Heh. Nice one. Can't let that Steve Paiken get all the action....

What I think is fun about the left, is their postmodern fluidity of knowledge. Reality simply has no meaning for them; what they perceive - and this changes minute by minute - is, for them, the truth.

For most of us, if someone bumps into us with their bike handlebar, well, the reality is that someone bumped their bike handlebar on one's left arm.

But for a leftist, this same reality becomes 'an illegal action' and 'a bike cop ran over me' and cops 'running over pedestrians'.

Just like the leftist thugs, who claimed that their actions of smashing windows weren't actions of 'violence' but acts of 'courage' against 'capitalism'. Ahh, the things one can do when one lives within the vacuity of slithering words.

Well at least in this case there was something physical. Beats the "he was rude and hurt my feelings" stuff I was hearing about earlier, or the "my pizza didnt arrive in 30 minutes and I still had to pay for it" complaints about the holding facility.

Remember, this reporter is from the generation of helicopter parents, helmets on the toboggan hill and no score kept at sports games where everyone gets a trophy.

I say send her to cover the demonstrations in Seoul in November.

The poor dear. Hopefully she will make a complete physical recovery. Although I'm sure that mentally she is scared for life. The trauma is just to great.

"Although I'm sure that mentally she is scared for life."

Maybe, like the minor hockey players in Toronto, she can get her mommy to sue.

For a better response Jenny Yuen could have explained to the cop how many readers she has.

glasnost,

you owe me a new computer screen....very funny

First rule of journalism: don't be the news. Unfortunate she got hit by the bike, but what was she doing there? Was she protesting? Apparently not, she was apparently reporting... with just an Iphone? So, she was standing at the "side of the protest" - so where? In the street? On a sidewalk? She was apparently in the way, or she wouldn't have got hit. Was she standing still? Or was she bobbing about, trying to get a shot, forcing the cop to figure out where this airhead was going?

So, she didn't to get run down by a bicycle (but she did expect to get tear-gassed, or rubbered, or beaten with a baton).

So Jenny, hon, are you disappointed it was only a bike? I thought you were a reporter at a protest(not a picnic)? Maybe you should have stayed home and watched the coverage on TV, but then you would have missed your 15 minutes.

Here's a hint: DON'T sign up for the nex A'stan tour, and here's something to think about: What if the protester you were snapping on your Iphone took exception to your picture taking and pounded you within an inch of your life? Probably the guy on the bike wouldn't have been there to wipe you up either, or maybe he would have. Why would create the need for him to have to?

If you intend to play in the street, you need to watch for traffic, especially when you're not paying attention. The Sun needs real reporters. While we took a run at Michael Cooke last week, he has a point - not all citizen journalists should leave their basements, and there is more to street reporting then simply showing up.

As a friend of mine like to say "life is rough; wear a helmet".

Yeah, and don't BE the news...

To a leftist, truth is whatever advances the cause at any given point in time. No matter how blatant a lie it is.

Rather then attempting to take pictures while crossing the street she should watch where she is going.

Reminds me of that stupid idiot who fell down an open manhole while texting on her phone, only to complain it was the utilities fault she doesn't watch where she walks.

This is probably the most pathetic journalistic attempt to make something out of nothing that I've ever read.

I suppose if it had rained and a police car had driven by, splashing her, her headline would blare: "Police water attack" or even "Police waterboarding".

I guess this "journalist" wasn't interested in doing any serious background research on the G-20, major leaders, policies, etc., in order to write a real article. Not interested and/or incapable.

Does anybody have any idea of the journalist salary scales? An educated guess at roughly what this "journalist" would be paid yearly for churning out stuff like this bird-cage liner?

Even more amazing, her editor let her publish it.

I guess neither of them is hoping to make it to Kory TV

"I expected to potentially be tear gassed, hit with ricochet rubber bullets and be beaten with batons during the G-20 weekend."

And yet she's totally shocked and grieving when she got brushed by a handle bar. If she was expecting all this potential danger, maybe she ought to have looked around before planting herself in the way and snapping photos.

I consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative, but these people are taking no responsibility for themselves. This lady should have been looking out for herself.

Now, now Brick, you're not allowed to mention the personal responsibility side of the Libertarian equation. Shhhhhh No fair.

I'm with the reporter; she sustained a serious injury. The damn' cop split her infinitive.

The thing about lefty protestors is that they have this kind of martyrdom complex. It's a badge of honor for them to be gassed and beaten. Or pancaked by an awesome israeli bulldozer. There's really no nice way to deal with them.

I think the police had recieved plenty of support when they finally decided to sweep the city and arrest everyone instead of standing around scowling.

The thing about lefty protestors is that they have this kind of martyrdom complex. It's a badge of honor for them to be gassed and beaten. Or pancaked by an awesome israeli bulldozer. There's really no nice way to deal with them.

I think the police had recieved plenty of support when they finally decided to sweep the city and arrest everyone instead of standing around scowling.

OMG! How BRUTAL! And I bet they didn't even offer her a vegan meal as compensation . . .

I see what you did there.

"I was there watching the crowd, when a police car drove by me with it's LIGHTS FLASHING! My eyes were optically assaulted! I demand an apology and an inquiry and compensation!"

Some of you people are really something else. When I was illegally searched by police on Monday, and I've repeated this about a million times now, I had not injected myself into any "hot zone".

I was simply profiled for wearing a black t-shirt, and subjected to hostile police who began swearing at me before I even had a chance to respond to them.

And this happened more than 48 hours after the last violent protest in Toronto had occurred, and more 24 hours after the G20 itself had wrapped up.

Personal responsibility? To what? A personal responsibility to simply obey power tripping police when they surround me on the street and say we're going to search you and "WE DON'T GIVE A F*** WHAT YOU THINK!"

If you're such a fool that you'll bow down to authority every single time it throws itself on you, then you deserve no freedom whatsoever. You're an insult to every man who ever died fighting tyranny for this country.

I'm sure almost all the people applauding the police for harassing innocent people simply walking through downtown Toronto n Monday night were more than happy to call fascism at the Human Rights Commissions and stand up firm against the power of the state.

But when a man or woman in uniform, carrying a gun, comes up to you, starts swearing at you, and threatens you with arrest if you don't comply with their warrantless search, all you can do is drop your drawers and start rubbing yourself off at the show of authority.

It sort of makes me stop and think whether or not all those leftists who criticized many of the anti-HRC conservatives had a point. Maybe you're not as ideologically pure on liberty as you claim. Maybe it really is freedom for me, and not for thee. Hey, maybe you're just as much of a threat to freedom as the leftists.

How about that?

Protests and riots are not a spectator sport.

Mike ... are you on the right thread?

?

Hey Mike:

How about having more sense than to wear black at the protests, especially long after the news had been out about the Black Bloc?

DURP

Off-topic, but this is the funniest comment I've read in a week (from zerohedge):

Ok so far this week. S&P downgrades Moody's. FBI downgrades russian spies. BP downgrades getting hurt by oil spills. The fed downgrades bloggers. Masseuses downgrade Al Gore. Massive amounts of companies downgrade Dell for selling them leaking computers. US navy downgrades Iran. President of North korea sends US a 75 trillion dollar bill for pain and suffering. Main stream media is completely schizophrenic.

Dante, *sigh*. Did you actually read what I said? You know, look at and interpret the meaning of the words that I wrote? Basic reading comprehension stuff. You know, the skill you were expected to have mastered by the time you reached grade school?

Because had you read what I said, you'd know I was not wearing black at any protest.

Kate, I'm just responding to several comments within the thread that seem to be continuing to misrepresent the situation on the ground and make snarky comments against me. Not trying to be off topic.

Mike ... are you on the right meds?

?

Lighting up Francis! Errr Mike.

The first person who mentioned you was you.

Unless your comments were secretly smuggled here by a courageous cellmate who transcribed your messages tapped through stone walls, I'd suggest you get over yourself already.

I saw more "tyranny" entering shopping malls in Israel, frankly. I'm astonished Kathy and Arnie aren't drawing the parallels.

Mike,

Who is applauding the cops. What is happeneing is, if you would stop staring at your navel for a second, is people pointing out that there was context to what happened, a time and a place.

You werent in the hot zone, you were near it, and as numerous commentators have pointed out you matched a description, apparently unknowingly by yourself. Some question how you could miss that but that is neither here nor there.

The next level of criticism, and it relates to this thread, is that an unpleasant, though arguably understandable and potentially justifiable encounter with the police is pumped up into some major offense against liberties, police state etc etc. A lot of it because they didnt know you, know it was your neighbourhood, the cop in the story didnt ring his bell...in other words you are unable to see the other side or the context of the situation which non attached observers can. And to be fair I am not trying to minimize your experience, I am sure it was frightening, seriously. Did you ever consider that this is how they are trained to be...perhaps a cop who reads this board could comment.

The fact that you cannot gather a bunch to your apparent call of liberty or death....actually forget the last one because you arent filing a complaint, and you didnt stand up at the time....should be a signal that maybe, just maybe you need to rethink your position. Once again, that doesnt not make it scarey or personally threatening, or like the author of the newsstory hurtful, but it doesnt rise beyond the level of "what do really expect to happen given the circumstances."

And as I suggested earlier on this thread why dont you go to Seoul for the November meetings, wear a black shirt, your headphones and hang around the area of the meetings and see what happens. Then compare and contrast the reaction of the South Korean authourities with the Toronto PD.

I may be a bit dense, but I don't have a clue what the word "envy" was doing in that headline. Just a very dumb typo?

Taking you at your word Mike, I doubt anyone here would condone that treatment from the piggies. Your comment is full of projection.

That said, I do find it pitiful that the discussion here dwindles to insults and haughty lectures when there isn't a "consensus" amongst the typically likeminded people.

For those like Aaron and others that have the "all or nothing" take on liberty, isn't it possible that there are other opinions that are valid; or, at least worthy of debate? Just because someone has a different view on the role of the State in such a cases doesn't mean they are commies, loons, or hypocrites. Those labels should be reserved for people that are consistently on the wrong side of these civil liberties issues.

Everybody should take a deep breath, and show some respect for others whom you disagree with. I've made my views of the Police clear ("What Ice Cube said") yet I still see the need for increased security measures in circumstances such as this weekend. So, does that make me a hypocrite? Does that make me a fascist? Does that make me an idiot? Perhaps "yes" to all; but then I'm reminded of the saying about "those that live in glass houses". JMO

Re: MSM

“Get these wack c@ck-suckers off the stage, where tha f$ck’s Kanye when you need him”- Eminem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-okMUIATlg&annotation_id=annotation_708788&feature=iv

best rap verse evah!

The cop was probably on his way to a call. Not likely a cat in a tree either. She should hope that when she calls for help the police come right away.

Sorry, there are so many things one could say about that comment......

Cop was getting donuts.
Firemen get cats outta trees.
Police come when you call them? And fast?

Mike, you need to take a pill and lie down. You're obseessing over the fact you got caught up in a mess that you believe you should have been treated better (we agree), but you weren't, AND the situation was such as to be seen as volatile by the police. The police were reactive because they were getting a very different message than you were. That many police over-reacted is without doubt. That a good many pedestrians are over-reacting is also without doubt.

One of the CHCH field reporters on Saturday kept getting pushed back and yelled at to get out of the way and get off the street. She couldn't see any obvious danger, and she said that to the cop - the cop responded to her with the comment "you can't hear what's going on in my earpiece". So she did what she was told.

That scenario tells you two things - she had enough sense to allow the judgement of the officer (right or wrong) to override her desire to get the story ( or at leasdt to withdraw and evaluate), and, the police were in a constant state of anticipation because they couldn't evaluate firsthand the intel that was pouring into their earpiece from over the radio. What he likely was hearing was the totality of alarms, calls and responses going on all over - indivdually no big deal, but in the aggregate would sound at times like the city was coming apart.

I don't know if you have been in a similar situation to the cop, but I have. His adrenalin would have running full tilt. He's trying to make sense of what he is hearing as well as look out for his own turf and everyone in it. Yep - he's going to have a short fuse no matter how skilled he is, and the last thing he needs are trivial bystanders.

Police also make an assumption, to a degree, that goes something like this: "who in their right mind would be out in the midst of all this?" Normal folks would be at home or as far away from this crap as possible, so if you're in it, you're either truly dumb, or you're part of the problem.

All police would agree you're entitled to your rights, including the right to get run down by a bicycle if you get in the way of it.

Mike:

I'm sure it was a lousy experience, and I would have been ruffled myself if I were in your shoes.

But you're blowing it up like the Khmer Rouge have taken over Toronto. Excuse us folks who think you're being a bit of a drama queen.

I just love our brave SDAers...no wearing black if the police tell you not to, get the context of your activities right, stand up for your rights and you are a navel gazing whiner who needs to get over himself, or get back on his meds.

Deference to Authority is not dead. And if you want to see it in action, SDA is the spot.

Sad really, but there you are.

A Toronto cop lives next door to me. Sometimes, when he cuts his grass, he cuts a strip or two on my property as well.

Imagine my surprise. He doesn't ring a bell, or yell, or anything when he does it. He just goes ahead and does it.

I guess he's in a big hurry to get his grass cut, which makes cutting my grass legal.

I'm going to put him on my website.

Kate,

I suppose I was reading into Stephen's earlier comments about hurt feelings and stuff.

Stephen,

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the deeply flawed Constitution Act, 1982 entrenched some semblance of liberal democracy with highly entrenched due process rights, that have been upheld many times.

The police enacted an "arrest first, ask questions" later approach on Sunday, by Chief Blair's own admission. This does not appear to pass the Wakefield test by which arrests may be executed under the law.

Almost every lawyer I've spoken to, of every political persuasion seems to agree that this is constitutionally off-side.

Further, "context" is important. However, there are some due process rights that remain unbridgeable, irrespective of context, such as the presumption of innocence.

The Supreme Court has articulated this multiple times, and most recently in striking down the national security certificate law that was brought in following 9/11. Not even the threat of a terrorist attack, the court ruled, is sufficient to overcome the requirement for police to observe due process.

In R v. Mann, the court ruled that respect for liberty is of "paramount consideration" to our constitutional order, and that under no circumstances was arbitrary detention and search permissible.

If real terrorist threats against our country cannot convince our highest court to place easements on due process, I highly doubt that "the guy was wearing a black t-shirt 48 hours after a violent protest, 1.32km from a peaceful protest" will pass legal muster.

In the UK, probably. They have pretty much non-existant constitutional protection for this type of thing, as we've seen with people being questioned for taking photographs, and even arrested for refusing to cooperate.

But in Canada, the protections are strong. They are well articulated. In fact, protection against illegal search and detention is more robust in Canada than protection of pretty much any of our other liberties, if you study the relevant jurisprudence.

This may be a surprise to you, but here's what the jurisprudence of the past twenty five years articulates:

1. You are not required to present identification to a peace officer, unless you are detained for an articulable offence.
2. You are not required to submit to a search by a peace officer, unless you are detained for an articulable offence.
3. Under no circumstances, is refusal to cooperate with police on these matters, grounds for evidence against you. Nor do they add to the constellation of evidence that may lead an officer to bring charges. Your refusal to cooperate on these matters is inadmissible under the rules of evidence. And their use as grounds for arrest is categorically abuse of process.

You can talk to pretty much any criminal lawyer in the country, and they'll back up all these claims.

"I was simply profiled for wearing a black t-shirt,", and,
"Because had you read what I said, you'd know I was not wearing black at any protest. "

So, let me get this straight, you were wearing a black shirt but it wasn't at a protest?Is that like being at a bar fight and a hockey game breaks out? The black bloc, if you recall, broke away from the actual protest to wreak havoc so why should someone act surprised when their behavior fits a profile?
Yes, I said profile, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then the chances are pretty good it just might be a duck.

"I was simply profiled for wearing a black t-shirt"

Sounds like you were wearing black, Mike. And by the way, the typical leftist condescending "You know, the skill you were expected to have mastered by the time you reached grade school?" talk doesn't work on me - I'm in my 19th year of formal education and one year away from being Dr. "You know, the skill you were expected to have mastered by the time you reached grade school?", MD - so it goes without saying that I don't particularly care for your views on my reading comprehension.

Dante,

One, I'm not a leftist. And I'm sure that even many of the people here disagreeing with me will back me up on this. Once again, you're not exactly one for critical thought.

Secondly, you are highly ignorant of the law, and the jurisprudence surrounding justifiable search and detention in Canada. I highly suggest you do some research on the matter.

You'll find that dragnet profiling is actually illegal in Canada. It's been ruled against by the courts. It may have been legal prior to the implementation of the Charter. But it's not legal now.

I invite you to bring forth a legal expert on Canadian criminal law and constitutional issues that will counter this claim, though.

Mike,

I dont dispute we have due process. But quoting the rules misses the game, so to speak. Its all in the interpretation, and yes thats why we have courts and two sides represented because there are often disputes on interpretation.

You keep quoting these things and I keep telling you that in each case it comes down to the intepretation of probable cause, which comes back to my point about context. We will see if the police took it too far IN THIS SITUATION. We will see if the courts agree when the cases inevitably get there.

I point to Quebec city, and I am not aware of any pinning back of police actions from a far more aggressive police action. Once again, if you are looking for both sides I would talk to not just criminal lawyers but crown prosecutors as well....surprisingly you may well get a different interpretation.

And as further indication that what happened was contextual go out and sit in the same place at the same time wearing the same thing and my bet is you wont be bothered, do it everyday for a week and see the result. You wont be bothered, you are free to live your life as before, this is why I find these comments about liberty over the top since you are missing the context in which your encounter happened.

But I will defer to the courts when they rule, because we live in a society of laws and the police will be held to account if they have doen anything wrong.

ts all in the interpretation, and yes thats why we have courts and two sides represented because there are often disputes on interpretation.

No, we don't. We have a highly articulated set of standards set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada across a set of ruling, starting with the Wakefield test that was set out by the Supreme bench in 1987.

Since then, the court has struck down many provincial and federal statutes providing for statutory obligation to submit to personal and property search, ranging on matters from pedestrians to moving through DUI checkpoints.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in R v. Mann that the mere act of driving a car on a provincial highway is not grounds for police to demand you present ID. Since driving unlicensed would be a crime, and since the presumption of innocence is paramount to the constitutional order of Canada, the court ruled that police could not demand presentation of ID as a matter of course. They had to have some other reason, such as observing you committing a traffic infraction, or smell alcohol on your breath, etc.

This is not a legally ambiguous issue.

Whoa. INTELLECTUAL FIGHT!

Mike Brock,

I agree with you, there are several instances where the police overstepped the boundary of the law this weekend, your case is one of them.

Everyone needs to take a chill. The illegal search, seizure, and detaining of people without grounds is an affront to our freedom. I don't even care if it is a disgusting hippy lefty.

The police were not perfect this weekend. They deserve some leeway due to the crap they were under (as a physician I had to deal with some of this overflow), but at the same time some questions need to be answered. Still compared to any other place our police were pretty tame.

Chief Blair is a gun grabbing, thug of freedom - his true nature came out during the registry debate. I want to know what directions he gave his officers this weekend. If he stepped over the boundaries then I expect him to be dealt with.

As to this reporter she can f-off. Her story is whiner-tastic.

Something I think that has been missed by many is the fact that this police exercise had been training for everything from a full-out heavy armed suicide assault on the G20 to trivial crowd control. They had been training and preparing for extractions, fire suppression, motorcade hijackings to someone trying to nuke one of the two presidential helicopters, and do this within the confines of a big city, with all the potential collateral damage.

Not every flatfoot of course would be involved in all of this, but the point would have been made that all things are possible, be sharp and on the lookout. I even got a briefing on what to do to prevent confidential government or citizen's information from a police demand on our briefcases in the zone.

Saturday taught the guys that, as they might have expected, the real problem came from people who felt an ineffectual protest was more important than the larger mission (that's that "me" thing Toronto is famous for) the police were pumped for.

So what a lot people got from a cop ready to do battle (literally) was the fallout of a shitload of whiney kids and some old farts who really needed to find something better to do in their retirement.

The ONLY notable consequence of two days of protest was that a lot of shopkeepers will be out of pocket, taxpayers will be out of pocket, some people for whom the charges stick won't be going to Florida next year (or for many years) for spring break, and a whole of citizens AND cops are pissed off, and a lot of small laws got broken.

WHAT was being protested and by who remains in the consciousness of no-one. It was a wasted effort from the beginning and contributed nothing to the advancement of rights or democracy. But police did accomplish the core mission: everybody got out of it alive.

I'm sorry but I find the story funny, good grief she's not watching where she is going and gets beaned by a bike well dah would it be the cops fault if she walked into a pole?

lance wins!

Now lets see, when was the last time I remember there being something akin to a broad definition of "dragnet profiling". Oh yes, Bernardo, when they were looking for a white vehicle of a particular make after Leslie Mahaffey was taken in broad daylight. They had roadblacks setup on highways and they were pulling over all vehicles that were close to the description...this was post charter.

They did the same thing on a vehicle description with Tori Stafford, they also stopped numerouse females who had white coats and black hair.

So apparently there are types and situations where a form of dragnet profiling is allowed. I believe what is key is your point about constellation, as in you cant stop all black people, you need a little more than that....and I suspect, but dont know, that the gravity of the situation (ie a person has just been kidnapped) makes a difference.

So you may be right, the courts may say the police didnt have enough of a description and that it was effectively random, and/or though the description was enough that the situation didnt require it.

Point being, it isnt black and white and while I admire your committment to civil liberties (always an argument worht listening to), you need to recognize that in real society, as opposed to Libertarian theory, the courts make tradeoffs based on the situation, and we arent a police state because of it.

She is DISAPPOINTED that she wasn't gassed, truncheoned, or shot? Somebody, please, give this person what they want!

...stand up for your rights and you are a navel gazing whiner who needs to get over himself...

Not at all; it's natural for children to "test" their rights as they grow up.

There's an entire thread from yesterday devoted to "you", Mike - there's no need to hijack this one.

Thank you, all.

Right - Mike: grow up. Stop whining.

Yesterday's thread refuted, legally, every single one of your false claims about 'violation of charter', violation of constitution, court cases and so on. Not one charter rule was violated, not one court rule applied to your situation, your view of the duties of the police was shown as totally invalid. Your lack of commonsense and basic maturity was, however, obvious. Grow up.

Jay Currie wrote: "Deference to Authority is not dead. And if you want to see it in action, SDA is the spot."

Then I'll tell you what I told Mike:

No one HERE handed over his backpack - he did. If you have a problem with "Deference to Authority", take it up with the Deferrer.

In the meanwhile, as you've appointed yourself king of the purity tests - the The Libertarians Against Israel Apartheid people called.

They missed you at the policy meeting.

Kate, I was busy at the Libertarians for Gaza Gay Rights meeting. Pride was not happy with our truck crane with Yasser on the end of a rope float.

A perfect example of why wearing a black shirt leads to a serious case of "The Universe Revolves Around Me Syndrome" aka "I'm a Progressive so I am Smarter than Everyone Else" syndrome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXIE2uOdnkQ&feature=player_embedded

Kate, I hope you are trade marking your great work.

'Let Me Fix That Headline For You',
'Juxtapose',
'Y2Kyoto',
'Not Watching For The Asteroid',
and most others are real gems with enough indepth meaning, analysis and sarcasm to make the recipients look like the dorks they are.

Trademark em'.

Fred @ 3:31

Wow, Kinsella has really let himself go.

Good goddess, what a mess. I'm sure once the lefties dry their panties, they'll be on about the "split" between conservatives and libertarians. Give them time.

How about having more sense than to wear black at the protests, especially long after the news had been out about the Black Bloc?

Did you miss the fact that he WASN'T AT THE PROTEST?

Jesus, I live just a few blocks from the detention centre. We drove by it on Sunday (its pretty much the only way into Eastern Toronto). I was wearing black. I'm pretty much always wearing black (very slimming, you know).

According to you, it would have made sense to stop us (middle aged couple in a brand new Ford).

BTW, Dante, please tell me you're a gynecologist...

I am really suprised some people here think what happened to Mike is just fine (if it is as he says it happened).

"Once again, if you are looking for both sides I would talk to not just criminal lawyers but crown prosecutors as well....surprisingly you may well get a different interpretation."

Stephen, are you kidding? Crown prosecutors get more frustrated with police not following due process than anyone else. Sometimes charges against, yknow, actual criminals have to be dropped because of these things.

James G,

Go back and read the other thread to see the location issues were discussed. Both sides have made their points.

Who cares about ideological labels anyway, this isnt the a meeting of Trotskyites. (famous for their continual subdividing into various flavours and sects based on tiny points of perceived ideological differences)

What do you think of our wonderful Sun Writer.

In a real situation its bad enough. With the confusion, motorcades all over. The Vandalizers, real protesters & anarchists. Add to the mix innurmurable reporters, gawkers, the just plain ignorant.
More than makes it a playground for the insane.
Bad things won't happen as an accident, it becomes the rule. Entropy.
JMO

Mike Brock, I have little doubt that police took on a demeanor to match the circumstances. The situation was charged with provocation by leftards and “play lawyers” such as yourself. However, given the circumstances who in their right mind could blame the police? How many red and yellow cards would a fair-minded referee have given out to the police? How many red and yellow cards would a fair-minded referee have given out to protestors? The cops were not guilty of bringing a smurf bat to a rock fight.

You are not a hero of the resistance. I know that you want to create a “big risk, high adventure” story to tell you grandchildren, but you know what?; there was no big risk to good citizens other than in the very smallest of minds. There were no deaths or major physical injuries. There were a few people that got sent to the detention room. Boo hoo. Try your pretend lawyer crap in Cuba, China Venezuela or any other left wing utopian country and see how many hospitals, body bags and mental wards get filled.

When I analyzed your words, which you truly believe are profound and compelling, I noticed you pontificated to one of your lessers that “You're an insult to every man who ever died fighting tyranny for this country.”

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that the vast majority of men (and women) who actually did fight tyranny for this country would side with the police and say that you are totally incorrect on the “big picture” and a bit of an arrogant body part, or, a Mr. Roundandbrown as I have heard vets call people like you who just don’t get it. But hey, you know better than the little people so take another arrogant pill and rant on before your next shift at McDonalds starts.

Furthermore, when you make your childish legal references you are seem totally ignorant of the propensity for judges to rule on the side of Peace, Order and Good Government when police are put in a situation where they must aggressively defend property rights and ensure mob rule does replace the rule of law. People will take some of the trite matters you discussed to court. They will nearly all be quashed like bugs. I hope you will be back on this site to admit your ignorance of Canadian law when this occurs.

Poor Mike. Even the libertarians over at the WS aren't buying his routine.

Getting hit by a bicycle is something I've had experience with. I run on park trails, through a wooded area. I share those trails with bikes, baby carriages, and dog-walkers. Getting bitten is the most serious problem, but being hit by a high speed bicycle is a close second. I like the ones who ring a bell, or yell, before they pass, but lots of people just fly by, with no warning.

If I see them in time, I usually throw a back-fist, or check them into the bushes. I always carry bear-strength pepper spray, for people who think they can gang up on me. It hadn't occured to me there could be bike cops out there. I'm going to have to consider my reaction a bit more carefully, I guess. Those guys have guns, and travel in pairs.

EyesWideShut,

Aside from being a senior engineer at a major corporation, and actually being somebody who has educated myself on the legal jurisprudence of these sorts of matters, by talking to constitutional experts and lawyers, -- not just in this case, and not just in Canada -- but in the US as well, I assert that is you, sir, who is talking out of your ass.

The concept of "peace, order and good government" is sort of superseded by the Charter, in favour for stronger individual rights.

I have not just pontificated, but rather I have directly referenced the jurisprudence. Perhaps you should consider reading it.

I know that many traditionalist conservatives have not yet come to the realization that the Constitution Act of 1982 is a valid document with legal standing, but you might consider consulting Google for a few hours to challenge this assumption.

If and when those wonderful free Nations such as China, Russia and Iran reign supreme around the world, Mr Rogers will rise again and sing, "it's a wonderful day in the neighborhood".
Freedom does not mean having the license to be jerks. Perhaps police training should be to "give them a swift kick in the ass" and send them home.
I for one am tired of these jerks and those who claim to write on their behalf.

"Freedom does not mean having the license to be jerks."

Well, insofar as being a jerk does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others, that's pretty much exactly what it means.

Here, I invoke Ezra Levant: "... because it's my bloody right to so."

err.. "... because it's my bloody right to do so"

I'm sorry, but the statement "Freedom does not mean having the license to be jerks." can't be let go. It's basically worse than the statement that people on the left make when they say "freedom does not mean having the right to offend."

See, my thesis about some conservatives and leftists being peas and pods proves itself once again: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/02/socialism-conservatism-and-ann-coulter.html

You can find the same arguments for limitation of liberty, rounded against different sets of values.

Hey, let's rewrite Jenny Yuen's report too:

"I expected to potentially be tear gassed, hit with ricochet rubber bullets and be beaten to a bloody pulp with batons during the G-20 weekend.

"But nothing could have prepared me for having my left arm bumped into by a bike cop's handlebars as I waddled among the protesters with an almost prurient anticipation of the story I was about to write..."

So,the news is now about the protest over the protest.The Monday protesters were protesting the Sunday protest,s??Or were they protesting the Saturday protest,s??And if the protesters that were arrested Sunday and jailed are protesting being held in cold jail cells filled with protesters that were protesting the jailing of protesters that were just protesting at the protest rally.I would say that Mondays protesters are forcing Sundays protesters to have another protest,because the Monday protesters got more coverage than Sundays protesters.Although Sundays protesters may have a legal right to protest again,,because they did not get a full days worth of protest in, because they were arrested for over doing their protest.I think someone should start a protest or at least have Jack Leyton or Bob Rae say a few words....Anyone understand what i am talking about???Or do i protest too much.

By the way, here's a video clip of the "out of control" protest in Toronto where two police cars were destroyed. What ever could the police have possibly ever done to stop this wanton violence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-5jeaIh4YE

"Freedom does not mean having the license to be jerks."

Still a lurker at your blog, Kate.

Well, Mike. I guess that I would say that the alliance between conservatives and libertarians is still a strong one despite your assertions to the contrary. I think that the issue can be explained by introducing an additional term.

I do not consider either you or the writers at the Shotgun to be libertarian. You (plural) match the description of libertine much more than that of libertarian. The distance between conservatives and libertines is much greater than that between conservatives and libertarians - and your comments yesterday and today only illustrate that point.

Libertarian Does Not Equal Libertine

Brent,

To throw Lew Rockwell at me is quite funny. I actually have met Lew Rockwell, and spoken to him. In fact, if you REALLY want, I bet I could even manage to him to comment on the subject.

Actually, I do you one better, here's a quote from Lew Rockwell on his views about the police:

"It has long been established that the worst thing to do in an emergency is to call the police. In this case, Lonnie Tinsley didn’t call the police, yet they barged in anyway and quite nearly “helped” his grandma to death."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60261.html

Truth be told, Lew is far more of a "libertine" than I am, if you will. But thanks for playing!

Hmm. Though I believe Mike "doth protest too much", I think his treatment here is worse. Legally, he is mostly right.

"Right - Mike: grow up. Stop whining.

Yesterday's thread refuted, legally, every single one of your false claims about 'violation of charter', violation of constitution, court cases and so on. Not one charter rule was violated, not one court rule applied to your situation, your view of the duties of the police was shown as totally invalid. Your lack of commonsense and basic maturity was, however, obvious. Grow up."

This statement by ET is pure crap. Mike's constitutional arguments are valid and sound. He's right about the SCC decisions, he's right about police discretion when approaching citizens.

The unfortunate part is that and $2.50 will make a down payment on a coffee in an untrashed Starbucks.

The police routinely treat summary law with contempt. Five minutes observing your local traffic division will confirm that. In essence, they treat them the same way we do. There were dozens, if not hundreds of instances of law breaking over the weekend. There were innumerable charter violations. They were, in both casesa, crimes of passion, some with intent.

What to do about it? Mostly nothing. Pick up, wipe off, carry on. Prosecute the more egregious on both sides and let both sides learn from the experience. Don't bring a lawyer to a mob fight.

Sorry, Mike. The last part didn't make it to my comment.

I was going to add a comment about how I actually am on your side regarding the way the police handled you - that it was not right.

However, my other comments are in response to your claim about the size (not the existence) of the gap between conservatives and libertarians. Small point of detail: the author of the linked article was not Lew.

Lots of words Mr. Brock but you are wrong and will be proven to be wrong by how this plays out in the various court cases that may arise from the police offences you think took place in faux debacle in Toronto. I say may, because if people have to pay money to take picayune matters to court they will likely reconsider after they confer with competent and qualified legal council. Even the police have rights in Canada. You can crap on them from a great height on blog sites, but if you want to take a matter to court there must be proof. One would have to prove that the police exceeded their authority and they might also be asked to prove that some demonstrable damage had been done arising from illegal police actions. Given that there few if any cases of bodily harm, in the midst of a mob actin, that can be attributed to the police it is unlikely there will be many if any successful actions against individual police officers.

I do not think police should have unlimited rights of search and arrest in normal circumstances. I cherish our civil liberties which is to say I cherish YOUR civil liberties as much as I cherish mine. But, if we do not allow our police to protect themselves and the public from mob violence, mob violence will become accepted tactic that will put OUR civil liberties at risk in short order. You should be thankful there are people far wiser and better educated than you looking out for OUR civil liberties.

'Interesting, in regards to all of this and what the citizens of Toronto were to expect: I watched a part of Police Chief Blair's news conference yesterday. He stated that EVERY citizen in Toronto—and twice for those, like me, who live close to the protest area— received a hand delivered message from the police—and there were ads in the paper— (he said it cost $72 000) about what was going to happen during the G20 weekend.

My husband and I can attest that no such flyers arrived at our house—a few blocks from U of T. Nor do we remember any newspaper ads. E.g., I wear black a lot and I thought of moseying over to Queen's Park on Saturday: luckily, I had sober, second thoughts.

I’m very conflicted about the police actions. I posted about the Kafkaesque experience I had when dealing with the bureaucrats at police headquarters when I phoned to complain about the police force’s stand down on Saturday. I’m delighted that they finally made some arrests between Saturday and Sunday. I’m furious that they let vandals do their thing—and very concerned that ordinary citizens were harassed.

PC insures that this kind of inversion occurs. I’m entirely fed up with every public place being safe—for the bullies—and having my tax $$ spent on public inquiries when the bullies are upset about minor inconveniences, caused by their own, intemperate behaviour. ENOUGH!

EyesWideShut,

Now you're creating a false dilemma. By asserting my due process rights unconditionally, I do not deny the police the right to physically protect themselves from harm.

I probably wouldn't even have had a problem with the police using tear gas on the rioters when they were smashing windows on Saturday afternoon, to be honest with you. But they didn't.

They did nothing. Instead, the police went after low hanging fruit on Sunday and Monday. They picked on lone pedestrians, harassed them, and threatened them with arrest.

The vandals got better treatment that the innocent people did, if you will.

Mike (sorry about this Kate, but I feel overly-compelled here): you were "sitting down on University Avenue" on the outskirts of a riot, wearing a black T-shirt and talking into a communication device; some cop yelled at you after you asked him not to interrupt your conversation(!), he searched your backpack, and then sent you on your merry way.

Sorry Mike - and I appreciate your work 364 days of the years - but your Jenny Yuen-esque level of outrage is unbecoming. You were not detained, beaten, charged or jailed; you simply had a gruff exchange with a cop on a very tense day, and then walked away. That's about it, no? Factually speaking? If it happened on some other quotidian circumstance, I'd be *entirely* on your side. But in the specific context (the missing piece, apparently) most people - even libertarians, I would suggest - wouldn't consider that their civil liberties had been seriously violated, so how could they possibly be outraged on your behalf?

Reasonable people a) fully understand that one's rights will be temporarily reduced during situations of street-to-street unrest (a cop may tell you to move along, or to identify yourself, or he may search your backpack), and b) don't try to extrapolate such an occurance into a general condition.

I'm anti-fascist, pro-civil-liberties, and anti-statist person, but I'm also realistic. So you got yelled at, searched, and then were sent on your way during a time of widespread street unrest? Get over it, for your own sake. People's civil liberties are being violated every day, in Caledonia, on the free speech front, etc etc. Your level of upset and ego-bruising over a trivial - yes, in the long run, it's trivial - is affecting your ability to place what happened in the context of the circumstances.

"outskirts of a riot"

This has been established and re-established many times. There was no riot on Monday. If you believe there was, I'd like to see evidence for it.

"with a cop on a very tense day"

What was tense about Monday? Nothing in the media, or even on the part of the police, suggests that anything really eventful happened Monday except for a peaceful demonstration at police headquarters.

There wasn't a single act of vandalism connected to any protest on either Sunday or Monday.

And this narrative about an out of control riot on Saturday, even, is absolutely beyond the pale. Montreal has had two riots in the past two years. One in North Montreal which was out of control. Another after the Stanley Cup win, which was also out of control.

Both of those riots involved hundres of people being violent.

Based on my observations, the watching of countless YouTube videos, and media reporting... the actually number of vandals smashing store fronts in Toronto was maybe about 50 at the worst of it. And even then, the active participant list is probably smaller.

The damage in Toronto was extensive as it was because the police did NOTHING to intercede for three hours.

And even though they didn't intercede, both the Toronto chief of police and the mayor have been bragging about how the damage at the Toronto G20 doesn't compare to what happened in previous G20s.

So sorry, this whole "tense situation" crap is getting a little much.

The situation was never out of control. It was always within the realm of easy control. The police actively chose to disengage on Saturday afternoon.

And then Sunday and Monday, they decided to crack down.

There was NEVER "widespread street unrest". This is categorically, objectively, verifiably, false.

The path of destruction followed a very narrow corridor of a few hundred protesters from Spadina, along Queen, then up Yonge, and back along College. All of the damage is contained along this path.

And the area of "rioting" was always contained to a very small, albeit, moving area of less than a quarter city block.

The use of dramatic words like "widespread" is to try and conflate what happened on Saturday far beyond what was really going on.

Mike,

Whatever, on the legal arguments. You keep asserting the same ruling which has specific characteristics but wont address the exceptions that keep popping up. Lets just say there is a debate about whether in this circumstance the police were right to ask to search you or not. I would say today the answer is no. But Monday there is argument they were correct. Let the courts decide and I am sure you will be following.

The criticism is not that you were legally wrong, its that you were unwise. The equivalent of blindly crossing with the light at an intersection known to have red light runners. You might be right and within your rights, but dont be shocked when a car whizzes in front of you. Thats the essence of the criticism. Sorry but Gob Smacked indicates someone who was aware, I dont like it but it was a wise decision.

The courts will rule on these circumstances. But dont expect sympathy for not looking both ways before you cross, same as our wonderful reporter.

Lets move on please.

At the risk of being a relativist:

Hey Jenny you were bruised on the arm (though that seems incongruent with being "run over") while covering a story with which you had preconceived notions about the outcome.

Meanwhile Michelle Lang lost her life in A'Stan doing what journalists are supposed to do, cover and report on a story, not opinionate.

To paraphrase Marni Soupcoff re: Hockey Dads GROW UP.

Mike, you're as big a whining jerk as you are on Shotgun, which used to be a pretty good blog.

Get over yourself. It's not about you.

The "courts" in this country consistantly refuse to touch crap legislation like bill C-68.

So your assertion that the "courts" have made rulings that preserve individual liberty is crap, Mr. Brock, whatever you think their rulings to the contrary my be.

I find it odd that so many here are defending "the police". My own experience is they are no different than any other government workers and government union members - that is lazy, politically correct, rules based, bloated, bureaucratic nitwits. Today they are hired more for their race or sex than their ability.

Contrary to TV depictions I have never met a really bright cop - they are at best of average intelligence which is not surprising given their average salary (the overtime pay for working events such as the G20 summit not withstanding). Thankfully the smartest in our society become doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and bloggers - not cops because do you really want to pay top dollar for someone to direct traffic or haul a drunk to jail?

Until someone figures out how to reform our inefficient government including police services I would prefer to see fewer cops with lower taxes so I can afford better private security. How much protecting do they really do?

And Ezra Levant should have just taken it on the chin with the AHRC, paid a little fine, and been done with.

So much effort over a non-criminal, administrative tribunal, right?

And did Ezra really need to be so rude to that HRC investigator who was just doing her job and post a video of it on the Internet?

Isn't it funny, how the same arguments against standing up for my rights coming from conservatives (drama queen, etc.) are the same arguments that came from the pro-censorship left against Ezra?

I think it's interesting. But that might just be me.

Posted by: Fritz at June 30, 2010 5:38 PM

Methinks you miss the point.

Are you defending the prima donna ‘victims' who are trying to take advantage of this situation?

1) Bunch of thugs break windows and create damage as police do nothing as per their promise of allowing peaceful protest.

2) Arrest of Quebec-based thugs at the U of T, the same Black Bloc demographic that tried to disrupt Vancouver.

3) Difference between Vancouver and Toronto? People in Vancouver thumped out the Black Block a**holes. People in Toronto just looked on.

4) Day 2. After events of the previous day, police adopt a zero tolerance policy.

5) Self-serving egomaniacs go into hot areas and whine when they get swept up in crackdown.

Did I miss anything?

Quit trying to shift the topic, drama queen.

set you free,

So I assume you didn't support Ezra.

Set You Free

You make my point

3) Difference between Vancouver and Toronto? People in Vancouver thumped out the Black Block a**holes. People in Toronto just looked on.

If you expect the police to act in your interests you will be waiting a long time. In Vancouver the public did the job the police should have been doing.

skip - I stand by my comments. Mike is completely wrong with his claims of violation of the charter and the constitution and his view of the duties of the police. I also stand by my advice to him to 'grow up'.

I also disagree, skip, with your view that the police disrespect the law. Nor do I know of any charter rights that were violated this weekend. Not one. That includes Mike's experience. I suggest you provide specific examples.

Mike tried to do this but his charter references didn't apply to his situation, just as his SCC references didn't apply to his situation. Furthermore, Mike's view of the role of the police was wrong (he asserted their role was to preserve his 'fundamental rights'). And Mike refuses to acknowledge context. EBD and Stephen have it right.

What DID apply to his situation was common sense and the one who was lacking in that area, was and remains, Mike no matter how many ad nauseum argumentative tactics he uses.

Mike:

The cops weren't questioning you because a Muslim complained that you were a blasphemer. And then put you through an expensive and humiliating legal process.

Where you're missing the point is that people think you're over-blowing this. I'm sorry, but this is not Ezra getting grilled by the AHRC.

Can you not see the difference?

I am wondering what kind of an engineer, excuse me, senior engineer, does not look at things in a logical fashion. You assert that there were not “wide spread” incidents. At the same time, you acknowledge that that various incidents of violence popped up at different locations at different times. Widespread…...spread the police over a wide area. Do you see the connection now when the words are lined up closer together? Do ya see a connection to different incidents happening at different times at disparate sites and perhaps a deliberate tactic to spread out and diminish the efficacy of the police protection formations? Now, couple that with the black bloc’s (they were the guys wearing black like you were) stated tactic of trying to hit in various places at various times to spread out the police such that they could breach the security fences. The black bloc also used useful idiots who were coincidentally dressed in black to further their anti-democratic endeavours. I am sorry if the police seemed a bit terse and did not have time to have a cup of tea with you and discuss the niceties of civil liberties during a situation that was slipping in and out of the legal definition of a riot, but that’s how things are in situations of riot and insurrection. Keep your powder dry for a real fight for civil liberties. It will come soon enough.

At least she's not claiming she was waterboarded and raped.

brick60,

Ah, I see. The distinction is that a Muslim was somehow involved. It all makes so much sense now.

If you want to get law & order conservatives to stand up for their rights, you need to somehow frame it as an Islamic threat.

Got it!

At the same time, you acknowledge that that various incidents of violence popped up at different locations at different times.

No. I acknowledge a single group of hoodlums moving through the city very slowly through the city unmolested by police for three straight hours.

"Sun reporter Jenny Yuen was victim of bike cop's hit-and-run"

Isn't everyone in Canada a victim these days?

"Ah, I see. The distinction is that a Muslim was somehow involved. It all makes so much sense now."

Mike:

C'mon man! I'm saying what you went through was nothing compared to Ezra and the AHRC, so maybe not go there, because you look foolish.

Jay Currie, Mike Brock and langmann have a good point.

A bunch of yahoos trashing stuff on Saturday does not give police the right to unlawful search, seizure and detention on Sunday. This is not friggin Venezuela, nor is it Caledonia. I don't think it's a good thing that just about every media organization (CTV, National Post, CBC, etc) had one or two reporters/producers/cameramen detained for failing to kiss the ass of the cops on the street corner!

A lot of people were detained overnight for no apparent reason. As much as Kate says this is nothing like what happens in Israel, I'm pretty sure that in Israel, Israeli citizens are not detained overnight for no apparent reason.

And as others have tried to deflect the issue, this is not about Mike Brock. Lots of people experience the same breaches from the police on Sunday and Monday. Lots of people were detained overnight for no reason. The law is the law, police have no special right to break it.

ET,

You've refuted nothing, by the way. Other than to make over-reaching statements about the inapplicability of Supreme Court guidelines on police search and detention power.

Your dismissal of the relevant jurisprudence in this case is not only wrong, but a fallacious argument, in general.

Supreme Court judgements do not only apply to the specific case in which they were applied. The Wakefield test is not limited to the specific set of circumstances of the case, nor are the further reifications in R v. Mann specific to the happenings at DUI checkpoints. Any legal scholar who's worth a dime, would tell you that common law jurisprudence does not work that way.

You haven't deconstructed my statements or assertions. You've dismissed them outright. Which is to say, you haven't really contributed anything at all to the discussion. Technically, this is a form of ad hominem argumentation.

C'mon man! I'm saying what you went through was nothing compared to Ezra and the AHRC, so maybe not go there, because you look foolish.

Let's be clear, then. Ezra chose to hire a lawyer and personally attend the commission at great personal cost. The commission allows you to respond to the complaint by mail. He chose to appear in person.

He could have simply sent a response letter, waited a few months, and seen whether or not the matter was even accepted by the tribunal. It may not have been. If not, Ezra's total hassle would have been typing a letter.

Instead, he decided to go in guns blazing. He intentionally chose the hard route. The loud route. And in my estimation, the correct route.

This is, as so many people have said, not about me. It's about everyone who lives in this country. It's about not letting these linse get crossed. Not with me. Not with you.

Query Mike B

Why did you comply?

Had I your conviction in the same situation I certainly would not have.

Mike: Thanks for giving us an example of the perfect self-centred whining raised on decadence ninny. It seems that in all your education they forgot to include that first year class, Common Sense 101 ... it should've been a prerequisite to Philosophy.

1. A city is filled to the gills with dangerous men in black who look like Saint Mike the Brock wearing black; there are also those like college hippie Jayne trying her best to get gassed, to Mo the Jihadi trying to get close with his explosive vest, to snotty little "I have lots of readers" (but won’t allow comments) prom queens.

2. Every police officer's nuts are in a vice. They are charged with protecting the city and its inhabitants in a day and age when that guy wearing black could just as easily have a bomb in his backpack, or pepper spray, or firearms. Those officers have checked thousands of people before they check Mike the Brock, and more than likely in their view the temerity ... and stunning stupidity of some curious dork wandering around in black anywhere near where the action is ... is in itself as trying as the black shirts. Not to mention the fact that Mike the Brock may even fit a description.

3. Some officers will be assigned, very specifically, to patrol the periphery ... to prevent anything from pepper spray to C4 getting anywhere near the action zone. Every single person in black, in that context, is a red flag ... and every single officer is wound tighter than a drum as a result ... and exhausted.

4. Into this reality walks Mike ... having missed that first year class, Common Sense 101.

5. Of course, Canadian law may have been broken ... but one other law was shattered. The law of common sense.

6. To Mike, and Kathy, and hit-and-run victim reporter I say ... grow up, or go to Afghanistan, or Israel ... or even Frankfurt Airport ... maybe then an ounce of common sense may find its way into your grey matter.

7. Or can all this be explained by something they put in Toronto water.

When the progressive kiddies lashed out during the Olympics, people here laughed at them. Groups of pierced & tattooed whiners were on the streets chanting and waving placards and large groups of ordinary people walked by and laughed at them, yelled various instructions about where to go and what to do when they got there.

The protesters were very shocked at being rejected.

In Toronto, the marchers effectively shielded the Black Blockers and cheered them on them on when they went all thug & criminal.

There were a few good Torontonians who stopped looters, but they were few and far between.

Big difference.

Enough.

THIS THREAD WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, MIKE. TAKE IT TO YOUR OWN BLOG.

"Twenty-four hours a day someone is running, somebody else is trying to catch him. Out there in the night of a thousand crimes people were dying, being maimed, cut by flying glass, crushed against steering wheels or under heavy tires. People were being beaten, robbed, strangled, raped, and murdered. People were hungry, sick, bored, desperate with loneliness or remorse or fear, angry, cruel, feverish, shaken by sobs. A city no worse than others, a city rich and vigorous and full of pride, a city lost and beaten and full of emptiness.

It all depends on where you sit and what your own
private score is. I didn't have one. I didn't care.

I finished the drink and went to bed."

-- Philip Marlowe in The Long Goodbye by Raymond Chandler

And now for the real G8 story;

Canada's Prime Minister The Big Winner.

- World Gov'ts to reduce debts/spending - check.

- "fight" against climate change pushed aside - check.

- Bank tax slush fund canned - check.

The police do as they are ordered to do. They enforced nothing the first night. There were repercussions come down from on high. They were going to be tougher the next day. There was an attempt to block egress by protesters on bicycle and foot. The Black Bloc were using them as a shield and a diversion. They were told to move on, didn't ..consequences.
For some reason not known to me, the media seem to think they have the right to be excluded from police instructions. Nope, so any whining they do because they were hassled at a civilian insurrection I regard as self serving fluff.
Even Trudeau had that right when he quoted Desiderata, "Avoid loud and aggressive persons;
they are vexatious to the spirit."

EBD: "Reasonable people a) fully understand that one's rights will be temporarily reduced during situations of street-to-street unrest "

That's a completely ridiculous statement! What the heck is "temporary"? If there were such a rule, then cops would use it whenever they like! They'd declare every uncomfortable moment a temporary suspension of rights! Just when you need your rights to be honoured, like say, while you are protesting peacefully, that's when police will say they need to be temporarily ignored! Sort of like the notwithstanding clause that the Quebec government uses to screw the non-francophones.

And, as previously pointed out, there was not violence on Sunday or Monday. It all happened during a 3 hour period on Saturday when there was nary a cop to be found!

I guess there is something wrong with me. A while ago my friend and I were driving down the highway and were stopped at a regular 'Check Stop'. For those who don't know a Check Stop is conducted by the police who stop every car on a stretch of roadway and check to see if the driver has been drinking. I rolled down the driver's window, the cop stuck his head in, took a deep breath and asked if we had been drinking. My friend responded with "Don't I wish", which gave the cop a chuckle. I thanked the cop for doing his job and he waved us on. Maybe its my prairie boy nature but I like it when the cop does his job even if it inconveniences me because I know that by doing his job my life is better. One simply has to look at NYC whose crime rate plummeted when the city adopted zero tolerance.

Oh man, another hijacked thread.

"Lay down with dogs. Wake up with fleas".

Fred: "In Toronto, the marchers effectively shielded the Black Blockers and cheered them on them on when they went all thug & criminal."

Yeah, well, when Toronto became a hyper-multicultural city, there went the neighbourhood.

The thing is, his own blog hasn't had this many hits in a year.

Got some good news for Jenny Yeun.

You were jiggled by Metro PF's only lesbian, single parent, black/inuit, muslim, parapalegic bike cop.

Come on in tomorrow morning, we'll take your complaint.

ron in kelowna @ 6:39, thanks for the fresh air.

I think this thread got out of hand, although the discussion is valid, on a different thread. T and mouth are probably having a good chuckle.

Even if the police do screw up on occasion, it is good when they are around. Our family knows a little something about what happens when the police that are not killed, run away in fear of their lives.It is best not to appear to push them. Some common sense during and after the weekend would be in order.

Vitruvius, we do not think about the little story you mentioned, but it is so true. I think we get complacent in our little cocoons.

Set You Free:

Not everyone stood by and did nothing.

IMO, this is the best video clip, par none, of the whole summit fiasco. I watched this video 5 times (17 seconds long) with great satisfaction.

I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/g20/2010/06/30/14565241.html

"I expected to potentially be tear gassed, hit with ricochet rubber bullets and be beaten with batons during the G-20 weekend"....soooo you got off easier than expected? What's the complaint here?

No-One: awesome video. With more people like that honest tough guy around, the black bloc would not exist. Not only did he stop the theft, but another guy about to enter the story changed his mind when he decided he didn't want the same treatment. Give that honest tough guy the order of Canada.

and after he bumped into me with his handlebars he went to my place of business and smashed the windows and looted all my inventory.....then he burned my car ?

Posted by: No-One at June 30, 2010 10:10 PM

That was funny.

Not saying everybody stood by and did nothing.

Just saying Vancouver people put up with none of it, while a certain element of Toronto took advantage of it.

Why is it that no matter what their political stripe, Torontonians got in the way to portray themselves as martyrs while Vancouver, considered to be the flakiest city in the west, took care of il with street justice.

Brock's numbers on his website are waaay down because of the dopers masquerading as libertarian tone.

Seems to me there's a certain MO on that website ... blah, blah, blah, when somebody challenges you, shift the topic and blah, blah, blah some more.

I've seen this in conversations before. Once the true victim's eyes glaze over, the total bore deludes himself into believing he's won.

In the blogosphere, dwindling numbers mean that nobody's listening. Get that?

sf: Ain't that the truth; way back in the day it was honest men and women that kept these scoundrels in line and the crime rate was low because people knew the community would not let them get away unpunished!

I didn't catch the fact that the second man was about to loot the store until I watched it a second time - it all happened so fast and was unexpected.

I hope someone comes forward and identifies this hero - I doubt he is the type to come forward on his own.

The Calgary Sun is asking that if anyone knows any of the persons in that video to call or email them. I am guessing they are trying to identify the hero. I hope he gets due recognition for his honesty and courage.

I love the fact that he gave the looter a tongue lashing about stealing to boot.

I have viewed CBC and find a curious mind set on much of their coverage. First, the complaints of "innocent bystander". Obviously they were inadvertantly or deliberatly providing cover for the thugs. Most regrettable of course, but surely if the average citizen was informed that the police were going to have trouble, then they should have dispersed.

In one's own home town, when there is trouble and the police are involved, only the foolish go down to rubberneck. It is just commonsense to keep well away.

Then the CBC in their carefully crafted wheedling way kept on vaguely bashing Police Chief Blair. So clever are they that it passes as good journalistic presentation.

Anything they can do to put authority in a bad light, they seem to be doing. It screams out that they do not seem to tee off on the thugs. Do not seem to put on "innocent bystanders" who are outraged by the thugs.

The CBC is a subversive organization.

Good one, Begley.

Vancouver obviously has something some Torontonians lack.

set you free: I did not mean to call you out or anything, on the contrary, but re-reading my comment I can see how you thought that. I should have expanded and explained myself better. I thought you would enjoy the video precisely because of the street justice in Vancouver.

I think the difference btwn the Vancouver Olympics and the G8/20 in Toronto, is due to the sense of pride the citizens in Vancouver were experiencing over hosting the games and the Gold medals we were winning at home, not to mention the fact that the international visitors and athletes were mingling and cheering along with them; as opposed to the G8/20 summit, where the citizens of Toronto resented hosting the summit in the first place - barricades, traffic diversions, and the fact that the international visitors were all politicians who were literally guarded securely away from the public certainly did not contribute or make for a friendly or hospitable setting.

I could be wrong, but that is my perception, or take if you prefer, on why there were different responses from the two cities. Vancouver has a rather large immigrant population as well, ratio and otherwise, so I do not think that was a key factor, although I do think that the police were careful to avoid profiling based on visible minority status during the G8/G20.

As you know, and undoubtedly realize, they police and the Canadian government obviously wanted to avoid looking like we discriminate against anyone who had the appearance or resembles a foreigner in any way given the fact we were entertaining foreigners from around the world. Canada has put much effort into convincing Canadaians, and the world, that a large part of our identity is based on multiculturalism. I think we lost some credibility regarding the supposedly peaceful - polite nature of Canadians for sure.

No prob, No-One.

There was plenty for Canadians to be proud of at the G20.

Start with the solid performance of the Canadian banking system.

How about the fact that Canada will meet the deficit targets next year, not in 2013.

And, the fact the bank tax proposal was shut down, as was cap-and-trade.

It's great to be a Canadian.

Too bad a bunch of egotistical morons have other ideas.

I enter this thread late in the day but it would appear to this simple piano player that after Mike Brock saw what the cops did to his compatriots on Saturday he spent an inordinate amount of time on Saturday night checking his ‘rights’ and muttering ‘I would like to see those a$$holes pull that stunt on me! So he puts on a black shirt and – lo and behold, his wish came true. So what are you bichin about Mike?
Are you just disappointed that you don’t have sufficient evidence for a million$ claim against the city?

If you really do have the courage of your convictions I hear they are going to have elections in North Korea to select the next President. Go protest the fact that there is only one name on the ballot but be ready to enjoy riding your bike after you get the pineapple suppository!

Indeed, set you free, PMSH did very well. I am thankful for what came out of the meeting - especially pushing back all that climate nonsense-can you imagine if Obama hosted - it's scary even thinking such a thought. The world should thank Canada it was us and not the USA for sure.

BTW,I think Toronto is still peeved at Vancouver for getting the Olympic Winter Games because it cheated them out of their chance for the Summer Olympics. Over at CBC, one Torontonian commented that the summit should have been held in Vancouver or Calgary - I thought that was telling.

"I am really suprised some people here think what happened to Mike is just fine (if it is as he says it happened)."

I don't think most people here think what happened to Mike is just fine, assuming he is reporting it accurately (which I doubt).

I do wonder how I have lived for more than half a century without being accosted by the police for my attire. If I want my 15 minutes of fame, I'd better learn the secrets of the perpetually outraged.

Unfortunately, Mike hasn't learned respect for the opinions of others. He hasn't learned that his understanding of an issue on which he doesn't have any particular expertise doesn't give him the right to treat others as lesser mortals. That, in fact, smarter people than he exist, and some disagree with him, and that he needs to dialogue with those people so that he doesn't come across as such a horse's ass. And he needs to understand that at this point, he seems unable to discern who it is that is smarter than he - that, in fact, everyone has some knowledge he doesn't have, which is why everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the officers who inconvenienced him. Even if he's right, he's wrong.

Some fool blathered "Contrary to TV depictions I have never met a really bright cop - they are at best of average intelligence"

Wow. Either this fool is confused and thinks security guards are cops, or he is confused and thinks average intelligence is all you need to conduct an investigation, gather evidence, analyze the evidence, make an arrest while considering all risk factors, dumb the information down for the Crown Attorney so that he or she can understand it, and do that day after day under continuous scrutiny, rarely making an error.

I am continually impressed with the quality of young men and women doing a job that I, with above average intelligence, could have never done as well. These are people who typically spend years in post-secondary education before they get on with a force, and their learning is continuous thereafter.

You don't know a smart cop? Perhaps it's because you've been on the wrong side of their attention all this time.

thank you EBD..

so you like my (act/stuff)tude eh...that's nice....so like you wanna date...talk about the issues and stuff...a little lunch thingy no big deal..

like no commitments eh...

just get acquatinted...as they say...

cause(full disclosure) i'm married but like i'm vulnerable to anyone grooves on my stuff it's like crack to a whore etc etc...

uhhh...you ARE a girl like eh?

john begley baby uhhhh... are YOU like a girl? not that there's anything wrong with that eh? it's just that you talk like my stuff and you're kinda cute and you wanna date?

Now I haven't met Ezra but, I have read a lot of his stuff. Admired his refusal to be slapped around by the HRC. His tenacious defence of his rights. I think I can safely say "You are no Ezra" Mike Brock.
Wandering around a hot zone in questionable attire looking like a half sucked cough drop, looking for your 15 minutes? Or just your fair share of abuse?

As for the aftermath, we did well our PM made us proud, axed the dumb bank tax. PM Stephen Harper gave some "grown up" advice to which most countries listened. The U.S. being the exception. November is coming they will take their country back.

The vandals that were bent on destroying anything that didn't fight back, didn't get their lumps because they were aided by the Protestors. The police were critized for not acting, then critized for acting. Sounds like a left wing nut mantra to me.

Happy Canada day everyone! No serious injuries. The Black Bloc Mom's Basement Brigade have retired to their version of the "Bat Cave". Ever watchful for the cry "Supper is ready Elmer, wash your hands"

Cry baby Mike doesn't have the balls to stand up against the perceived violation of his rights at the time it happened,but after the fact goes around endlessly whining and blaming others because of his cowardice.