Also, slightly different threat level than "middle class men educated in a Pakistani madrassas near a high security zone", broken windows vs. home-made Sarin gas in the subway, right?

Kate,

I am not applying any double standard, and I expected more from you than a simple "you should have known better".

The line that divides tyranny and freedom is a tenuous one. Liberty is not something to be suspended on a whim. The purpose of police are to uphold justice. Not to screen members of the public for potential threats.

The protest going on yesterday was far from where I was, and by all accounts was peaceful.

Of course, many Supreme Court rulings have addressed this issue and would seem to side with me, up to and including the right to refuse questioning a police DUI checkpoint.

In order for police to demand someone submit to a search, they must have an articulable reason to suspect that person is committing or about to commit a crime. It is categorically not enough to asset that someone is wearing the same colour of shirt that a group of criminals wore two days prior.

The job of the police to provide public security is in fact, not paramount. What is paramount, is the upholding of fundamental justice. Security comes second.

Benjamin Franklin famously wrote that "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The Supreme Court has upheld a robust definition of what an "unreasonable search".

R v. Mann [2004]: "investigative detentions to be premised upon reasonable grounds. The detention must be viewed as reasonably necessary on an objective view of the totality of the circumstances, informing the officer’s suspicion that there is a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence."

The court went on ...

""Police powers and police duties are not necessarily correlative. While the police have a common law duty to investigate crime, they are not empowered to undertake any and all action in the exercise of that duty. Individual liberty interests are fundamental to the Canadian constitutional order. Consequently, any intrusion upon them must not be taken lightly and, as a result, police officers do not have carte blanche to detain. The power to detain cannot be exercised on the basis of a hunch, nor can it become a de facto arrest.""

... and R v. Collins [1987]: ""Any search incidental to the limited police power of investigative detention described above is necessarily a warrantless search. Such searches are presumed to be unreasonable unless they can be justified"
...

Here is the actual "Waterfield test" that police are expected to follow: "the detaining officer has some ‘articulable cause’ for the detention" the officer must have "a constellation of objectively discernible facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation."

...

""articulable cause was not sustained merely by the officer’s hunch based on intuition gained by experience."

But when it's middle class men educated in Canadian universities near a high security zone, the rules become different.
Kate
How true!!!
But the problem is when it is you, yourself who are targeted/profiled many of us gets angry and our objectivity goes through the roof. Theory is fine but practice......... is completely different kettle of fish.

I would like to relate the horrible experience I had yesterday ... my rights were violated, we live in a police state. I decided to take a stroll on public land, and I found myself on a public pier. It's not illegal to own or carry crab traps or bait ... and I just happened to have both traps and bait with me.

There I was, alone on the pier, minding my own business, checking the condition of my traps and the bait containers. Two ARMED RCMP officers approached, then circled me. They demanded to see a fishing license ... their hands, at the ends of their arms, may have been close to their guns.

I was so scared that I felt that I had to comply. I knew my rights were being violated as I produced the license. The worst part by far, after they looked at my license, they just strolled back down the pier like nothing had happened.

he detaining officer has some ‘articulable cause’ for the detention"
YUP, but that does not mean that he/she should not be able to check your ID. Detention is not checking an ID!!
*****
∞²
I also had similar experience. It is terrible, isn't it, when police can check your ID and then go away as if nothing happened!!!
It is certainly a POLICE STATE. !!!!!
:-)

"I knew my rights were being violated as I produced the license."

Please explain how your rights are being violated.

You need to have a license to fish, the police have a right, indeed a duty, to check on people who are fishing to see if they have one.

How can you be so stupid and alarmed that police officers are armed? Those Liberal "Guns in Our Cities" ads probably resonated loudly in the echo chamber of your brain.

Great policing on a seriously stupid person.

Mike,

And yet there is a still an argument that you fell into a "clearly articulable reason", you matched a description, the equivalent of gang colours in this context.

As I have said, time passed makes a difference, Monday after a major incident when there are conitnuing protests and lord knows what intelligence the police had, is hardly unreasonable.

The court is correct, you have to have a reason, and the court will likely rule at some point on this. But for practical purposes, I would still say they had reasonable cause.

BTW, the fact the protest was peaceful at that moment means nothing, given that saturdays protest was peaceful until the appointed time when the Black Block emerged. Saturday was planned. As I mentioned on another thread an aquantence of mine was warned not to go into the Starbucks at Queen and John because "the action" was going to begin in 15 minutes. 15 minutes later the flare went off and the Starbucks was trashed and the vandalism began.

Oh ya . . one more thing . . .

"their hands, at the ends of their arms, "

Where did you expect their frik'n arms to be, attached to their feet?

Failed Grade 1 science class eh?

Fred, slow down and think.

ella,

You're incorrect, actually. The demand to present identification constitutes a search under the law. In fact, it's considered a particularly intrusive search by the court, requiring the full articulable cause demanded by the Charter.

When police demand you present identification randomly, they are conducting a search within the definition of the Charter, and it is the same standard applied as to when the police search your bag or your car.

You really need to read about your own rights.

Fred,

I wasn't fishing - my traps never entered the water before the cops showed up. After they left, I decided to put them in the water to calm my nerves.

They also looked into a container to see if I had any crabs - isn't that illegal search?

ET, Monday afternoon? For wearing black in Toronto, the land of the urban Mennonites? To repeat, come on.

You've never been in that situation, have you? Its about the most shocking thing you can imagine short of being punched in the face. Which, hopefully, is something else you've never experienced and never will.

It makes you different afterwards. It really does. Maybe I'm a little touchy on the subject, but I got that way having the same experience Mike just did without even the weak excuses being given for Mike's fun and games there.

In the moment of it, you have no defense. After the fact, any appeal to higher authority you may have does not make up for it.

The more people walking around with that experience, the less effective our police forces are. Why do you think there are never any witnesses to murders up at Jane and Finch?

So it is vile and stupid public policy to create situations for this stuff to happen. It happens enough by accident without doing it on purpose.

And you know, what the hell are cops going to do in a -free- country where half the bystanders have guns ET? Visit Phoenix some time, that's the reality in that place. Police get their work done, and civilians back them up.

You think Mike's going to back up the cops next time -they- need -him-? He might, but he might remember Monday and think twice too.

Its not one little thing ET, its one little thing that happens too often. Its not a sand grain. Its a sand factory.

Stephen,

a constellation of objectively discernible facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation.

Note the court's strong use of pluralism and the word "constellation". As in meaning, not just one or two things that make the police suspicious. And the world "objectively". As in, any reasonable person looking at the situation would reach the same conclusion as the police.

I was on my iPhone, holding a Starbucks coffee, far from any protest, wearing a jeans and black Old Navy T-Shirt. I'm also 30 years old, and wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary.

You can go read the entire rulings yourself. But the courts have ruled on matters like this, when it comes to people "matching descriptions".

When you "match" the description of a suspected individual, this alone does not mean anything. In a city of millions of people, many people will match the description of "wearing a black shirt".

There was nothing objective about the supposed threat I posed at all, and I dare say any court in this land that is competent of the laws it enforces would agree. I say this after talking to several lawyers, from very reputable law firms, as well.

I didn't say "you should have known better". Don't put words in my mouth. I've provided plenty for you to quote directly.

But you did write something interesting - "The purpose of police are to uphold justice. Not to screen members of the public for potential threats."

Be sure to remember that assertion should the day come that the new neighbor starts spending afternoons at your kid's playground - and they tell you to call after there's been "an incident".

Kate,

The argumentum ad consequentiam on this matter could be applied to pretty much anything. Hence it's status as a logical fallacy.

I could say: remember saying that police shouldn't randomly search people's homes the next time somewhat builds a letter bomb in someone's basement.

In any case, I hear the crime rate in Cuba and Saudi Arabia is very low.

mike brock - my reading of the supreme court decisions and Waterfield fully supports what the police did to you.

Again, the demonstrations were still ongoing, the 'anarchists' and their agenda were not proven to have left; you were therefore still living within the context of a security time phase and spatial domain. Not one single 'right' was harmed by the police asking for your ID. They were not acting in any way against the Charter. You were not detained, you were not unreasonably searched. So, what's your beef?

Kindly provide evidence that the job of the police is 'upholding fundamental justice' rather than basic securities of citizens. I thought the courts had that duty of upholding justice; that is, it's a legal issue not a police issue.

Here are the duties of the police, as outlined by the Toronto Police Service Web Site. I don't see any duty of 'upholding fundamental justice' but I do see all about 'protecting security'.

"Protecting life and preventing injury
Protecting property
Preserving the peace
Preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention
Assisting victims of crime
Apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody
Laying charges and participating in prosecutions
Executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties
Performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns
Enforcing municipal by-laws
Completing prescribed training"

Oh, and this site also says

"Officers may stop pedestrians on the street if they observe an offence, if they are investigating a complaint, or if they believe the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. These interactions usually involve the officer asking for your name, address and identification, and other questions that are appropriate to their investigation."

So, how does asking for ID constitute a "particularly intrusive search"? And where in the Charter does it talk about a requirement for a fully articulated cause? Please tell us the Charter Section and article.

ET,

It constitutes an intrusive search because the demand someone give up their identity is a violation of their privacy. For instance, in the relevant court cases surrounding the use of DWI checkpoints across Canada, the courts have been fairly particular in the manner in which they can be conducted.

The police are allowed to stop you and question you, but you are not legally required to answer their questions. And the failure to answer their questions does not constitute grounds for search. R. v. Mann backs this up.

The refusal to volunteer information to the police as a member of the public, as a witness, as a person of interest, or under detention or arrest, has been ruled to be a matter of fundamental right, articulated under section 11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the United States, the fifth amendment

To do so, is to demand that you be a witness against yourself. Since under the rules of evidence, the police may not bring forward exculpatory information on your behalf due to the nature of our adversarial legal system.

So, to distill this down to the basics: the cops asked you, very rudely, to identify yourself and submit to a search.

You knew they required a warrant, but since it would cause you no end of trouble, gave your permission.

Then, they let you go without laying a hand on you or charging you.

So you went home to write a pissy blog post..

Because defending your rights under the law, with the law, failed to meet your Hassle Threshold, but did cross your Bitch About It In Public Afterwards Threshold.

That's a reasonable response, actually. One I'd have likely taken, too, absent the second step.

Kate said: "the new neighbor starts spending afternoons at your kid's playground - and they tell you to call after there's been "an incident".

Kate, broken windows vs. broken kid? Different threat level again. Besides, they -do- tell you to call back after there's been an incident. Cops don't protect us, they clean up afterwards. And in Canada they make sure we can't protect ourselves too.

ET said: "Not one single 'right' was harmed by the police asking for your ID. They were not acting in any way against the Charter. You were not detained, you were not unreasonably searched. So, what's your beef?"

ET, the beef is we don't live to make police jobs easier. They get paid to make our lives easier. When they're making your life hard, that's a problem. They can't walk up to you and demand ID, its illegal. Checkpoints are illegal. They can pull you over for nothing and demand ID though, that is legal. That's why RIDE checks can be done.

A man sitting on a bench doing nothing is no threat. A polite -request- for ID and a look in the bag is reasonable. I personally have no problem with requests from police, I ask them if they want to look in the truck or whatever as a go-along-to-get-along- strategy.

But that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about show me your ID or you go to jail right the hell now, expletive deleted.

The cops had a rough week, yes. There's a limit to what a guy can put up with, absolutely. The answer to that dilemma is not for Mike to suck it up when temper overcomes brain in some ragged policemen. The answer is leadership that's smart enough not to over-stress their troops, or put them in no-win situations.

Kate,

You're right that I decided not to dig in my heels as a matter of hassle threshold as you put it, actually. However, the truth of the matter was, that had more to do with the absence of third-party witnesses.

If I had the benefit of a third-party video taping or a group of witnesses within earshot, I would have dug in my heals, and demand they detain me if they wanted to search me. And upon detention, I would have immediately demanded to speak to a lawyer.

But given that I was essentially alone and cornered by a bunch of jackboot police officers, I had to take into consideration that it would be my word against four or five lying police officers.

They were, of course, liars. As they smirkingly said to me, "that's not how it happened" when I demanded to know why they were swearing at me. They actually seemed to take perverse pleasure out of the fact that they knew, that I knew, that they had just jerked me around.

I admit to being shocked by your attitude on this, Kate. It doesn't make sense to me. On a personal level, even, given the fact I personally supported you, both morally and financially in your legal battles.

Mike - I'll continue to differ. First, a minor point, but the 5th amendment doesn't apply in Canada.

Second, section 11c of the Charter refers only to 'any person charged with an offence' has the right: 'not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of that offence". You weren't charged with an offence, were you?

This article of the charter doesn't apply by any stretch of the imagination to the police asking you for your ID.

I see no logical analysis or empirical evidence that asking for one's identity is ''an intrusive search' or a 'violation of privacy'. None. How is your name a 'witness against yourself'? Again how does your name act as a witness against yourself in..ah..what offence were you charged with?

And despite your assertions, the duty of the police is not to 'uphold justice' or your 'fundamental rights'.

Mike - your assumption that the police officers were 'lying police officers' is..well, you seem to know about logical fallacies, and this is surely one of them.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence from you of your claims that the police were violating your 'fundamental rights'; that the police duty is to preserve your 'fundamental rights'; or that they violated the charter.

Equally, I consider that your presence in a fragile temporal and spatial security zone, with key signs relevant to the Black Bloc tactics, was not something that should have been overlooked by the police. Your refusal to acknowledge both the lack of violation of your 'fundamental rights' and your visual and behavioural 'signs' of possible association with the Black Bloc is robotic and obtuse.

Legally, you haven't a 'leg to stand on'. The police had every right to ask you for your ID and search you. As a citizen, I'd also say that you had no moral grounds to complain; the facts are that your 'signs' were associated with the Black Bloc. You must have known this and why you were doing this - at that time in that area - is beyond me. Oh, and holding a Starbucks doesn't exonerate anyone from being an anarchist.

Yet another logical fallacy on your part, is the 'tit for tat' special pleading attempt on your part to claim that because you've supported her, then she should side with you.

phantom - we don't 'live to make anyone's job easier' but we don't have to make anyone's job harder, do we? Why do you have such a vendetta against police? No, checkpoints are not illegal; when you go into a security zone, those checks are legal - whether it be in the G20 area or an airport or a condominium.

"The answer to that dilemma is not for Mike to suck it up when temper overcomes brain in some ragged policemen."

Phantom and Mike: and that's where we differ.

In extraordinary circumstances such as occurred in Toronto, I think it is. (I'm not speaking specifically to Mike's experience, for as he says, there were no third party witnesses.)

But in general, yes - one of our responsibilities as citizens in a free and democratic society is to recognize when co-operation is necessary for the safety and security of your community. When it's time to set aside your precious dignity and help them get the bigger job done. Because your community, perhaps the lives of others, may depend upon it.

G20 protests have an established history of riots and violence. People have been killed as a result of these ridiculous marxist parades. It's not the Shriners gone bad, you know?

So, recording an uneventful arrest scene may be your "right", but you're being a self-indulgent jerk, nonetheless.

I've never seen a bunch of whinier, more entitled bunch of "conservatives" in a long time. Me, me, me, f'ing me and all the bad things that happened to "me". Except that they really didn't happen, did they? You weren't brutalized, you weren't detained.

You were inconvenienced. Oh, and insulted.

I really did experience worse harassment as a teenage driver. What's wrong with you people?

As I mentioned I had worked as a motorcade driver during the G20 based primarily at the MTCC from Tuesday on. To get into the Centre you had to have a security RCMP issued pass, go through a thorough identity check to make sure the pass was yours and your picture was displayed on the security monitor, go through metal detectors and a pat down. Once inside if you know the Centre there are myriads of escalators where security personal are located at the top and bottom of each escalator rechecking your pass hanging around your neck.

To walk from the South entrance to the north where I could only go so far you would be checked at least 20 times physically and who knows how many times with cameras.

My time was spent just waiting by the hour for our little motorcade to return to the hotel or to the airport. Couldn't return to my secured van as it required my RCMP escort with his security clearance.

Despite this on the Sunday 2 RCMP officers and a security guy separately came up to me to ask if I needed help as I was basically just standing there and or course rechecked my pass and ID.

Mike and Phantom though you may have felt you were challenged incorrectly I felt like shouting "How many &*%^$ times do you have to recheck the same guy!" Of course because they all carried big guns I let it slide.

Mike, not a good idea to get Kate on your side by trying to change HER opinion by bribing her with your past support and MAYBE your future support if she plays nice.

I look at places overwhelmed by terrorism (Gaza, Kandahar, Fallujah, etc.) and see the inevetable stories of someone whose family has been hurt by an attack on the terrorists. The victim claims to be innocent and let's assume she is. Where did she go wrong?

When the battle is on, you need to get out of the way. If you help the terrorists hide, you are not entirely innocent. Of course, the bad guys make it hard to avoid helping them hide.

Your options are better if you act earlier. Before the battle, you can report suspicious activities, or just make it hard for the bad guys to integrate. Before they start to assemble,you can challenge their ideas to deny them acceptence in your community.

Thanks to my grandparents' courage and lack of naivety, I don't have to fight these battles with as much pain as someone form Gaza. Pity Shaidle. Her courage in the early stages of defence matches anyone's and yet her neighbors' courage doesn't and she ends up in the battle.

Lot of verbiage here; can't say anybody has really nailed any part of this, but there are valid statements coming out everywhere, most defined in law - what, however, is being talked about is legal pragmatism, not absolutes, nor law, actually. As every boat owner who goes to sea knows, he who owns the biggest boat, makes the rules, at least in the moment.

While agree with a lot of Mike Brock says, I don't on a couple of points:

the police aren't responsible to uphold justice - that's the court's role, and the court's role solely (excluding citizen's responsibility). Justice doesn't come into the actions and authorities of the police at all. When it does, you have subverted their responsibility. That's how this weekend's activities came about, why Caledonia is such a failure.

and, yes, their role is to screen members of the public, or anybody else, to ascertain threats. They have a lengthy list of rules about that, but that is in their job description.

About detention... if you are approached by a police officer demanding ID, whether or not he has reasonable grounds and/or a search warrant, and you are not free to just walk away, you ARE being detained. And WITHOUT reasonable grounds (as defined by the SCC, or a warrant), the officer is without standing. The SCC has been clear on this. But in order to survive a challenge, you need to have the resources to hold your ground, else 'he who owns the biggest boat, makes the rules, at least in the moment'.

i'd say that the direction of most of the comments here are not exactly where i expected.

here is a link to the bravest, and most honest man in toronto. he speaks for those of us who actually are local.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NZBTn6pnGM&feature=player_embedded

Well Kate, the same question might be asked of you. People stand up for their rights and you have a hissy fit.

Sure Arnie and Kathy and Mike and thousands of other Torontonians could have sucked it up for the greater glory of PMSH's billion dollar photo op. They could co-operate by pretending not to notice when some cops beat up a visiting British journalist.

They could forebear from wearing black.

They could have ID cards hanging from their necks to make the cops tough job easier.

They could leave their cameras, cell phones and backpacks at home.

In fact, if they wanted to really co-operate with the authorities, they could have just stayed inside their own homes. That way the police could easily tell who the criminals were.

There is a strong cleavage within the conservative interest between people who assert that individual rights and autonomy matters and those who believe in order and an authoritarian state.

It is pretty clear which side of that divide you come down on Kate.

Good thing BTJ didn't join this thread - otherwise the thread could get long.

Jay,

False choice.....

Take a deep breath because its all over now.

The courts will rule on the cases that have started. We will see just what if anything gets trimmed back, my bet is very little if anything. I am not aware of any major changes to laws that came out of the Quebec City debacle, where the police response was much more robust, that should be your first hint.

This wasnt the erosion of rights you are calling it, and the court rulings should back that up. The city is up and functioning fine and it wont affect Pride week one bit, nor the 10,000 person Muslim convention that is happening soon.

no, Jay, it isn't a 'right' to wear black or red or any colour; this situation has nothing to do with fundamental rights. It has to do with common sense and a respect for a volatile situation and time.

The weekend was a time of demonstrations and anarchy. The space was a large part of Toronto from the Bloor St U of T area down to the Lakeshore; that's a large space.

The demonstrations had no opportunity and they must have known this, on being noticed by the G20 delegates; they were there primarily to be noticed by Canadian media. The thugs had little interest in the G20; they were using the event and space as a cover for their adrenalin fun of destruction.

Therefore, it is responsible of a citizen, exercising common sense, to make this weekend easier on the police and other citizens. Don't go down to the area to rubber-neck; don't wear black and have earphones and carry on conversations with a hidden other..and don't get carried away with the notion of 'rights' to do any of this. It has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with responsibility and common sense and yes, respect for others.

And your either-or conservative image is false; both individuals and a common set of rules exist.

It is offensive of you to claim that the G20 was a photo-op for Harper; it's held every year; it does have a vital role; are you claiming that each and every time all it is is a photo-op for the leader of whichever country hosts it?

skip - the reasonable grounds in Mike's case were his visible similarities to the Black Bloc: in the demonstration zone area and time; wearing black; using an electronic communication device. The police had a duty to ask him for ID and ask a few questions about why he was there.

Sure, such attributes of similarity are on the surface, indeed only superficial, but in that time and space, they moved out of the superficial and into a primary set of attributes-of-Black Bloc activity. For Mike - as well as Kathy and Arnie in their actions - to take such offense was arrogant.

Sorry, but "order" comes at the expense of individual rights and autonomy? That's a, er, kind of hysterical dichotomy.

But is the consensus here really that Kathy and Arnie's run-in with the police is equivalent to Mike Brock's?

You know, I just want to dispel this little myth that's going around that downtown Toronto was "out of control". The riot, as it were, was always contained to a very small area at any given time, no larger than a quarter city block.

When the small riot broke out, the police abandoned their police cars, and hundreds of police on bicycles simply retreated. Allowing the small merry band of hoodlums to practice their window smashing and conveniently-abandoned police car burning to go on unmolested for the next three hours.

There was 15,000 police in downtown Toronto at that time. And maybe about 25 engaged in vandalism. True, there was a crowd walking with the vandals, mostly of union activities who were egging them on. But they actual true size and disposition of the hoodlums was such that it would have taken all but 5 minutes for a group of 100 police to bring it to a quick end.

You know, I never thought I'd be saying this, but when I go back and recount what I saw unfold on Queen Street, with the police racing their two cruisers up the street, followed by hundreds of police on bikes, followed by the inexplicable abandonment of the cruisers and subsequent retreat of all the officers on the bicycles. And not just that, but the constant retreat for three hours.

The police were retreating and clearing the path in front of the rioters for three hours. They even left two abandoned police cars with their equipment on and engines running at Bay and King for the hoodlums to destroy.

There was no bloody police at that intersection, at all! The absolute heart of the financial district, and only two blocks north of the security fence, the police had just vacated and cleared it into a veritable ghost town.

Let's put this "chaos" into perspective, here.

Kate said: "But in general, yes - one of our responsibilities as citizens in a free and democratic society is to recognize when co-operation is necessary for the safety and security of your community. When it's time to set aside your precious dignity and help them get the bigger job done. Because your community, perhaps the lives of others, may depend upon it."

Absolutely true. And that's what Mike did, he's providing an after-action report. That's what I do too, when called upon.

But living next to Caledonia you watch a row of riot cops facing -away- from the screaming guys burning stuff and throwing rocks at the cops, facing -toward- the people who are standing there doing no one damn thing, you get a different feeling about the cops.

In fact the Hamilton police force showed up for that particular fracas , and refused to follow OPP orders to protect the car burning rioters from the evil townspeople. They said "What is wrong with this picture!" got back in their trucks and went back to Hamilton. Hamilton police have not been back to Caledonia since.

Hamilton police have successfully removed the same Mohawk demonstrators/land thieves from the Ancaster fair grounds that are still squatting on the DCE with OPP protection. There are no illegal smoke shacks along the border the Six Nations Reserve shares with Hamilton.

Illegal smoke shacks line Highway 6 in Caledonia, some on private land without the land-owner's permission. Said landowners have been charged by the county, too.

Take a look at what Garry McHale has been getting from these guys. They tackled him and put him down like rugby stars a couple years ago, chucked him in jail for 48 hours and charged him with all kinds of crazy stuff. He beat it all in court and presently Julian Fantino, head of the OPP is the one in court. Garry McHale's crimes to date consist of standing on public land holding a Canadian flag, taking video of OPP cops being hit in the backs of their heads by rocks and bottle as they protect the protesters from nothing, and having a web site.

Take a look at what's going down with the windmills, that's right here where I live too. People in my town of Cayuga are getting pre-crime calls from the OPP (of Caledonia fame) warning them not to cause any trouble for the windmill guys.

But the Indians can block the 403 in Ancaster all Saturday morning, and the OPP don't just let them do it, they help them do it. The Tamils block the Gardiner, no problem. The Black Block burn cop cars and loot stores, no problem!

Are the OPP rank and file happy about this? No! Do they still take the money and follow the illegal orders? Hell yeah they do.

So I don't know Kate. My alarm threshold got crossed a while ago with all this, the G20 is just more of it. I still don't have my promised gun registry dismantlement, I still don't have a right to own my own house, and I know for sure I don't have any rights with the cops if they find it inconvenient.

Maybe my sojourn in America messed up my mind, but its hard for me to compare Arizona to Ontario and not conclude we have a serious problem with high level police corruption and loss of human rights here. If I have more freedom as a foreign visitor in Phoenix than I do at home as a citizen, and I do, that is double plus un-good.

Got interrupted three times while writing that last piece and it threw off my thought process a bit. What I was actually trying to say in, not so many words, is that I am starting to believe the police intentionally let the chaos ensue Saturday afternoon.

If you insert yourself into chaos, don't be surprised if shi* happens.....it's that simple.

If you're smart, you'll stay the hell home. The cops didn't need rubberneckers adding to the frenzy.

And we saw today at the news conference, proof of how "peaceful" those protesters were....did you happen to see all the weapons confiscated?

So, what were the 'legitimate' protesters protesting against anyway?

Mike, you are probably right as what I am hearing is the cars were empty of gas and had flat tires. Some officers at the G20 said they were left there to delay and give something for the Black Block to destroy.

Phantom, I have been following and get regular updates from McHale. The OPP themselves are pissed off with McGuinty, who IMHO is a disgraceful coward. Fantino, who I used to respect here in Toronto, is a huge disappointment as the OPP Commissioner. He should have had the balls to resign rather than have his rep in tatters over Caledonia.

McGuinty has now let illegal cig sales reach 50% of all sales in Ontario according to the RCMP. The billions lost in taxes will be taken from you and I.

EMG - yes, order comes at the expense of individual actions; that's the norm in every realm of life, whether it be chemical, biological or societal. There's a fine balance between the requirements of all systems (chemical, biological, societal) for both modes: individual freedom and common order or normative habits.

phantom - the behaviour of the police at Caledonia was and is due to the political orders of McGuinty. Same thing with the vandalism on Queen St in Toronto - the political orders of Miller and Blair 'not to confront'. This latter order changed the next day, after Miller saw the anger of Torontonians that the police had 'allowed' this to happen..and he OK'd police confrontation. There's an article in the Toronto Sun

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/06/28/14549421.html

that outlines the anger of the regular police at being restrained and told to stand down by their bosses and not deal with the rioters.

phantom - 'right to own your own house'? What does that mean? Owning a home isn't a human right; it's a financial ability. Sorry but I'm unclear about your comment.

Some officers at the G20 said they were left there to delay and give something for the Black Block to destroy.

To be honest, it was actually my first thought when I saw it. And I'm not prone to buying into conspiracy theories. The first time they abandoned the cars, I was like "ooooooookay".

Then when I saw the police had just left two more for them upstream, I started thinking it had to be staged. And then I was like, "there's no way". But now I'm returning to my first impression.

"There is a strong cleavage within the conservative interest between people who assert that individual rights and autonomy matters and those who believe in order and an authoritarian state. It is pretty clear which side of that divide you come down on Kate."

Jay, conservatives want smaller government. We want the end of the nanny state. We do believe that individual rights and autonomy matter.

But you cannot place "order" on the opposite side of that divide. Individual rights and autonomy cannot exist without order.

The more voluntary order that a community generates for itself, the less demand there is for state presence and services. Think volunteer fire departments.

Under a small government model, hundreds of young men would voluntarily hand over identification and backpacks to aid the efficiency of a police search.

In the big government model, they wait while scores of bureaucrats work to issue mandated warrants, while dozens of government lawyers argue ways to redraft them, as thousands of government employees maintain millions of names in the databases, and thousands of human resources people and management track seniority and vacation days and grievances and ...

Which was it you wanted again?

I am with you on small government Kate. (And of course no real conservative government would have wasted a billion plus dollars on hosting the farce which is the G-20 in downtown Toronto or anywhere else.)

And I agree with you that rights require order; but not at any price. What we saw was first an abdication of the state's responsibility to maintain order and then an absurd over reaction. In both cases individual rights suffered.

Critically, however, despite the temptation to "go along to get along", Kathy, Arnie and Mike all stood up for their rights when the police went over the top. In doing that they were preserving our rights and posing no threat to order whatsoever.

What is unfortunate is that more people dd not stand up for their rights not to have thugs breaking windows on Saturday. A few determined individuals (and some fungo bats) would have put an end to the smashing glass antics of the Black bloc weanies.

You example of young men voluntarily handing over id and backpacks seems to me to smack of the "if you have nothing to hide" logic of authoritarian regimes. It is the same logic which suggests that the state place video monitoring cameras to search for crime and that all men over ten have their DNA on file so we can more effectively apprehend rapists and other criminals. It is the logic of a police state.

Jay, why don't you simply address my statements on their base merits? This isn't a philosophical debate, it's a real event with real people and established facts. No DNA was taken, no need to introduce it now.

Handing over your backpack and ID on request does not smack of an authoritarian state.

It is saying "I am aware of what has transpired over the past couple of days, have considered the alternatives,the fact that there are unknown numbers of criminals still at large who have promised to do more damage, there is the possibility that police are acting on intelligence that I am not privy to, and it is the best interests of myself and my community to see that they are caught."

Okay Kate, but how does cooperating help them in any way? It requires me abdicating my rights and wasting my time. Since there were no weapons in my bag, and I am not black bloc, what would my cooperation provide?

Really. That's the crux of it. My cooperation will not contribute to the cooperation of the assailant. It offers nothing. It's obedience for obedience sake.

Considering we do have the right to refuse warrantless, suspicionless searches, Kate -- and you have not challenged that legal assertion -- you are merely advocating a course of action that will cause the police to rely on illegal measures for investigation.

As such, evidence collected as part of an illegal search can and often is found to be inadmissible in court. Therefore, complying with these illegal searches does not contribute to upholding any tenet of justice in my estimation.

It is nothing more than an exercise is making the public obedient to authority.

For cons like Kate, "order" is code for obedience to whatever authority Kate happens to like today. The cop-fetish overriding any pro-freedom sensibilities is a hallmark of 'conservatism'. Reason magazine does an excellent job of documenting the abuses by cops that many authoritarians like Kate turn a blind eye to, or in the case of Sheriff Arpaio, praise.

"Considering we do have the right to refuse warrantless, suspicionless searches, Kate -- and you have not challenged that legal assertion -- you are merely advocating a course of action that will cause the police to rely on illegal measures for investigation."

I'm not the one who surrendered their bag.

You did.

"skip - the reasonable grounds in Mike's case were his visible similarities to the Black Bloc: in the demonstration zone area and time; wearing black; using an electronic communication device. The police had a duty to ask him for ID and ask a few questions about why he was there."

Nonsense. That's profiling. Reasonable grounds requires more than a similarity to alleged perps, especially in the circumstance when there maybe 100 diverse perps. The police had no such duty, and nothing in Mike's description provided any more than a perhaps he could be. That's not enough for any of the scrutiny he went under. Laws were broken on both sides over the weekend - it was not a good couple of days. I'll remind you that I make these decisions every day.

There a quite a number of better ways this weekend could have been handled. It was suggesated to the police that the idea of such a large fence was stupid to begin with - that they set themselves up for the very thing they experience - and indefensible perimeter.

Had they established mobile squads of equipped (but not riot gear equipped) officers (maybe 15 to 20) moving together through and with the protesters, more or less amiably, they could have kept a chill on a lot of the trouble. Left the riot guys to hold the line near the fences and redirect. The cars were burned because the officers driving them allowed themselves to get boxed in. They abandoned them when they became a target and the windows were smashed. Although a few other officers came to their aid, by then, all they could do was cut and run. They didn't leave them for the black bloc to play with, they couldn't rescue them. It wasn't black bloc anywayu on the cars - just your typical TO street detritus.

Kate,

The point Kate, is that I was under threat of arrest. Given the fact they had demonstrated they were willing to arrest other people under the charge of "breach of peace" for any sort of intransigence, I as you accurately pointed out earlier, chose not to inconvenience my wife, daughter, co-workers and such as I sat in a detention centre for 23 hours.

At which point they would have just released me and dropped the charges to avoid actually arraigning me in front of judge, who would probably go apeshit on them.

Easier to bluff and hope that I don't have tens of thousands of dollars to pursue a civil action. And you know what? They're right.

So the point is they abused their power, and I don't have the time or resources to call their bluff.

When you think about it Kate, that actually makes the situation worse. Not better.

What I find astonishing is the constant referral to 'my rights' of people such as Mike. They adamantly refuse to recognize that the security situation was fragile and the police had a duty to provide security. Remember, Mike, the police don't have a thing to do with providing your 'fundamental rights'; that's the job of the legal system. The police provide security. So, when the police ask for ID, I'm stunned by the arrogance - and I mean the word - of those who claim that such a request is a violation of 'their rights', is an 'intrusion of privacy' and other nonsense.

The police didn't know, Mike, that you carried no weapons; that you were not 'black bloc'. Your Starbucks coffee couldn't protect you. So, why are you so adversarial and foaming about 'your rights'. Not one single right of yours was violated despite your constant claims of such.

You've brought up various Charter sections - which are clearly invalid in this instance. You've referred to court cases - equally not relevant in this instance. No, the search was not illegal and there's nothing you can come up with to prove that it was. Repeating your claim that it was illegal ..argumentum ad nauseum is the term for that fallacy. I don't see any depth to your claim that the police 'abused their powers' and equally, no validity to your suggestion that a judge would have agreed with you.

skip - what's wrong with profiling? Is it racial or ethnic? No. So, your argument is empty.

Looking for similar patterns among a set of attributes is a basic SCIENTIFIC mode of data gathering and analysis. Mike's attributes fit with a set of attributes that defined the Black Bloc activists. Therefore the police had every right to question him and he had no right, as a citizen, to refuse or take offense. Again, not one single right, fundamental or legal, was violated by the police.

Oh, and could you provide evidence that the people who smashed the cars were 'typical TO street detritus'? What about those who smashed the windows on that same day?

Your Monday morning suggestion of 'what they ought to have done' is a suggestion without proof that it would have worked. The point is, the fence worked; the anarchist thugs who came to Toronto to smash and destroy weren't interested in the fence. They were focused on 'capitalist stores' ..not the Metro Convention Centre.

Skip says "Nonsense. That's profiling".
Well, in case he hasn't noticed, the unwillingness (actually prohibition) to employ this tactic is precisely why we in the free world are in this frigging mess, and digging ourselves deeper, and why it will assuredly lead us to our ultimate demise!
There are situations when preventative policing can be for the greater good, even though someone's panties may become somewhat constrictive when being thusly inconvenienced.
Suck it up, Buttercup.

All that said, Blair and the rest of the brass have to wear this debacle, and have to be severely scrutinized for their ham-handidness. Some bold leadership would be a novel and welcome idea.

".....I admit to being shocked by your attitude on this, Kate. It doesn't make sense to me. On a personal level, even, given the fact I personally supported you, both morally and financially in your legal battles....."

'Posted by: Mike Brock at June 29, 2010 1:43 PM'

How very interesting. What exactly does the foregoing sentence convey other than since Mike Brock supported Kate financially and morally it is expected that Kate is now obligated to support Mike Brock whether or not Kate agrees with his complaint of being victimized by the police.

Not even subtle coercion.

Well, Mike Brock (and Jay Currie) during the Olympics in Vancouver if either of you (or Kathy) had given such lip to one or four or five of Vancouver's finest you would have found yourself braced against a wall with a voice whispering in your ear about ..."what did you say again ..Miss/Mr..?"

Right. It happened to so many of us in the first day or two that from then on we smiled at any of our guys in blue..... to their faces ...

And, the first day when all of the eco twits, the Unionists, et al. joined up with the 'black bloc' who commenced wreaking havoc, breaking the huge windows of the Hudson's Bay Company, etc. then attempted to change clothes and run off, ordinary people went after them and those Bloc thugs were treated to 'civic action' which Vancouver's Finest would never have been allowed to slap upon them.

Yes. From then on there was not one protest that had enough steam in it to even close down half a block.

But. We were all still very respectful of that thin blue line of AUTHORITY and did naughty things behind their backs only.

And, Mike Brock, quite a few 'innocent' types ended up being frog marched off to the Van to spend the night in lock-up simply because they howled and whined that they had RIGHTS and did not have to submit to "police enquiries".

To even suggest the Toronto police were acting on orders from PMHarper to allow the thugs to burn police cars, etc., etc. is pathetic really but not surprising since the owners of that website freedominion have been screeching about this Harper 'conspiracy' for days. It is to laugh that those people have the nerve to suggest they are the principled conservatives.

skip

"""Nonsense. That's profiling."""

and profiling is thee most valuable tool in the policing/security tool bag, and thusly should be liberally applied

and

Kathy Shaidle acting like the lefty she is, and some are surprized????

I think the spectacle of the so called security force watching countless crimes being commited was a disgrace to all Canadians. In regards to what happened to Mike, Kathy and Arnie, the behavior of police seems pretty typical of the pick low hanging fruit/respect my authority/don't question me attitude of policing nowadays. But in this particular environment I don't think it is unreasonable to allow a little bit of latitude to the officers to try and be somewhat productive (even if it is you who is being wrongly hassled). And it isn't surprising that when someone hangs around an area (even if it wasn't that close to rioting) that by the sounds of it was pretty much a police dragnet, that the police might encounter you. In Kathy and Arnie's case the cop was a bit of a dick, they asserted their rights, the cop backed off, no big deal. In Mike's case the cops were dicks, Mike relinquished his rights "under protest", cops continue to be dicks but at least no arrest. So Mike who knows/believes in his rights needs to also stand up for his rights, even at the risk of inconvenience, otherwise who else should stand up for them?

Fascinating stuff all around. But I gotta say I'm with Kate on this one for the most part. I have spent some time in police detention (Drunk tank in Vancouver and various other cities in B.C.) I know what arseholes some cops can be when they have total power over you. I finally learned not to let myself end up in those situations. Always go the opposite way of the policeman/woman (moreso). Unless, of course, you need one.

At least the black bloc understand the cops want to get them. Something that is flying over the heads of the "victims" here.

Some of you think that the safest place for thief should be a bench in front of a a 7-11 he just knocked off ... because nobody should be questioned there, human rights and all.

My policy with temporary police states like the one currently in TO and the Vancouver olympics is to stay as far away from them as possible. However, there are times when you are living in the middle of a police state as was the case when johnny cretin hosted his fellow dictators in Vancouver for APEC. I lived on the other side of Burrard street from my office and there were large blocks of time when Burrard street was closed. Fortunatly I didn't have to drive anywhere as I lived a few blocks away but a lot of patients couldn't get in to see me if they had to drive to access my office. Also, they couldn't simply cross Burrard street and one had the ludicrous sight of a huge crowd of people held up at a crosswalk for 30 minutes or more before the police would let them cross a totally deserted street -- very important to show crowds of gutless sheeple being controlled as the dictators sped by.

The St. Pauls Hospital doctors would have none of this BS and we'd cross away from the crosswalks going from our offices to the hospital and back. With TV cameras around the cops were disinclined to bust us for jaywalking; the whole point of having an office a 2 minute walk from the hospital is so you can get in to see a patient in distress promptly.

One night I was working in my office late and when I thought the coast was clear decided to walk home with a pack full of charts to work on later than night. I had one of cretins goons stop me and ask me to open my pack and I let him know that this was unlawful detention and he was proposing an illegal search. In any case, he had absolutely no right to see the patient charts I was carrying without a court order. We stared each other down until I told him to either arrest me, or get the f*** out of my way. I refused to provide him with any identification and only indicated that I had come from my medical office across the street and, as far as where I was going he could watch which way I walked. There was a large group of witnesses from SPH ER close by and I waved to the people I knew and the scowling gestapo member got out of my way. I suspect that my being a doctor may have had something to do with my getting away with this but I've found that standing up to cops has been the best policy in the past especially when they have no grounds to detain you. He could have given me a ticket for jaywalking but none of the other doctors doing what I did got one during this police state period and I think I would have been able to fight it on those grounds

Turns out that slick willies plane was late that night and hopefully he saw me give him an upraised middle finger when the motorcade drove by.

If I'd known how much this abuse of Vancouver to host dictators would have had in decreasing the number of patients I saw during that time I would have just closed my office and headed to the BC interior for the duration of the Vancouver police state.

It wouldn't take many people standing up for their rights to change the behavior of the police and what really struck me during the time of APEC was how many docile sheeple there were in Vancouver.

AFAIK, police have no right to detain you when you're just peaceably walking down the street especially when there's no crime that has been committed in the area you're walking (well APEC was the city wide crime but I don't look at all like the Shawinigan strangler).

"It wouldn't take many people standing up for their rights to change the behavior of the police"

Yes, but maybe not in the way you intended.

Society can handle a few self-centered prima donnas. But if everyone acts that way you get either Gaza, where the truly bad actors operate with impunity or totalitarianism where the people get sufficiently angry at the bad guys and tired of the prima donnas.