Agreed.

Enjoy Canada Day Kate and all SDA readers.

Just think of all the countries where you and I couldn't have this type of dialogue, and celebrate our real freedom.

Yes sir, Al!

The Memories of a Fellow Traveller. For some people, the Empty Quarter evoked the Gulag. For me, it brought back memories of 1980s Kabul under the Soviet occupation and also Tehran under siege when terrorist bombs were popping off everywhere, sending the bigwig mullahs behind barricades of concrete blocks, which ordinary mortals approached at risk of being arrested, if not shot.

Kate, you are soooooo HOT when you're pissed off!!!

There is a very large difference between the "rights of an individual" and license to trespass "the rights of others"
If a group of individuals sets out to disrupt the rights of the people of my country to hold a conference then I don't have to like it. But, if they set out to destroy property and trespass the rights of others, then pay the price.
Once conflict begins, how can we expect everyone and anyone to play, "joe cool"?
Pick an individual under pressure and play the camera game is beginning to be a tired strategy
The question is what was the intent to the black hoods? Did they achieve their Goal?
Thanks for this whole post Kate...it's interesting to read the polemics of those who want license to protect their freedom while trespassing the rights of others.

Despite Steyn's assertions, I have never lived in a rural part of Canada.

It was the grad celebration this past Saturday Evening in Provost, Alberta. I slipped out of the ceremony before the grand march so I could make it to the Fast Gas and fill up and grab a Coke Zero before the crowd hit.

I was followed back into the arena parking lot by a local RCMP. He had seen me drinking from a bottle and I was driving an obviously hopped up Grand Am. I'm in my forties, but I've got one of those baby faces and he mistook me for a teen in a sports car -- a bad combo to him, I'm sure.

As soon as I had parked I had an officer knocking on my window politely asking what was in the bottle I was holding, and I passed it over so he could have a whiff. He was also a bit chagrined once he got a closer look and saw my grey hair.

Agreed that no member of the public should have to put up with the abuse Mike did, but when the police are polite and respectful to me I have no problem reciprocating. I'm sure that officer managed to keep a few drunks off the road this past weekend and that's good for everyone.

If this young aspiring law student had an issue with how the police were treating him, he can:

1) yell, complain, display his amazement
2) take it up with the judge, if he feels he bears legal damages.

Heck, that's what the police should have told him from the get-go. "we're searching your bag. If, when our investigation is complete, you have a problem; tell the judge."

But how can the young astronaut sue for damages, when he has none? (aside from the 7$ goggles, which the judge will gladly award him.) "MY RIGHTS ARE BEIN' VIOLAYTID!" is not a defence, unless they find two molotov cocktails in his bag. And then the legal battle would ensue, if he spent $8000 on a good lawyer. His only chance would be to establish if he was within 5 metres of the police human barricade (and I think he was), & challenge the Ontario law allowing search & seizure of persons/items within this said space. The cops should have told him this right from the start, and though I have great respect for the police, many cops are idiots.

But nobody was charged, no weapons were confiscated-- and if any rights were violated, it doesn't matter: no damages/charges were incurred. (aside from 7$ goggles, which the judge would require the OPP to pay. Case closed.) So the young rocket scientist was simply putting on a show.

But what *if* ? What *if* they found something illegal in that bag? The law is on the cops' side, so it would all come down to the judge. (or God... take your pick) But it would be an interesting court battle, if you're into that sort of thing.

I'm torn, Kate. I side with the cops, simple as they are, but I have a hint of 'screaming law-30 wannabe' aftertaste. I'm Mostly with the cops though. Conversely, the young bandana broacher *could* be charged with mischief, obstruction of justice, or disturbance of /peace.

Screaming at simpleton cops is never a solution. Keep quiet, record video, tell it to the judge; and you'll get back your 7$ goggles, sport.

So were the coppers supposed to allow anything and everything to happen naturally, all because their might be a "somebody somebody" amongst all the "nobody nobodies"?

Are the coppers also supposed to be so perfectly competent to know the somebody’s from the nobodies? Even when he's wearing their uniform?

Is it possible that Mr. Somebody got exactly what he wanted?

And all without even getting even the smallest of a shove off!

He certainly did!

So were the coppers supposed to allow anything and everything to happen naturally, all because their might be a "somebody somebody" amongst all the "nobody nobodies"?

Are the coppers also supposed to be so perfectly competent to know the somebody’s from the nobodies? Even when he's wearing their uniform?

Is it possible that Mr. Somebody got exactly what he wanted?

And all without getting even the smallest of a shove off!

He certainly did!

I find this Twitter post of Mr. Tweakednose Brock more interesting:

"@rruss assert the right to move freely without being unlawfully and arbitrarily detained.
1:17 PM Jun 28th via Echofon in reply to rruss"

Were you cruising for a bruising Mr. Brock?
Did you not say you were wearing a black shirt?

Perhaps you should go report on a bull fight from inside the ring and wear a red shirt. But remember, mess with the bull, you are going to get the horns.

Salient and noteworthy points have been made by Mike Brock, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan and Mark Steyn regarding G-20 policing.
My view is they (Toronto Police Services and OPP} were two days late in cracking heads, some validity exists in all the viewpoints mentioned.

This might be a good opportunity to remind folks the tremendous power of the state has in the warrentless enforcing of Bill C-68 gun control for example or the power to jail farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for selling their own wheat privately.

Police will enforce bad laws with equal vigor or force as they do good laws.
We are yet fortunate in Canada that non-despot civilian authority remains in command of the police forces and not vice versa.

I pretty much stayed out of it. The thing I consider is the police themselves. They were pulled in from all over the country. A lot of them are not used to have looting go on where they live. They are tired, they have reverted from the usual pleasantries and niceties. When I am having a super pithed day I feel the same way. The thing about hardening down is that it cannot always be turned on and off. They have a hard job and in order to maintain control they have to let all people know the rules have changed. The not responding was a political thingie. The guys standing there with abuse and FY screamed in their face did not mellow them much. Isn't that why it is done, to provoke?
Ever work with one of those people that always feels they need a little bit more time or a little bit more of this or that? Feel like kicking them in the arse sometimes? Well these guys had busloads of them. Move means move, don't waste my time. ID? but i live here and i drive a prius and the bakery is good. All day.
They didn't shoot anyone. I call it a plus. If you were hassled, well sometimes that is one of the prices of living. You'll survive.
Happy whatever Day you are celebrating. And as bambam would do a shout out for the Queen. I think she's a pretty smart old chick.

Toronto should just change its name to New Caledonia and get Mike to run for Mayor.

He'd understand the misery of being a Caledonian.

Somewhere some old range safety officer is still giving the lecture: If you don't want to get shot don't paint a target on yourself while standing next to the rest of the targets. Right now Mike looks like that guy in the video demanding to know why Eaton Centre is closed to the public. What a maroon.

Sean, have had that happen many a time (as I grew up in Provost). In those situations, "probable cause" was probably satisfied and I tend to agree with you. For a person on a busy street to be approached as in this case, I say it was probably outside the bounds. Under what circumstances can police search your stuff?

I have friends who went to Turkey and were cyclying across the country.They were stopped by the police and told by one officer to strip naked.They refused as one was a female.When the other officer leveled his sub machine gun,they complied with the first officers directive.

Again, we only have Mike Brock's side of the interaction; he says nothing about what he said to the police.

Equally, all his claims about 'violation of the constitution' are false; none of the articles of the constitution were violated in this interaction. When I asked him to provide me with them, his selection did not apply to his situation. Equally, the court cases he referred to did not apply.

I don't see what's wrong with deferring to authority. There IS such a thing as authority. We don't live, indeed it would be impossible to live, in a situation that lacks authority.

There is authority of knowledge, eg, doctors. There is authority of the rule of law, eg, the courts. And there is authority of carrying out the laws, eg. the police. These are all 'intellect' or 'reasoning' authoritative acts in that they require the individuals on both sides to know the authoritative rule, and, in a certain context, both of them co-operate to carry out that rule.

Mechanical authority is quite another thing, as, for instance, when you inadvertently press a key on the keyboard and the computer shuts down..because that's what it does in this instance; it ignores that you didn't mean to do so.

But 'reasoning' authority interprets, and that's why doctors ask for tests and second opinions, why courts and lawyers debate, and so on. Mike was in a situation with a police officer where he became robotic or mechanical. He refused to reason, and consider that since the context of the days were focused on certain signs (black shirt, communication device, young man, particular part of the city)...then, if he had used reason, he would have understood that their suspicions were valid, and he could have complied with their request. And even - shockingly - thanked them for their vigilance. Instead, he was mechanical.

Same with Kathy and Arnie; they moved into robotic mechanical mode, ignoring context, refusing to interpret and reason about 'the other view'.

Authority exists; it has to because it provides the infrastructure of continuity. Authority insists on rules of engineering construction, so that you don't get the flimsy shacks put up in Haiti, where the govt ignores building codes. It provides the constitution, the rule of law..and we as individuals must always interpret our whims and wishes against this more stable structure.

From one of your southern neighbors, Happy Canada Day to one and all! :-)

As I said earlier, when you insert yourself into chaos, shi* happens. The smart people stay home.

Thanks good neighbour Dave in PA, party hardy on your 4th of July!

Is it just me, or does the Corner seem to have hobbled the talented Steyn in Lilliputian chains?

Some folks find slippery slopes where ever they go.
It's like it follows them around or something.

> (Ahem. This is sort of interesting.)

Eeyouch. Never bring a Mike to a Kate fight. Total pwnage right there.

Welcome to Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

> Under what circumstances can police
> search your stuff?

Uh, geez, I dunno. Maybe the day after a riot that involved a bunch of asshats dancing around burning cop cars?

There was a time when I respected Mike Brock. Now it will be nearly impossible for me to run across his work without thinking of what a right prat he is.

Is it just me, or does the Corner seem to have hobbled the talented Steyn in Lilliputian chains?

Not I. First, if anybody tried to "hobble" Steyn he'd quickly exit stage right. Second, the Corner forum allows him to demonstrate his incredible talent for pun-filled responses and riffs. Third, I subscribe to NRO and read his Happy Warrior column with great delight. All in all it's a showcase for him.

If you're going to evoke Swift, it would be more appropriate to characterize the black-shirted young Mr. Brock's painful perambulation that fateful evening, during which he finds his views toward Toronto's brand of law-and-order are consistent with those of Haroon Siddiqui (see my post above), as Gullible's Travels.

By all means get out and celebrate our history of accepting "reasonable" levels of tyranny.

BTW: thr BNA act did not create an independent federated Canada. We just became a crown colony with the ability to elect local administrators. July 2 1867, the Queen and Pritish parliament still ran the confederated colonies.

Have a happy whatever day and try not to break any unwritten laws.

You really, really, don't understand the geography and size of downtown Toronto (nor does Mike: "corner of University and Bay (sic)? They don't intersect), nor do you understand the timeline: Black Bloc violence on Saturday, mass arrests of ordinary people on Sunday, end of summit Sunday, Mike Brock accosted Monday, a regular business day on which normalcy returned.

There was a peaceful if noisy protest at police HQ at Bay and College the Monday night. So if Mike was on University Ave, he was not near the protest, certainly not near enough to be accosted.

If the police were "marshaling at King and University" as Mike claims, that would likely make University their route of choice to get up to Bay & College. My expectation is that they’d want to get there ASAP, and not dawdle on the way. As Mark Steyn notes, the ten minutes they're kicking around Mike Brock is ten minutes they're not doing their job.

But just imagine the opportunities as they headed north on University! At Queen they’d hit the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts . Lots of black worn there, especially by the ladies.

Across the street is Osgoode Hall. Lots of lawyers in traditional black garb there. Lock 'em up.

At Gerrard they'd hit the Hospital For Sick Children, where it's possible a nun or two, in black, would need questioning and searching. Across the street is Mount Sinai; maybe a rabbi in black needed a good going over.

Then they'd hang a right at College and end up, after 2 km of lurching, at their destination, where they hassled .... well did they hassle anyone there, or did they just stand by in case there was trouble? I don't remember hearing of any arrests at police HQ. I rather doubt there were, given that there were no easy marks, and again, it was a peaceful if noisy protest.

So to summarize, the cops gathered at point A, hassled people on their way to point B, but did nothing at point B because there really was nothing for them to do.

Mark Steyn makes some very telling points about the unwise perceptions many people have regarding individual police tactics such as in the G20 situation re the use of "preemptive intimidation" to clear away ordinary members of the uninvolved public going about their lawful business while at the same time being careful to "await orders" when dealing with the thuggish "anarchist/activist" spawn of influential parents mixing in with the protective union cadres.

"The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor consent to arbitrary measures." Junius.

"The injustice done to an individual is sometimes of service to the public. Facts are apt to alarm us more than the most dangerous principles."

* No. 41, to Lord Mansfield (November 14, 1770) Junius.

It is interesting how most here seem to blame the victim and are completely sympathetic toward the police at least until it happens to them. Rights are not something that can be suspended and then restored. If they can be they are not rights. It may be foolish to go into an area of disturbance because you don't know what the rioters will do but a peaceful person minding his own business should not have to fear the state. The police are no different than anyone else and are not above human foibles. That is why we have checks and balances. All the time not just some of the time. If some of the police were out of control they should be disciplined. They are supposed to be the professionals.

kevin - kindly provide some evidence that 'most' who blame the 'victim' change their tune if the same situation occurs with them. Don't generalize.

I don't agree that Mike Brock is the victim; I think a better description of him is a robot. He refused to think, to acknowledge context. The summit, by the way, may have been officially over by Monday but the protesters weren't officially 'done' by Monday. Because a protest was peaceful did not mean that it couldn't switch to violence; after all, that's exactly what happened on Saturday. And I don't see the behaviour of the police as arbitrary.

Again, I don't understand what 'rights' Mike and others are referring to! There is no fundamental right not to be asked questions by the police. Nor is there any fundamental right not to have your backpack searched - in a context - where there was an ongoing 'protest march' and a weekend of violence.

The way some people here talk, it's as if the police have no duty or right to question anyone. Ever. At any time or place.

And I don't accept Mike's view that he was utterly silent the whole time; that he said nothing to the police; that he simply nodded and got off his phone without a word; and handed over his backpack without a word. I think he said a few things...and that changes the interaction.

After all, when I see how he was wrong in his view of the duties of the police - which he asserted were to protect his 'fundamental rights' (no; that's the duty of the legal system); and his incorrect view of the charter..well, I wonder about his account of the whole interaction. Silent Mike.

Just wondering how many ordinary citizens were in the area a day or two after the dangerous anarchist/punk rioting. Hundreds? Thousands?

How many thought they were unjustly questioned? One? Ten?

If so, a 99% score is pretty good - no?

Some folks find slippery slopes where ever they go. It's like it follows them around or something.
Posted by: Blame Crash at July 1, 2010 11:30 AM

This is true. I, a Vancouver libertarian, now in training to be a private property anarchist (anarcho-capitalist), used to go around with a cloud over my head; now I go about with a cloud over my head and a slippery slope under my feet. As a delightful guest on Beck put it recently, "the more I look the more I see an inadequacy of paranoia." (words very close to this).

But seriously:
The very act of sneering at people decrying slippery slopes is a slippery slope of the slipperiest kind. Next, you'll sneer at sick canaries eh? Slippery = barely percepible except, of course, to persons of heightened awareness like Me.

Question:
Is Mike Brock a law student?

"kevin - kindly provide some evidence that 'most' who blame the 'victim' change their tune if the same situation occurs with them. Don't generalize."

You are right most conservatives are fully commited to socialism when it comes to the police and law and order. They would just accept the loss of freedom in the name of security of the state.

I apologize for making assumptions.

Mike should have asked 2 things:

A) am I under arrest or being investigated.
( if so, you have the right to remain silent to avoid self incrimination)

B)under what authority is this unwarranted arbitrary search/investigation being done?

He would probably be read the fraudulent civil works act amendment fabricated by PC Blair and told this amendment suspends his civil liberties and constitutional legal rights if near some nebulous unmarked security perimeter.

If he refused to comply with such despotic jibberish, he would have been falsely arrested and wisked away to the prefab G20 gulag with all other innocent citizens falsely arrested and denied their rights under this fraudulent cop-made "statute".

He could then sue as I'm sure others will, and get a part of the loot that will be extracted from taxpayers paying for such a bizare policing atrocity. Easy way to make a few grand for a few hours penned up with stinky hippies and drug addled suburban anarchists.

You missed the gravy train on that one Mike.

ET- I've always wondered if there's a measurable distinction between authority, and power. I've always had a problem with authority, but have been forced to defer to power on many occasions. Authority only works when all participants are willing. Power kicks in when parties have come to a non-negotiable disagreement.

Most cops expect people to defer to their power. In time, some of them learn the difference between authority and power, but by that time they're not usually doing front line duty. The cops they send to these situations are usually young, strong, and dumb. To them, it's ALL about power.

Who knows what was going through Brocks mind when he set this in motion? One thing for certain, it's about him, and nothing else. He's one of the most conflicted people I've ever had the displeasure of reading. But then, living in the multicultural madness of Toronto can do that to you.

At least they are not coming to our houses in a black van at 4:00 am to pick us up, yet.

From what I've read so far it seems that the Holocaust teamed up with Apartheid to attack the Civil Rights Movement. Or was it even more serious than that?

From what I've read so far it seems that the Holocaust teamed up with Apartheid to attack the Civil Rights Movement. Or was it even more serious than that?

Excellent summary! You only left out the part about us Deniers, and of course the impact of all this on Global Warming.

ET;

Couldn't agree with you more. Brock had to have said something to the police. Why else would one of them have said they didn't care what he had to say if he hadn't said anything in the first place. There's no ring of truth here.

Brock had to have said something to the police...

I guess you'll never find out since Brock will likely stick to his stories.

"the ten minutes they're kicking around Mike Brock is ten minutes they're not doing their job, ten minutes they're not devoting to the guys they should be kicking around"

Mark Steyn is an unquestionably smart guy but every couple of years or so he has some major brain cramps. In any investigation by the police, they end up checking out and questioning lots of suspects before they find who it is they are looking for. It is inherent to any investigation that the police will end up checking out a lot of innocents before they get their guy. It is hardly a waste of time.

Thank you Kate for this post, and I also thank ET for, yet once again, agreeing to spell out the facts. Hopefully in the future we shall be able to move beyond the inflated ego of one individual to real issues. Happy Dominion Day to all.

CanadianGunNutz.com is too set up by police to monitor the gun owners' expression. Those who figured it out have quit quietly after some very suspiciously timed raids. Just saying.

glasnost- it's called 'Fixation of Belief' via 'tenacity' (Charles Peirce). This occurs when one arrives, by any means, at a belief and then tenaciously holds on to it despite evidence to the contrary.

Brock's story about himself is that he said not a word and did absolutely nothing - and that the police arbitrarily abandoned their duties (which Brock misrepresents) and violated his Charter rights (which he also distorts). I'm saying there's more to the situation - particularly when his opinions on police duties and charter rights are so incorrect.

However, what I find puzzling is those who seem to reject the role of authority in, not merely a society, but in one's individual life. There's always authority. It can be your parents or the teacher. Or the rule of law, the constitution. Or, in a religion, god. There's morality,and there's reason - which both act as a very good authority over any whim. 'No man is an island' and the individual, important and vital as he is, lives within a context of interaction, collaboration and yes, authority.

That's the nature of a society; that fine balance between the individual and the collective normative habits.

Brock had to have said something to the police...

I really don't care at one level. I've said it before and I'll say it again: In the midst of such violent-anarchist-provoked rioting there will inevitably be collateral damage to the innocent.

That's regrettable and appalling and I'd be outraged if it happened to me too. The villains of the piece are the blackguards in black, unless you subscribe to the sixtyish notion that the vast majority of cops are just waiting for an excuse like this to harass innocent citizens.

We have to balance the need to respect our peace officers with the reality that human nature inspires many of these to mistake their role of public servant/guardian for that of ruler......
Rule # 1 = don't die......Pick your battles....

Well, it's been an interesting three or four days of reading. The heavy hitters certainly came out to play.

The verdict of Mark:
- The Brock and Shaidle scenarios would probably have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if the police had stomped the Black Bloc when they started smashing things.
- Wearing black near the smash and burn sites was just plain dumb. Context does count for something.
- The defense against choosing to wear black is to NOT volunteer to a search, not to demand police leave you alone after the Black Bloc just smashed their way through.
- If you volunteer your backpack at the request of police, in full knowledge of the fact that you don't have to do so, then you've no grounds upon which to complain after the fact about unjust personal police searches.
- If you're THAT concerned about search and seizure, surely you'd take one on the chin out of principle alone.
- Brock had a chance to take one for the team but didn't. Instead he has written extensively about how he didn't take one for the team and is mightily pissed off that police bothered to give him the chance. It's a little strange.
- Coulda, woulda, shoulda, but didn't.
- Would love to interview the cop who dropped the F bomb (or is it the S bomb?) on Brock.
- Can we move on now?

A few weeks before the G8/G20 meetings there was a fire bombing of a RBC branch in Ottawa. One of those standing accused of this crime is a white, middle aged retired civil servant, with an axe to grind since the Olympics.
I think at this point ALL people become suspect when it comes to mass demonstrations and the fire bombing in the sleepy "Glebe" neighbourhood of the National Capital put police forces into a higher state of alert at the G20.
What better way to disguise oneself, if a suicide bomber, than as a nun? How much explosive could be carried in a knapsack? Could a cell phone be used to set off an already planted bomb? on and on the possibilities...
Common sense would now tell ordinary people, even as on lookers, to stay way from these events....

Black Bloc.

Quebecers arrested at U of T.

Just sayin'.

ET;
Couldn't agree with you more. Brock had to have said something to the police. Why else would one of them have said they didn't care what he had to say if he hadn't said anything in the first place. There's no ring of truth here.
Posted by: bob c at July 1, 2010 12:52 PM

What unmitigated bullshit. Key-reist, first "what were you doing wearing a black shirt" (the stupidest question ever asked at sda) and now "he had to have said something ....".

I'm a motorcyclist, a good one, and a conscientiously safe one. I live in Vancouver, I'm 61. I'm a very responsible man and polite to a fault with "the authorities" out of mature self interest. I learned obsequious deference to authority by being the owner of a small regulated entity for 30 years and learning to survive the regulatory madhouse.

A few months ago I got caught -- fair and square, and I made that clear to the cop -- for riding briefly in a bus lane in Vancouver.

Mostly out of embarrassment, I attempted to explain to the cop how I ended up in said bus lane -- something I never do. Briefly: my lane froze, I was caught in the middle of an intersection when the light changed, I moved to the only clear spot, the bus lane, with the intention of getting out of it as soon as a safe gap opened to my left.

And our jolly copper had this to say: DON'T. YOU. LIE. TO. ME. [bold, his].

I explained that I wasn't disputing the ticket, merely trying to explain the mitigating circumstances. And again,

DON'T. YOU. LIE. TO. ME. [bold, his].

Defer to authority? It was AWOL on Saturday because of political considerations. On Sunday, "we did our job".

The blame for this should be handed to Mayor Miller and Chief Blair. Period. There was no "law and order" present on Saturday, only at the MAginot Line "fence". It stood off to the sidelines and under political orders, surrendered the field to thugs, so that Mayor Miller and Chief Blair could "work the crowd" for political purposes. What a bunch of sheep.

God help them that they would have had to respond to citizens taking control of the streets of Toronto, while the police, contracted for that purpose stood idly by for the photo op. Once that was achieved they began to swing the clubs and round up the "usual suspects", bystanders. I haven't heard how many of the Black BLOC were arrested for our $1 Billion.

They (Miller & Blair) "knew" their city. The "city" just stood by and filmed the process and didn't lift a finger to stop it. Says a lot about those people of Toronto and less of the Black BLOC imports.

Look in the mirror folks, quitcherbitchin'.

I think that Canadians may want to appraise themselves of Canadian law as it applies to the Mike Brock case, especially the point about unlawful search.

A very instructive read can be found here:

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc52/2004scc52.html

It's an easy read, but meaningless unless read in its entirity. A follow-up of some of the case law presented is also instructive, and surprisingly straightforward. My conclusion, as I've posted elsewhere, is as follows:

As set out by the SCC, context is everything. For instance, when going to an airshow, post 911, all conveying items are searched. When entering family law division court in Saskatoon, a full scan and search of all conveying items is done … but rarely is a search done at regular Court of Queen’s Bench sittings. When getting on a city bus, no search, but when getting on an airplane, detailed search (even a joke made about bombs or hijacking will get one detained at an airport.) When getting on a city bus in London, post-tube bombings, a full search may occur. Any public event where it can be reasonably expected that violence may occur may subject all participants to a search … like going to a speech by Hirsi Ali.

The context here is:

1. G20 hieghtened security crack down which has been well publicized makes the city a high security zone.
2. Black shirt (but only in the context of the G20 riots)
3. G20 riots and violence the previous day by black shirts
4. Extreme G20 violence at other international events
5. Public safety was the singular reason for the search; and incidently the single most important test as laid out by the SCC for patdowns.

The officers were completely within their rights, and in fact, likely duty bound to do a check. I’m surprised they didn’t do a pat down. Mike was not detained for anything but the shortest length of time, all clearly outlined by the SCC as standards to be met. The bag search, given the context, was reasonable. His pockets were not checked. Pretty clear case.

I find the profanity disturbing, as no officer I’ve ever met or worked with would’ve used it in the case as described by Brock. But, we only have one side of the story.

So, I do disagree with Kate on one point ... the bag had to be handed over and searched. ID, likely need not have been provided. There is also a crossing over of issues here ... the macro issues like admistrative tactics by the City of Toronto, and the minute ones like the search of Brock. Steyn mixes them and makes a mess of his argument. He's a macro thinker.

I wonder if we'd all feel differently if some dirt bag had of managed to get through with a bomb? I blame Miller and the Police Chief, also it appears the cops were trying to locate the black bloc two days after they let them riot and rampage thus they targeted innocent bystanders.

I missed the flurry of discussion of the last couple of days until now. Wow!

I find this disagreement among friends (I hope) to be both painful and hopeful to read.

There's no way to 100% reconcile "true" libertarian conservatives with "law and order" conservatives. Either you:

A) govern yourself and take all responsibility for this, as well as for what may come from permitting other to govern themselves with few or no restrictions

B) or you accept that it is necessary to delegate someone authority over you. Further, to be practical about it you must expect that this authority you delegated will be subcontracted out. By this I mean to say that you don’t vote for individual policemen.

Either. Or.

So, let’s take the case of that guy on his bike who wanted to go to the demonstration on Monday but was stopped by police who wanted to search his bag before letting him through. If he had a bomb with him, and used that bomb to kill people, would Mike Brock have been defending the police for their unwillingness to search bags? Would he have been calling for stronger search laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZgjX5vHt2o

I found the police pretty reasonable in that particular instance. I wanted to slap the “you’re denying my rights” guy down by about 2 minutes into the video. They didn’t hold him down and forcibly search him. They let him repeat himself, rudely, for 5 minutes, and when he tried to push through them he calmly stopped him. He could have left any time with no search or arrest.

If Mike Brocks’s experience was anything like this, then I have to take the side of the police.

If the police went out of their way to harass Mike for no good reason, and were unnecessarily verbally aggressive, then the police individual involved displayed poor professionalism. I would regard that as an error of judgment, not a sign that we live in a police state.

At the end of the day, I don’t think I want to live in a pure Libertarian society nor in a conservative authoritarian society. It has to be somewhere in between. The laws we make will be imperfect, and will be interpreted by imperfect judges and lawyers, and enforced by imperfect cops. You can’t take the “imperfect” out of the equation. If over time it emerges that there is such a degree of imperfection in the system that the law needs to be revised, a healthy society will be able to have this discussion and act appropriately.

Which brings me to what make me hopeful - the quality of the discussion here and in related sites has been, for the most part, very good. No one was compared to Hitler (AFAIK), no one was threatened, name-calling was minimal, and I learned a lot about what I had to consider before taking on a policeman in a disagreement about rights. I suspect others have similarly reflected on this issue. It’s been educational and thoughtprovoking.

Contrasted with what goes on in much of the blogosphere, especially the lefty blogosphere, I am impressed by the intellect and thoughtfulness of the people discussing these issues in relatively civil manner, using short blog posts, presumably mostly off the top of their heads. That’s how we can improve our future, even if we don’t agree on all details of an issue.

Having organized sit-ins and many demonstrations in my younger years I do understand what happens.
While we debate the minute details of what did or did not happen, one overriding principal should not be overlooked.
Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility and virtue. License means one can do anything without being responsible. When any individual or group assumes they have license to provoke violence and damage, then don't cry when they are met with force of any kind. For any individual to claim they inhabited some tiny island in the midst of anarchy shows that the individual doesn't have much common sense.
If one doesn't want to slip and fall, don't go to slippery places. In the end it's not a question of freedom at all, but a result of a well organized violent campaign against Government.

I have to agree with Mike's editing, f*ck does add more to the element of *danger* than sh*t ever will.

Kate, Personally, I found your sentence "Paper Marxists, digital libertarians. Two sides of the same coin, I'm afraid." insulting.

How are they the same?

Perhaps I am being a bit thin-skinned, but I would say a large portion of your readers are libertarian. Was your intention to insult them?

EarlW: read "scurried back to his 'puter
... "paper" ... that's the key. Libertarians in general were not at all insulted.

EarlW, I shouldn't presume to speak for our brilliant hostess, but I think she means Mike Brock didn't actually stand up for his rights, or what he thought his rights were. Kate appears to not appreciate whininess, which pro-Mike, or anti-Mike, you'd have to think he's a tad whiny.

Steyn agrees with one of Kate's points:

Kate:
I have plenty of respect for people who defend their rights when they think they've being violated. In Mike's case, though, he didn't, did he?

Mark:
That's true. I would have. I always defend my rights, even if it involves raising the stakes dramatically. Not because I'm brave, but because the writer in me is figuring it'll make a much better column if I get the crap beaten out of me and tossed in the slammer. Tried it with both British and Moroccan immigration officials in recent days, but in both cases the wimps caved.]

Me No dhimmi

You are looking at what happened to Brock through your own experience. But situation-wise both experiences are different.
Further:
there is no corner of University and Bay. They are both parallel streets.
Brock could only be (reasonably) at corner University/King if he is working somewhere in financial district (on King St. from Yonge to University)- otherwise he was there because he was curiosity seeker. This is quite far from UofT and majority of people there are business people and/or tourists.
****
I am also surprised that many people are talking only about rights. But when there is a terrorist act you forget "rights" and see only obligations. [the police should go there and keep these bast'rds longer in detention, the police should have more powers - right?]. But then you look at everything differently when you, personally are involved....... like now.
There are no rights without obligations and I think that people concentrating only on rights[my rights trumps all else] forget that obligations are also important part of well being of society.

I could be in worse company than Mark Steyn, seems to me.

You can say Kathy Shaidle, BCF and Mike Brock are whiners all you want Kate, but you can't escape the fact that we have two-tier justice in Ontario.

There has been a policy decision made that police -will-not-take-action against particular groups to protect property or even life and limb. Police will be ordered to stand back and let it happen, been going on since 2006 in Caledonia.

Y'all watched it on Saturday. Burning cars, broken windows. There's 15,000 cops in downtown, armed with everything from guns and batons to tasers and super duper hight tech sound cannon. They couldn't arrest 20 college students vandalizing a $75,000 cop car? How stupid am I supposed to be here?

Sunday, no union demonstration, police not ordered to stand down, SHAZAM! No property damage Sunday, lots and lots of arrests. Wow, how did that happen? Monday no union demonstration, tired cranky cops breaking the law and pushing people around for no good reason.

I do not consider it to be in my best interests to allow that to pass unremarked. If Mike Brock gets pulled over for speeding, that ain't news even if the cop breaks his nose. You lip off, you asked for it.

If Mike Brock and a bunch of other people are subjected to illegal search on Monday -after- the big show for wearing a black t-shirt (he has video), that's news. Because gee, where was all the "screw the rules, lets catch these creeps" gung-ho police work on Saturday?

Oh, and cops breaking the law to make super duper sure the black t-shirt wearing potential perp was completely disarmed and harmless. SINCE WHEN in a free country is Mike Brock required to prove he's harmless to police at their whim? I don't care if there is a protest, you arrest guys when they are breaking stuff, you don't hassle guys sitting on a park bench listening to their ipod.

As for me, I'm not going be in the Canada Day parade in Caledonia today with my cool car. Why? Good possibility of "demonstrators" getting a free pass from the OPP, that's why. Its hard to get a new windshield for a '64 Buick, know what I mean?

dp @12:37: The root of authority is power. Ultimately the authority of any state or political organization is its ability to coerce or enforce. The most important aspect of the police, and one they share with the military, is that they are the enforcement arm of the state. The police deal with internal challenges to authority; the military with external ones.

The second consideration of the application of power is that it must be intimidating. No state has the power to enforce its dictates over all its citizens 24/7. So, the application of power has to be intimidating, essentially to make examples, so that all the rest of the citizens stay in line. When that intimidating aspect of power is broken the state collapses, such as East Germany or Romania in 1990. When it is sustained, opposition collapses, such as Tiannamen Square.

Phantom: Define illegal search, in legal terms. Otherwise it's just words. What law was broken? What charter right was violated, specifically?

That's a fair comment, ella, but I wasn't so much defending Brock as responding to Bob C's contention that "he must have said something".

I came of age in the cops-are-pigs era but never signed onto that at all. But sadly, over time, I've kinda arrived at the feeling that, generally, cops are thugs, representing of course a THUG STATE. And the top echelon of copdom is now utterly contaminated with multi-culti, PC, social-worker policing.

And The Phantom is absolutely right about two-tier justice. That is crystal clear.

AND, there is zero interest in protecting private property, which I always thought to be a core duty of the state. After all, it's covered by insurance and, as we all know, that means no actual costs are incurred! And oh, think of the stimulus to the economy: paying for all those repairs!

Me no dhimmi

Canada is a Thug State? Are you serious?
It seems to me that the only state which (according to you) would NOT be a thug state would be an anarchist state.
As for contaminations with multi-culti, PC, social-worker policing I think you are somewhat right. But isn't it, in some small measure, YOUR fault that in Canada there is multi-culti, PC, social-worker policing?
What did YOU do to prevent it?

I can agree that someone has more of a right to be pissed off about their rights being violated if they're arrested for standing up for what they believe in. I find that most cops will fold when you do stand up for your rights and I've been lucky thus far in that I haven't gotten arrested and I haven't had to open my pack or tell them where I was going or where I lived.

What I find disturbing is the number of people who call themselves conservatives who buy into the surveillance society that we're heading toward. Slaves submit to searches and freemen don't. If someone is clearly breaking the law, then by all means arrest them. A much more desireable outcome in TO would have been if business owners were allowed to use force to protect their businesses and a load of buckshot in response to a molotov cocktail will make surviving protestors seek softer targets. Socialized policing has clearly failed and it's time for a private enterprise solution for the protection of property.

I fly very little now because I am very uncomfortable sitting in a public area unarmed. I'm doing a long drive tomorrow to get somewhere I could be in an hour by plane but I prefer to bring along the things I might need which are banned on aircraft. I don't go to any bar which requires me to go through a metal detector or provide identification. Right now the streets are the one place I can walk around without being hassled because I chose to carry around what I consider to be essential survival tools. Fortunately I now live in a place that is very unlikely to be the future venue of a statist gathering.

Sorry Kate, I love you but I find Mark's arguments much more reasonable and persuasive than yours.

Massive fail.

Cjunk, this isn't a court room and I'm certainly not a lawyer. Its my understanding that police do -not- have the power to randomly demand ID and a search of personal effects from Canadians on any random street corner.

If they do have that power they damn well shouldn't, and there's something else that needs fixed.

Do you guys -want- to live in a free country?

And by the way, why isn't there an inquiry under way to find and recalibrate whatever geniuses ordered cop cars be left to burn on Saturday? Those things are all signed for by the guys responsible for them, and I guarantee you the guy that signed for it didn't voluntarily leave it there to get burnt. He was -ordered- to leave it there.

I feel like I'm in the frickin' Twilight Zone here. WTF you guys?

Beginning to wonder about Steyn. When are the Liberals going to parachute him into a riding?

He certainly has about as much knowledge of this country as Iggy.

cgh - most certainly, the nature of authority is its nature to, well, authorize and validate and even require a certain mode of behaviour. First, we must understand that all societies have limits on individual behaviour; all have modes of normative behaviour. No, authority does not have to be 'intimidating' in the sense to which you refer.

Authority can be expressed in various ways. A key and probably the most important agent of authority in a society is 'peer pressure'. What will the neighbours think is an important tactic of constraining individual whim. Indeed, in some small societies, the role of gossip, frowns and turning one's back on the one who steps out of line is more than sufficient to enforce the normative mode of behaviour.

Then, moving from the 'lateral tactics' of enforcing normative behaviour, we can move into the hierarchical. This moves from parents, teachers, to religion - an important agency - and the state. In the democratic state, it is the citizens who make the laws via their legislature. The police enforce these laws, the judges interpret whether the individual actually broke that law.

Now, do we have a two-tiered legal system? That arises when 'special deals' are made for political purposes. This has been the norm in societies, and it's most certainly a corruption; that is, all societies must wage an endless battle against corruption and special deals.

So, we have the multicultural hands-off scenario where the Tamils can take over a major Toronto highway and the police chief and Ontario premier won't allow them to be removed. Same in Caledonia and the natives there. What about the Liberal Party's theft of millions from the taxpayer to fund their political campaigns? The abuse of taxpayer money in benefits and pensions?

Phantom: I've been fairly scrupulous about confining my remarks to specific people in specific circumstances. If I feel like commenting on police policy in general, I'll do that in a different post.

As a conservative, I don't believe in "group guilt". Thus, if a cop punched a reporter on Sunday, I'm not going to drag him to the scene of another alleged cop crime on Monday to scream "aha!".

So, stay on topic.

I was willing to take Mike at his word right up until the moment I read that Twitter feed.

Now, all bets are off.

In the minutes between his post to Twitter and the one to the Shotgun, the word "shit" became the word "fuck".

Tell me - why did he feel the need to sex up his report?

Shaidle: "Hicks hate us big city people."

Oh dear. I take it that was an passive agressive dig at Kate.

I was a big critic of Shaildle and BCF's phony "police brutality" video on that thread and I live in Vancouver.

Posted by: brick60 at July 1, 2010 4:33 PM

Did your critique of the video get you banned from commenting at BCF's Youtube page and blog as well?

ET said: "Now, do we have a two-tiered legal system? That arises when 'special deals' are made for political purposes. This has been the norm in societies, and it's most certainly a corruption; that is, all societies must wage an endless battle against corruption and special deals."

Uh huh. So ET, that's why it isn't "whining" when you report being the subject of two-tier policing. I got caught up in this in 2006, I think I posted about my full-tactical stop experience right here on this very blog. Nobody called me a wuss for doing every single thing the cops said to do.

How we know its two tier is people reporting it. You want -more- reporting, more Kathy Shaidle with the video camera, more Mike Brock reporting his experience.

What do you think we should do, just shut up when we get hassled by cops? If everybody shuts up, how are -you- going to know whats going on ET? Going to watch the CBC?

Phantom: police do -not- have the power to randomly demand ID and a search of personal effects from Canadians on any random street corner

They don't, but that wasn't the case now, was it? There is a very narrow criteria for searches, and in my opinion, based on the charter and SCC, the police had every right to search Mike, given the circumstances and over-all context. The ID request was perhaps outside their right. Kate also gives proof that Mike may be engaged in creative hyperbole.

I feel like I'm in the frickin' Twilight Zone here ... perhaps you've just descended from the twilight zone into reality. You have no idea of what constitutes a lawful search, which would make your opinion one grounded in ignorance.

As far as the macro issue of two-tiered justice and police responses at the G20 on day 1, versus 2 and 3, I completely agree that things are screwed up.

AtlanticJim 4:35

No, because I don't go to BCF. I go to Shaidle's site because Mark Steyn says it's so great but I haven't seen the light, if you will.

Kate, just read your comment. Clearly I've missed the point somehow.

phantom - no, Mike wasn't the object of a 'two-tiered legal system'. I'm going strictly by his words:

He says he was at the corner of Bay and University - hmmm- as noted, those two streets are parallel and there's no corner.

Then, he says he was simply sitting there, and the police came up and said they wanted to talk with him. What's wrong with such a request? Then, it becomes strange: Mike says he was stunned. Why on earth should he be stunned? They could have been going to ask him..'did you see someone wearing orange and purple running by a few minutes ago'? Why would anyone be stunned at being approached by the police.

Then, he continues that he 'paused for a moment'; he also says he 'opened his mouth' to 'respond to their request'. And then Mark says that an officer then immediately yelled at him: 'I don't give a sh# what you think'. Or was it "I don't give a f# what you think'.

That simply doesn't make sense. If someone comes up and says 'we want to talk with you'..and you haven't yet said a single word..and according to Mark, he hadn't said a word...then, why would the officer yell at him? Didn't they want to talk to him?

That's why I think that a great deal has been left out of Mark's story. These 'facts' that are missing include his location; what he was doing there (we find out he was sitting somewhere, talking to someone and holding a Starbucks coffee). ...and above all, what he said to the police. According to Mark, he was utterly silent. It simply doesn't make sense.

Kate,

I assure you, that I did not intentionally "sex up" the report. I was clearly shaken and disturbed by the experience. I believe that my recount on the Western Standard is accurate and the one on Twitter was hastily written without proper parsing of my memory.

You believe this discrepancy between what specific curse word was used in what incident bring my entire credibility into disrepute. I think that's silly.

But I've acknowledged the contradiction and attempted to provide an honest explanation.

You have instead painted a charicature of me that shows me as someone who went looking for trouble, and was looking to be a martyr, but didn't have the cahoonies to follow through on his own rhetoric. Your assumption I intentionally "sexed up" the story, of course, fits your narrative.

I will correct the accusation that you have banned me as soon as I get back to a computer, as editing posts from and iPhone is next to impossible. But your comment at the WS stands to correct that record.

The point is, Phantom, you started talking about "two tier justice" in Ontario, and that's a different topic. I've written about two incidents that I don't think rise to the level of "blogworthy", much less "rights violation".

I cringe when I see words like "tyranny" dumbed down. What's distressing is witnessing it done from people who should know better, and that's why I called them on it. A little proportion, please.

The other issue I have is this triumphant self-portrayal as some sort of rights warriors - all of it limited to posting crap to the internet. I've put more "skin in the game" defending myself from parking tickets.

And I haven't found the need to take any cheap shot sideswipes at friends with whom I disagree - you'll have to ask them why their arguments require such tactics. [addendum - I should have made clear that this does not refer to Mike]

Posted by: EarlW at July 1, 2010 2:32 PM

Does the phrase ‘taking personal responsibility for your actions' ring a bell?

“Digital libertarians" apparently are fighting for freedom FROM responsibility.

With all due respect, Kate, if you are referring to me, I take total offence to any suggestion I took any "cheap shot sideswipes" at you. The only allusions I have made to you, and even in private correspondence have been about the respect I have for you.

Your post here, is a direct assault on my integrity. It makes a severely personal negative value judgement agains me.

I dare say, you would not be being as friendly as I am being now if the tables were reversed.

I must admit that a lot of legal discussion here is pretty good and it is a worthy discussion to have. I personally think that it's too bad it's wasted on something as trivial as the complaints that started the whole discussion rolling. I get the feeling that the people who are outraged the most have the least to complain about. Anybody who grew up poor in any major city went through what these people did 100 times before they turned 16. They managed to get over it. Cops are like bikers. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. If you keep your dealings with them down to a minimum you'll live a happier and less stressful life. Nobody said life was fair.

No Mike, the cheap shots were not from you.

A much more desireable outcome in TO would have been if business owners were allowed to use force to protect their businesses and a load of buckshot in response to a molotov cocktail will make surviving protestors seek softer targets. Socialized policing has clearly failed and it's time for a private enterprise solution for the protection of property.
Posted by: loki at July 1, 2010 3:45 PM

AB-SO-LUTE-LY right loki. For those who are sympathetic to loki's cogent observation, may I recommend a little book: The Private Production of Defense, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Murray Rothbard's acolyte.

Caledonia convinced me of the wisdom of loki/Hoppe's thesis. For I've come to the conclusion that the STATE does nothing competently including those core tasks that even libertarians assign to it.

Mike Brock got ensnared in a bogus police operation. Totally bogus!

CCA means capital cost allowance but also, cops covering ass.

If you think dealing with a bad cop is terrible just wait to you deal with a bad judge.

I'm getting a headache.

loki

In my view cops represent the law (and order) that's the real reason why people do what police ask them to do. It is trite but true. People park cars in parking lots, do not vandalize shops and do not drive 250 km/h not because police carry guns, not because they have batons but because people think the laws police represent are reasonable and good for them. If majority think otherwise then you have situation like in banlieues in France or in some part of Sweden where police can not go in. Simply put, there are not many policemen/women for x numbers of persons. In Toronto(acc. to Wiki) there are 5,710 uniformed officers and 2,500 civilian employees--- for 2.5 mln people. Do you think that if majority of people decided they would not follow rules police could do much about it? You wrote that "I find that most cops will fold when you do stand up for your rights " - true, and the above is the reason why.

You also wrote that we are going to be a surveillance society - I think you are behind the times, we are already surveillance/the-lack-of-privacy society. Your bank (and any bank) can check the state of your credit card or your bank account. The people on facebook or on google can check your likes and dislikes. Your employer can check whether you smoke and your insurance guy can refuse to give you low cost insurance if he finds out that you smoke ( it is called - profiling). Your airplane people can profile you and your friendly grocery guy can check your shopping preferences when you use your credit card. And so on and so forth. There is not much privacy and government surveillance is only one facet of it. Freemen may not submit to searches (as you wrote) but freemen do submit to constant leak of information about freemen finances and freemen likes and dislikes.

business owners were allowed to use force to protect their businesses ......... I hope you realize that some time ago it was business/land owners in Sicily who tried to do just that, - the result of their decision was ..............mafia.

gord - dealing with anyone who makes personal and subjective rather than objective judgments is bad, whether it be a parent, a teacher, a friend, an employer, a neighbour..or a police officer or judge.

me no dhimmi- We still haven't heard from Mike (whom I sometimes erroneously refer to as 'Mark') exactly what he did and said to get the reaction from the police officer. His statement that he said nothing, and got that action, is, to me, suspect.

I also don't agree that personal self-defense for storeowners, in this scenario I stress, would be productive. I certainly support it for the local corner store and gas station during regular times. But this event was different. Here, you had a particular weekend event, plus organized thugs with a particular agenda, which had little to do with the G20, which served only as a cover for their regular anti-capitalist violence. After all, they claim, how could they be charged with violence and disturbing the peace when they were..ahh...expressing their right of freedom of expression?

Mike wasn't at the College and Bay demonstration; he was, we understand now, at the corner of King and University, right in the 'fence zone' and Convention Centre area, one block south of the violence on Saturday. That puts him, even on Monday, still in the fragile zone where something else could come up. Furthermore, since he was on his phone, then, spatial distance is not relevant. The police had every right to question him and his claims that his 'charter rights' were violated are untenable.

He was behaving as a robot rather than a reasoning person, ignoring context, ignoring the realities of the ongoing demonstrations and the fact that the people who were active in these demonstrations were still in the city.

I think that the term 'rights' is flung around too readily. That's all one hears - of how one's 'rights' have been violated. There are demonstrations against 'police brutality' (?) in various cities today. The demonstrators are talking about 'sexual abuse' (what???); about 'violation of rights' (?); complaining about 'the hard floors'. These words are flung around without any empirical or logical base; if you ask them to be specific about 'rights', they become evasive and more ambiguous.

If you go to a peaceful demonstration, fine. If that demonstration turns violent via other's actions, then, don't participate, don't stay to watch, don't cheer them on. Leave.

I would suggest a truce and an agreement to disagree, here's why.

There is probably some merit in both of the main arguments being made (here and throughout the blogosphere, it seems). The Toronto free speech activists may very well have dramatized some problems with the current state of law enforcement attitudes to free assembly and individual liberty. Their critics may equally have a point that their actions were unwise or ill-defined relative to our core concerns.

Further to that, I don't see either side convincing the other side of the superiority of their position through any amount of debate.

Therefore the only possible outcome of continuing the debate is to split the free speech coalition.

Clearly the two sides will tend to divide along the fault line of their pre-existing beliefs about how effective a champion for freedom and principled conservatism Stephen Harper actually is.

While it doesn't matter to this argument what my personal view is, I can honestly tell you that I am conflicted about the debate, that I can see merit on both sides and a certain weakness on both sides as well. In basic terms, I don't think Harper is as bad as some perceive, and I certainly don't think he is as great a champion as some others do. I tend to see him very much as the proverbial glass half full compromise.

And because I suspect that many others do as well, this debate can only weaken our cause in the long run. I know that the real enemy is on the political left. We need to declare an end to this current controversy, because nothing about it will help us to fight the real enemies of freedom.

Shorter Law-and-order conservatives:

The fact that Shaidle and Brock were harassed and/or roughed up by the police for taking pictures while the cops were standing idly by watching as rioters and vandals were setting up police cars on fire is evidence that the TO police department did an awesome job.
Heckuva a job Chief Blair!

Kathy must have a lot more detractors here than I've ever seen, if Mark Steyn can refer to "many of them" as being "rural dwellers." I visit SDA every day, and read most of the comments. Out of hundreds of different commenters, those who persistently voice their dislike of Kathy in anything resembling an ongoing way number in the single digits. There were a lot of people who disagreed with Kathy's behaviour wrt the officer and the posting of his badge number, but that was a one-time thing; this site isn't full of Kathy's "detractors" by any stretch.

Incidentally, of the tiny number of commenters who have some general animosity to Kathy, the two whose identity I am aware of are urban-dwellers to the nth degree, and are of a libertarian, rather than a law-and-order conservative, bent.

With regard to Mark Steyn's take on the Mike Brock incident, Steyn seems to believe that police in an uneasy, rolling security situation have magic powers to be able to casually differentiate between an upright citizen and an anarchist with a communications device in his ear: "When you're...harassing Mike Brock, that's pretty much a failure of 'profiling' by definition, isn't it?" Well it is in hindsight, but when the police approached Mike Brock he was an unidentifiable individual sitting on Queens Avenue in a black t-shirt talking on a communications device. He then brushed the cops off - excuse me, svp, I'm on the phone - and got yelled at.

"That's my biggest problem with 'law-&-order conservatives': They seem to think that when the coppers are kicking around Mike Brock, that just shows that they're doing their job. Au contraire, the ten minutes (the police) are kicking around Mike Brock is ten minutes they're notdoing their job, ten minutes they're not devoting to the guys they should be kicking around..."

Insofar as Mark Steyn was addressing Kate's and her commenters' assessment of Mike's situation (and in the context of the piece he seemed to be) what Mark Steyn failed to notice - and I can't really fault him for it, because there were an awful lot of comments - was that the faultline in the discussion wasn't so much between "law and order" types and libertarians but r between those who understand that having a cop raise his voice to you before sending you on your merry way isn't the same as being kicked around and those - Mike, most notably - who don't. If he had actually been "kicked around" in the literal sense of the word, the comments here, including my own, would have been entirely different, and in support of Mike, and the distinction Steyn makes between libertarians and the law-and-order types who putatively haunt SDA would evaporate.

My concern has less to do with this incident in G20 Toronto, than the World wide Timidity of Police in Democracies. In the face of Islam or any other Identity political groups. Caledonia in Canada. The several tiers of a legal system. Depending on skin color, race, religion, gender.
Ive had enough of political police. Where is the guy who the community knows is their for them, not a pension.
On the other leg we have to have a coherent body of Law that treats us all the same. For effective policing.
JMO

In my opinion this is why the Police got out of control in Toronto. Than struck back when told they where doing nothing.

I don't think its so much a rural, urban thing. More like different perceptions predetermined by cultural expectation. Which have grown wide between East & West. Not saying anyone is better, just different reactions to similar situations.

In Edmonton the Police even purposely targeted Kerry Diote & another Reporter.
They where called out & lost bad.
Equal Law for everyone is the fix here. At least as much as humans can.
Never though. Confront police alone unless you want a cracked head.

Those attempting to link this issue to the HRC free speech debate are drawing a false comparison.

At all times, the protesters and others in Toronto have protection and access to the legal system under due process. Those prosecuted under the HRC system don't, and that's the fundamental affront to liberty - not the fact that they prosecute speech, per se.

Ella said "I hope you realize that some time ago it was business/land owners in Sicily who tried to do just that, - the result of their decision was ..............mafia."

the Mafia never really had a presence in North America until prohibition. Here in Hamilton the Mafia already had a toe hold because city hall and the police considered Italians to be not worth protecting. It made it easy for someone else to offer protection to the Italians. Bootlegging changed the mob from a local protection racket to an international crime syndicate. Had the cops done their job and protected the Italian businesses in the first place they wouldn't have done it themselves or gone elsewhere.

The cops did what they thought they needed to do.
Brock got messed with because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and for no other reason.

Now is Mike Brock were such a brave crusader for individual liberty and such he COULD have played it out as a beligerent arse .... and got the next level of interference in his life from the police.

I don't blame him for being angry or upset about what happened.

I do see his subsequent behaviour as petualant whining.

Grow up Mike ... Grow a pair ... suck it up.

BTW ... did the police waste their time harassing him? Emphatically yes. But adults understand that the police do not know who or what they are dealing with until AFTER they have engaged that person.
How they engage is a matter of predetermined protocol .... not a personal issue with the fool.

The only thing I'm concerned about over the weekend was how the police allowed the vandals to break the law without intervening decisively.

Upon reading Brock's reference to the case R. V Mann, one can only conclude that when given the context of the G20 in Toronto, the Police acted appropriately and lawfully.

I can only applaud the restraint the Police showed, considering that what we have seen from Shaidle and Brock in this instance, is but a smattering of the rank and obnoxious behavior the Police had to deal with.

If Brock and Shaidle truly believed their rights were violated, then their blog posts should have documented the formal complaint each had launched, instead of this paranoid, self-righteous indignation!

That guy's tweets do show hw was following closely what was going on and reporting it. Is that a crime?

ET @ 4:11: interesting your remarks, but not really relevant to my point which was simply that the root of authority is power. The various divisions to which you refer are simply methods by which power is diffused so that no one authority can, without reference to any other body of the state or society, exercise all of the state's power to enforce or coerce.

Power itself is simply force, without any particular moral or ethical implication. How power is used is determined by authority. Marcus Aurelius understood this basic principle of power very well. "I say to one, go, and he goes; I say to another come, and he comes." He could be saying, "go put out the fire in that building", or he could be saying, "go slaughter those demonstrators in the Forum Romanum". In both cases, the principle of power is identical.

What the authority does with that power is another matter entirely. Power can take many different forms, both bullets and ballots, so to speak. But in the end it's all about compelling others to do your will, or being compelled by others to do theirs.

OMMAG said:

But adults understand that the police do not know who or what they are dealing with until AFTER they have engaged that person.
How they engage is a matter of predetermined protocol.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey OMMAG,

how about this for predetermined protocol:

1.If the police see someone taking pictures, they let them go about their business.

2.If the police see someone setting up a police car of fire, they beat the crap out of them.

I still see, and will continue to state that Brock's experience was different than Arnie and Kathy.

cgh.. I disagree with this:

"root of authority is power"

I believe human behaviour in itself has created the necessity for authority.
Otherwise we would live in that world that the anarchists desire... a free for all.

Judging by the vehemence of the post, it would seem that Mike Brock struck a nerve with the moderator; and further, that Jay Currie added to it by asserting that this blog and its moderator show too much deference towards authority.

The moderator has reponded by 1) asserting that Mike Brock's story is at least partially untrue because he varied the curse word used by the police in two different accounts of the story - which is a transparently weak case for the moderator to make, if that's the best she's got, and -

2)pushing back against Jay Currie's claim that she shows too much defernce to authority (which obviously struck a nerve) by saying that Mike Brock is the "deferrer" by turning over his knapsack to the police. Mike Brock turning his knapsack over to them only gives strength to his narrative, however, showing him to willingly comply with their request, even though he didn't agree with it. It is in believing that the police have every right to engage in this behaviour that the moderator is "deferring" to their authority - it is this larger deferring that Currie meant and which the moderator seems to be (wilfully?) blind to.

i dont like cops

"this blog and its moderator show too much deference towards authority."

I don't get that at all. I think the moderator and most of the blog would probably challenge authority more than most people would including Mike. They would just show more common sense about it.

i don't like cops either. i like soup.

Syncro

ella said @ 7:10 "Do you think that if majority of people decided they would not follow rules police could do much about it?" This is not pretty when it happens. The Black Bloc type anarchists and criminals take over fast. I lost some family members to a situation like this.

I'm with Peter O'Donnell @ 7:19. Lets quite this.

At the risk of sounding naive, uniformed, or just plain stupid; who is Mike Brock? Seriously, never heard of him.

I can't quite get my head around why this particular persons account is getting so much coverage. I've read several accounts of police vs citizen encounters in respect to this whole G8/G20 debacle. The Guardian reporter who stated he was punched by police in Toronto is more discussion worthy in my view - understanding of course that this Mike person became inserted into the fray somehow.

Personally, given the fact that the authorities knew, or most certainly should have known, that the black bloc were definitely going to make an appearance among peaceful protestors then they should have been better prepared to deal with that situation period; especially, considering the billion dollar price tag.

It makes no sense to me that the police left their vehicles unattended (I'm guessing they first removed the shotguns and other paraphernalia they usually keep in the trunks) and focused their attention elsewhere. Even I know that the black bloc avoids areas were security camera's are, so putting your all or most of your troops where the camera's were does not make any sense to me. At least have a cop or two stationed close enough to see the unoccupied police vehicles so they could radio for assistance at the first sign of trouble. Not much has been said about how the cars were accessed in the first place or why they were there, so it hard to make an accurate judgment call on that one.

Once the protest turned violent the police were in a virtual catch 22 - damned if they did do anything and damned if they didn't. They then made the mistake, in some cases, of over-steering when already in a skid so to speak. They lost control from the get go.

I must add that I was quite surprised to see the police being video taped from a roof top while taking some protestors (could not tell if black bloc or not, but they did not appear to be - not dressed in black anyways) being moved from a van to a paddy wagon where the police showed amazing restraint-even being gentle, in my view, towards those who were actively resisting. I do not know if they knew camera's were on them or not for sure, but it did not appear that they did judging from where the persons were video taping.

Conversely, I think inevitably (yet wrongly), some people were treated harsher than necessary due to some cops temperaments, inexperience, or both. Communication could also have been a factor. Some zones, unannounced to citizens, could have been deemed hot zones for reasons not apparent to citizens but gained through intelligence after initial arrests by police - such as the corner this Mike person was at - no disrespect to Mike at all - I just have no clue who he is-except that he lives in Toronto and has a cell phone, but so do millions of other people living in Toronto.

I think it is more difficult for those of us who were not in Toronto at the time to accurately gauge the energy or atmosphere at the time of the protes and in the days and months leading up to it, yet we are certainly justified in offering our unbiased and geographically detached view with the information gleaned from the MSM, the blogosphere, citizen reports and the plethora of videos.

I highly respect Kate, Kathy, Arnie and Mark Steyn. I hope the debates and differences of opinion on this issue do not permanently draw lines in the sand. That would be a shame and a loss for the readers of each of these blogs and a win for your mutual enemies.

Each of you have played a crucial role in the furthering of Canadians knowledge, and understanding of the atrocities committed by the CHRC and the Climate Change activists. Neither of you could have accomplished what has been accomplished so far in these areas, and others, on your own.

I would like to have been able to communicate all of the above opinions more eloquently and convincingly, but it is late in the day and I am spent. You are all intelligent, reasonable persons and I am quite sure you get the core meaning of what I have amateurishly and hastily attempted to communicate.

I inserted myself into a riot amongst highly organized, anarchist intimidation, and violence, while brilliantly wearing the uniform of the rioters, and much to my shock and surprise, that during this confusing time, an over worked, media condemned, and stressed out cop yelled at me, used profanity, asked me for my ID, and confiscated my beer... LOL...Shocking... really ?

Kate said: "The point is, Phantom, you started talking about "two tier justice" in Ontario, and that's a different topic. I've written about two incidents that I don't think rise to the level of "blogworthy", much less "rights violation".

Ah yes. I did miss the point. D'oh.

I can only plead being extreeeeemly P.O.ed with the entire affair. Seems like we have the G20 every couple of months down here, so my slack for shenanigans is pretty much all used up.

Yes, on the grand scale of things L'affair de Shaidle and Brock is very small. My view from two tier Ontario, from tiny acorns mighty oaks do grow. Its easier to stomp on an acorn than cut down a mighty oak.

Apologies to anybody who felt I was out of line or taking a shot at them. I wasn't, this is just a major source of torque for me.

Amen Sean....

that's why Samuel Clemens remarked that "common sense is the least common sense there appears to be'.

i wouldn't intentionally insert mesself between the good guys and the bad guys during a dustup unless i had a reason to....a good reason other than testing the limits of something or other to do with 'rights and stuff'....which appears inappropriate given the circumstances(context).

actually i think a lot of soi-disant conservatives have more than a little difficulty appreciating the modalities between expedience and principle...

but that's just me.

so anyway where o' where is that clown prince of political comedy the poodledoc ?
i felt sure he'd a bin weighing in mightily with all manner of soporific marxist bullshit analyses of the weekend's events...

Those attempting to link this issue to the HRC free speech debate are drawing a false comparison.

Not me. Just arguing that there would be less bitching if people had a regularized Justice system. Instead of one who's out come no one knows because of synthetic standards. Including many Judges.
That we actually go back to punishing people for wrong doing. Not promote self esteem to mugger, rapists & what not.
The crackpot legal system of Canada is driving us all nuts.
Bernardo's wife looking for a pardon comes to mind. Good debate though the last few days.
JMO

I inserted myself into a riot amongst highly organized, anarchist intimidation, and violence, while brilliantly wearing the uniform of the rioters, and much to my shock and surprise, that during this confusing time, an over worked, media condemned, and stressed out cop yelled at me, used profanity, asked me for my ID, and confiscated my beer... LOL...Shocking... really ?

Posted by: Sean M at July 1, 2010 9:04 PM

----------------

Sean and others, for the umpteenth freakin' time the window busting and the cop car burning was on Saturday. Mike Brock got harassed 2 days after that on Monday, 1 full day after the summit finished.

People went back to work on Monday. The city was back to normal.

Sheesh.

And EBD, Queens Avenue, what the heck is that? You too of all people seem unable to get the timetable and geography straight.

I have an issue with Mr. Brock's claim. According to him the police accosted him during the day on Monday and there were no Witnesses. One would think that if this happened on Monday, when the city was back to "business as usual", on University ave... there would be at least 1 witness!!!

Now I will admit that I am not from Toronto and maybe someone could enlighten me but it seems odd to me that there was not a single person that would see this happen.

I know that the real enemy is on the political left. We need to declare an end to this current controversy, because nothing about it will help us to fight the real enemies of freedom.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at July 1, 2010 7:19 PM

The real enemies of freedom are those that force a city to host an entirely meaningless convention of the world's leaders just to announce previously agreed to promises, and who justify spending $1.3 billion on security by having police act as agent provocateurs to ensure that violence occurs.

Winston

The police as agent provocateurs...I just thought they were assholes.

Syncro

p.s. could you please provide a link or two regarding this provocateur angle, I'm sure it would be edifying.

Actually, STS and Mississauga Matt, the city was not back to normal. There were demonstrations today in Toronto and Montreal, this time against the police for having arrested too many people (supposedly). And if you read the screen shots of Mike Brock's twitter drivel, it's clear he was close enough to the one in Toronto that he could see it, or at least the route which it was expected to take.
But you're right. Those of us who don't know the layout of the streets in downtown Toronto, or the relative proximity of certain landmarks and institutions (such as the U of T) in relation to the route/location the protest, are at a disadvantage.

For all we know, maybe Brock bears a striking physical resemblance to one of the Black Bloc goons, and the police wanted to find out if he was who they thought he might be. In my opinion, Brock went totally overboard, but I wasn't there and I don't know enough about the lay of the land to say for certain whether he could have been in the wrong place and the wrong time. Certainly, his Twitter messages indicate he was very interested in the protest planned for that day and interested in monitoring police movements.

And, BTW, if the police have succumbed to the PC culture that is so pervasive in Toronto, then it is time for Torontonians to take back their city and let their cops be cops. If you're constantly told to suppress what you know to be true in order to pay homage to the false god of political correctness, then the rage is gonna come out sometime, somewhere where we may think it is not deserved.

And finally, I have a question for Brock. How is it that the police would read your tweets and know that you are the person who is typing those messages? You are sitting there within eyesight of streets that are in downtown Toronto, within earshot of sirens throughout the downtown area, writing info that could very well be construed as logistical intelligence sent out to "fellow anarchists". If they do know who you are and they were reading your tweets (a might of a stretch, if you ask me), then I think they were quite justified in asking you for ID, etc.

I don't know much about this Mike Brock guy, but after this, I am pretty certain he's a drama queen, if nothing else.

syncro, this provocateur thing is right up there with 9/11 trooferdom. Don't expect logic or facts.

Once upon a time I was trying to quit smoking (which I was ultimately successful at).

For the umpteenth time, I threw away the balance of a pack save 1 and went to a set of bleachers in a park near my house on my way home from work. As I lit up, a group of loud kids sat on the bleachers near me and a 14-year old girl sat on my bleacher, partly to socialize, but mostly to bum a smoke.

I didn't give her one for the obvious reason I didn't have a second and further, she was underage. In that neighbourhood, kids would ask random people to buy smokes for them at the convenience store, sometimes offering a couple bucks for the trouble, and I always, always said no.

Respect for the law, you see.

So anyway, these kids had got in some sort of fight and the city's police station was just near the other side of the park.

A whole bunch of police came out quickly including the police chief whom I recognized from the media, dogs, and at least one sergeant.

The sergeant questioned the kids, and me, and asked why I was hanging out with said 14-year old.

I answered the question, but got pretty pissed off at the insinuation, and dressed down the sergeant, reminding him of a few things, including my right to freely associate with anyone I wanted even if they were 14. In my anger since what he was getting at was obvious, I even reminded the sergeant the age of consent was 14 (at the time) and while I'd just met her and the only thing I knew about her is she wanted a smoke, to which I said no, if there was more to it than that he could stuff it as it wasn't any of his business. I reiterated, of course, that I'd just met her and was there to smoke a cigarette when she joined me.

I also commented that the sergeant should learn how to give commands because the kids were totally ignoring him: He, literally, raised his voice at the end of every so-called command, turning it into a question. The sergeant wasn't raised with English as his first language and I'm sure that was an issue.

I caught the eye of the chief and while I'm probably projecting here, and could be totally wrong, I thought I caught him smile: I suspect the chief agreed with my analysis re "how to use your voice to project authority when issuing commands."

Anyway, they wanted to check my backpack and asked if they could (to make sure I wasn't giving drugs to the kids or alcohol or some such, I'm sure). I knew I didn't have to consent to the search, but I said sure, go ahead, and they did.

A minute later poking around in my freezer-bag with a flashlight, the sergeant suspiciously asked me what was was the brown item in the Ziplock bag.

"Beef."

(I saw some of the officers behind him chuckle; this time unmistakable.)

That pretty much ended the conversation.

Anyway, that weak-voiced sergeant aside, the reality is my city has a pretty good police force. Not perfect, but I didn't feel in any great danger as I wasn't breaking any laws.

I'm not naive. I know some cops are truly jackasses. If I'd been arrested for anything, I'd have just complied and I'm sure my lawyer could have gotten me off on the charges of possession of beef and using a cigarette in a public park (back then --- NOW they'd nail me on that second charge!).

I was just offended at being suspected for doing something wrong when I went there to find a place to be alone and smoke my "last cigarette". And the stress did not lead to successfully quitting smoking that night!

syncrodox:

Here is one link...lot's of other videos on YouTube.

3w.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo

Another spirited discussion which is what I like about SDA. Now have another potential question to distinguish conservatives from libertarians (the first one being peoples views on decriminalizing cannabis). I don't think discussions like this serve to split the forces of freedom but they do bring forth various points of view and hopefully make everyone think more deeply about the subject.

The initial incident occurring to Mike Brock may seem trite but the verbiage generated is probably as a result of the police ignoring major criminal activity 2 days before and then ganging up on a single person who was just going about their daily routine peacefully. Something is seriously amiss with this picture.

The argument that "the police were just obeying orders from higher up" doesn't fly; the Nuremberg trials forever shut down that excuse. The police are charged with enforcing the law; there may be times when criminals have local tactical superiority in which case the police really can't do anything. Given the number of police present in Toronto this was not the issue. That none of the police disobeyed what could be reasonably considered to be an illegal order and went out on their own initiative to crack a few leftist heads and arrest the rioters reflects very poorly on the police.

I'd be one of the first ones to offer financial support for the legal costs of any policeman who got into trouble for enforcing the law in such a situation.

The police seem to shy away from confrontation and concentrate instead on the safe "criminals" who are unlikely to fight back. As ella points out there aren't enough police to stop everyone from breaking the law, but seeing the uneven application of the law in Toronto and Caledonia generates a disrespect for the law in the whole population which is far more corrosive in the long run than the limited fallout from applying force where just about everyone agrees it needs to be applied. As far as being tracked ella, I pay for just about everything in cash although I have recently noticed strange reactions from store clerks when I hand over $1-2 K in $100 bills for a purchase.

Policing is yet another area (of which there are already far too many) where it's members are assumed to have unique expertise not available to members of the general public. We've handed far too much power over to the state in this regard and it's time to take it back. For example, when dealing with rioting professional protesters all one needs is a couple of hundred guys who live and work in the area with baseball bats to form a line, wade into the rioting idiots, apply force as required to knees or arms (don't need any expensive to maintain vegetables on neuro wards) and one will likely find the professional protesters will not show up in that area again. The same thing would work in Caledonia (although beefier firepower would be needed) if the OPP were to get out of the way and let self-organizing social organizations quickly solve what is really a very simple problem.

Me No Dhimmi;

I don't care what you have to say. Of course, I'm only saying this because you said something. Had you not, I wouldn't be.

Soooooo, what is the final verdict on the goggles? Speed walking, nude swimming?

Still missing the disconnect with the Twitter S* word and F* bomb on WS's title.

Meaning if one is trying to push the letter of the law (rights) so to speak, then be consistent.

"In the minutes between his post to Twitter and the one to the Shotgun, the word "shit" became the word "fuck".

Tell me - why did he feel the need to sex up his report?"

Ah, I missed what you were getting at. Good point.

When (and why) did Shaidle and Kate have an out? Anyway, my fault for not reading this daily ... I tend to only when a particular Canadian story has my attention.

Never been a huge fan of Shaidle, but have respected her courage.

Could Brock have just made a typo?

I'm not saying he did. When you accuse a police officer of saying a bad word to you, well, that's mighty serious, so you gotta be careful and accurate.

What's next -- truck drivers swearing? What the heck's this world coming to?

Now in all seriousness, even though I, as a typo master extraordinaire, think it IS possible Brock made a typo minutes apart from each other ... it introduces "reasonable doubt" to what were already pretty minor allegations with a minimum of evidence.

Even if I believe him, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of it.

I mean, I've seen police behaving very nobly and professionally (and humanely!) under stressful and dangerous circumstances, up close.

And I've approached a female police officer while 18 and dressed in a shirt and tie carrying a leather portfolio outside of a community police station, explained I'm new to the city, and asked if she could give me directions to a nearby address because I have a job interview and am not sure where it is ... and been jacked up, ID requested, info put in CPIC or whatever they had back then, the whole friggin' 9 yards.

Why?

I don't want to say "female cop". I DON'T want to say it.

Really, I don't.

But even though that really did happen, can I prove it? No. Did it make me mad? Sure. Are most cops like that in my experience, including female officers?

No, she was just a jerk.

Actually, STS and Mississauga Matt, the city was not back to normal. There were demonstrations today in Toronto and Montreal, this time against the police for having arrested too many people (supposedly). . .
Posted by: Louise at July 2, 2010 12:34 AM

---------------------

Actually Louise, you're wrong - it was and is back to normal.

The Monday demo was conducted by the usual suspects - Naomi Klein, Judy Rebick, CUPE. We get those all the time. For years I used to work near to the American consulate. Believe me we get that kind of stuff all the time.

The police that were at King and University were there because that's a block from the site of the summit, the one that closed the day before.

They were also almost to 2 kilometres from the protest. That would place Brock a similar distance.

You'd think that if they wanted to get to College and Bay, the site of the protest, ASAP they'd hightail it there, but no they stopped to hassle Brock.

You see the problem?

"You see the problem?"

Did it happen?

Under what circumstances can police
search your stuff?

Ughhh, let me see....when you let them????

loki: "The initial incident occurring to Mike Brock may seem trite but the verbiage generated is probably as a result of the police ignoring major criminal activity 2 days before and then ganging up on a single person who was just going about their daily routine peacefully. Something is seriously amiss with this picture."

I agree with loki on this. My authority for this? I live right around the corner from the area in question, which I know quite intimately.

In general, the Toronto Police appear to have succumbed to political correctness. In this particular case, this perception was confirmed, in spades.

I, a concerned citizen, was treated with the same kind of insouciant disregard and unpleasantness by “Toronto’s Finest”, when I called the public phone number, on Saturday, to register my concern about the fact that cruisers were burning and windows were being smashed, while the police were standing down. (I posted about that experience on June 27th.) I was batted about, like a cat plays a mouse: passed from one phone number to another and fed misinformation. (I was also perplexed by Chief Blair’s assertion that Toronto residents had been amply informed about expectations, via police brochures, delivered to every household: what brochures? We didn’t receive any such thing.)

IMO, and my husband’s, by Monday, the city was, for all intents and purposes, back to normal. In fact, my church is at U of T and we went on Sunday morning: everything was A-OK then. (‘Hadn’t been the night before.) There was a demonstration of disgruntled lefties on Wednesday near College and Bay (a few blocks from U of T): I drove within two blocks of it. There was no disruption of rush hour traffic on University Avenue.

I don’t know Mike Brock, but I am sympathetic to his situation: back to the beginning here: when COMPLETELY provoked by violent saboteurs, in the very act of committing crimes—which the police were anticipating—the Toronto police stood down. Apparently, to make up for this, they then harassed and mistreated law-abiding citizens. (Me too: the treatment I received was incredibly disrespectful and absolutely unprofessional—and I made sure to say I was on their side!)

That said, I also have some sympathy for the police. At this point, I just hope they hold their ground re the arrests they made. By all means, apologize for any overreaching, but DO NOT give ground on doing what they’re supposed to do: protect the rest of us from the illegal actions of criminals. If the Toronto Police drop the ball on this, I’ll be even more disgusted than I am already.

(And I almost never disagree with Mark Steyn: I'm a "law and order conservative" and I most definitely do not agree with the police treatment of Mike Brock!)

Message sent by Blair and Moron Miller?

Policing in Toronto's a crap game.

Great. 'Makes me feel all warm, fuzzy, and safe in downtown Tranna. 'All depends how the "authorities" are feeling on any particular day.

Arbitrary measures?

Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!

loki: "The initial incident occurring to Mike Brock may seem trite but the verbiage generated is probably as a result of the police ignoring major criminal activity 2 days before and then ganging up on a single person who was just going about their daily routine peacefully. Something is seriously amiss with this picture."

I agree with loki on this. My authority for this? I live right around the corner from the area in question, which I know quite intimately.

In general, the Toronto Police appear to have succumbed to political correctness. In this particular case, this perception was confirmed, in spades.

I, a concerned citizen, was treated with the same kind of insouciant disregard and unpleasantness by “Toronto’s Finest”, when I called the public phone number, on Saturday, to register my concern about the fact that cruisers were burning and windows were being smashed, while the police were standing down. (I posted about that experience on June 27th.) I was batted about, like a cat plays a mouse: passed from one phone number to another and fed misinformation. (I was also perplexed by Chief Blair’s assertion that Toronto residents had been amply informed about expectations, via police brochures, delivered to every household: what brochures? We didn’t receive any such thing.)

IMO, and my husband’s, by Monday, the city was, for all intents and purposes, back to normal. In fact, my church is at U of T and we went on Sunday morning: everything was A-OK then. (‘Hadn’t been the night before.) There was a demonstration of disgruntled lefties on Wednesday near College and Bay (a few blocks from U of T): I drove within two blocks of it. There was no disruption of rush hour traffic on University Avenue.

I don’t know Mike Brock, but I am sympathetic to his situation: back to the beginning here: when COMPLETELY provoked by violent saboteurs, in the very act of committing crimes—which the police were anticipating—the Toronto police stood down. Apparently, to make up for this, they then harassed and mistreated law-abiding citizens. (Me too: the treatment I received was incredibly disrespectful and absolutely unprofessional—and I made sure to say I was on their side!)

That said, I also have some sympathy for the police. At this point, I just hope they hold their ground re the arrests they made. By all means, apologize for any overreaching, but DO NOT give ground on doing what they’re supposed to do: protect the rest of us from the illegal actions of criminals. If the Toronto Police drop the ball on this, I’ll be even more disgusted than I am already.

Sorry for the double post.

I was informed that my post was missing certain info. (It was?) So I posted again and, obviously, both went through.

The police seem to shy away from confrontation and concentrate instead on the safe "criminals" who are unlikely to fight back. As ella points out there aren't enough police to stop everyone from breaking the law, but seeing the uneven application of the law in Toronto and Caledonia generates a disrespect for the law in the whole population which is far more corrosive in the long run than the limited fallout from applying force where just about everyone agrees it needs to be applied.
- loki

Again, BINGO.
Perhaps I shouldn't conflate the two, but this is the MAIN LESSON I learned over 30 years as the owner of a small regulated entity: the regulators prefer tormenting the already compliant. It's risk-free activity. Easy pickings. No push back. The coppers, by command from their PC-crazed superiors, simply didn't do their jobs when it mattered, and when the smoke cleared, went into photo-op action. Mike Brock, judging by his whininess, and presumably wimpish demeanour, would be the perfect bully target.

That said, I do have some sympathy for the coppers whose work is so often neutralized by a PC-crazed judiciary.

Is the only difference between anarchists and libertarians that libertarians have a more constructive sense of community?

Regarding Brock – I think there are two parts of his storey that are ripe for cross examination. Why did his storey change a matter of minutes? And whatever possessed a policeman to out of the blue say, “I don’t give a @#$% what you think.”?

I am sure he feels violated and that his view of Canada has changed for the worse as a result of this – but without a police force that actually uses force sometime I’m afraid that the lot of man is nasty brutish and short. A constructive sense of community doesn’t hold the community together when there are many different communities with different views about proper behaviours, some of which don't allow for different views of proper behaviours. Then you need to have a process to set the laws that the community will abide by, and a process to enforce them.

And the police are subject to those rules too. So if the officer did something wrong – he should be held accountable. But given the inconsistencies in Brock’s storey, that doesn’t seem likely.

As to what activities the police intervene to break up or to support, that is a problem with the society that makes the laws and the lawmakers. It is particularly galling when it appears to have two different sets of standards for different groups within that society. That is why we as members of the society have the right to try to get that changed.

Which is what this type of discussion is about.

Twitter record suggests something quite different: that not only was he following police movements in the minutes before the encounter, but that his attitude towards their activity is arguably hostile.

Kate, I'll agree on your second point. No question. After Sunday night, my attitude towards the police had taken a complete 180 from Saturday.

On your first point, I call bull****. I was in transit between my place of work -- on foot -- to my home, like I usually do when the whether permits.

While walking home, I observed the police spotter plane doing it's long elliptical circles around the downtown again, as it had done the two days prior. This observation would have been possible from up to 3-4km from the place where it was orbiting, which was at the protest at Police HQ on College.

Secondly, as I was approaching the aforementioned intersection, I observed a bus of police officers start offloading on the Southeast corner of King & University. I was approaching the intersection on the North side of King -- the opposite side of the intersection.

At this point, I twittered this observation. Then my phone rang. At this point, I walked to a place to sit down on the Northwest corner of the street.

I was actually quite engaged in a conversation with my work colleague when, a group of police officers suddenly entered my periphery and then promptly surrounded me.

The rest of the story is as-told.

and by whether, I meant "weather", of course.

Seriously, Kate, give me a break. The bloody post was actually "sexed down" if you want to play this game, in my opinion. Except for the quote in question, where I recollected it differently on Twitter and then reified the experience a while later after carefully thinking my experience, though.

The police didn't just swear at me once. They swore at me multiple, times, on multiple occasions.

And not only that, Kate, but the police then DENIED doing it to my face with a smirk on their face.

This was an account of how the experience ended:

Me: "I don't understand what gives you the right to be so rude and abusive with a member of the public like this."
Officer: "We were being direct."
Me: "Saying 'fuck' and 'shit' to me and speaking in a threatening tone is not being direct"
Officer: "That's not how it happened."
Me: "You know that's damn well how it happened."
Officer: "You're free to go now sir."
Me: "You think you can just treat people like this?"
Officer: "Go home sir."
Me:
Officer: "Go home sir."

... as I walked away, when I was about 50ft from the officers, they yelled from behind: "THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION!"

I said nothing, at that point. And made my way South along University.

Seriously, Kate, give me a break. The bloody post was actually "sexed down" if you want to play this game, in my opinion. Except for the quote in question, where I recollected it differently on Twitter and then reified the experience a while later after carefully thinking my experience, though.

The police didn't just swear at me once. They swore at me multiple, times, on multiple occasions.

And not only that, Kate, but the police then DENIED doing it to my face with a smirk on their face.

This was an account of how the experience ended:

Me: "I don't understand what gives you the right to be so rude and abusive with a member of the public like this."
Officer: "We were being direct."
Me: "Saying 'f*ck' and 'sh*t' to me and speaking in a threatening tone is not being direct"
Officer: "That's not how it happened."
Me: "You know that's damn well how it happened."
Officer: "You're free to go now sir."
Me: "You think you can just treat people like this?"
Officer: "Go home sir."
Me:
Officer: "Go home sir."

... as I walked away, when I was about 50ft from the officers, they yelled from behind: "THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION!"

I said nothing, at that point. And made my way South along University.

As a gun owner, I've said all along that the police are not there to protect your rights. See Chief Blair and his stance on gun control. The police would LOVE to do lots of things to make their lives easier, and in some cases it would make our lives safer. But it is parliament and the courts who decide our rights. The police are to play by the rules set by others, not by themselves. That being said, I am more interested in bringing the anarchists/vandals to justice than seeing another inquiry into how the police behaved in response to them.

Well, I'm done here. And I'll leave it at this: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/07/on-integrity.html

Now is the time we Juxapose:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014337.html

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014347.html

You mean juxtapose someone going to another country to fight for the rights of others vs. the police ignoring the rights of Canadian citizens?

Given the fact that no Canadian's rights were violated ... NO.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014337.html#c512978

You see the problem?

Mississauga Matt at 6:31 AM
---------------
The problem, Matt, is communications technology trumps distance and two km is nothing. One could zip over that distance on a bicycle in no time flat. Some radically chic anarchist could already be there and be talking to someone two km away. Brock was talking on the phone.

In an environment where there are no protests going on and where no violence had taken place two days before, then I would concede that Brock had a point. Remember the bombing of a bank in the days prior to the summit. There was another one the day after. Anarchists aren't dumb people. Thinking that they are, is part of the problem.

That's YOUR opinion. Are you a judge? Or a lawyer? Or a constitutional expert of renown?

I suspect YOUR opinion would change if you were on the receiving end of unwarranted police harassment.

This all I have left to say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0waNRaz6wU

Winston: Actually, I don't like using phrases like "violation of my rights" and terms like "unlawful search" without having at least a bit of a idea as to the law. I've found that a remedial grade 8 reading level is all it'd take to spend some time reading the cases. Hence, since everyone here clearly has more than a remedial grade 8 reading ability, they have no excuse for speaking from ignorance on this matter.

I can state then, that even if Brock can be taken at this word, his rights were not violated. At most, he had to deal with rude officers who may have acted unethically ... but I even doubt that happened because Brock wouldn't have launched into internet ninny mode, and would've filed a complaint instead. Furthermore, if his encounter with the police shook him up to the degree his hyperbole suggests ... he really needs to get out more.

I actually wasn't refering to Brock, or even the goggle guy. Those were minor incidents compared to some of the things you can easily find evidence of on YouTube. Or do I have to provide links?

old Lori at 2:18 PM, you've probably seen those quizzes that assess where you fit on the conservative/liberal or right/left and libertarian/authoritarian scale and maybe you've put your info in. I've done it several times. I invariably come out somewhere in the median between libertarian and conservative.

melwilde @ 2:19 talked about responsibilities. I agree. During times when all hell has broken loose, those responsibilities are are no less important than rights, indeed, as they should be at all times. If the police behave badly, file a complaint. But when they are trying to maintain order and enforce the law, there is a responsibility we call cooperation.

Cjunk, thanks for that bit @ 2:03.

Brock makes the mistake of assuming that what happened on Saturday was all the anarchists had planned. The recent incident in Quebec shows that anarchists don't need an international summit venue to play their game. All they ask is media attention, and that continues to play out as desired, thanks to our lame stream media.

Just had interesting exchange on WS blog with Mike.

He produced a thank-you note from Kate for 100 bucks back in 08.

Upshot is, he tagged a designation (troll) behind my name and deleted five posts, all by my opening shot.

The last one suggested somebody set up a Free Mike Brock collection, so he could recover that 100 bucks he now apparently regrets sending Kate.

Apparently, wee Mikey's skin is thinner than Obama's.

See my comment at 4:07

Our life is the accumulation of the choices we make.

He produced a thank-you note from Kate for 100 bucks back in 08.

He seems intent on proving I can't be bought.

Thumbs up Kate @ 5:15 PM!

Hmmm. the Free Mike Brock post mysteriously reappeared.

set you free @5:01 - wow. Honestly, I'm more or less in the Kathy/BCF camp on this one, but Brock is behaving like a fool at this point. (Yes, I do like to alienate everybody.)

My only regret at this point is that nobody reads the Shotgun.

I've had people respond with both the protests were still going on and it was a back to normal day but either way wouldn't it be irrelevant? If it was a back to normal day there would have been witnesses, if there was a protest there would have been witnesses. He says there were no witnesses.... The way I see it is either A: It never happened B: It happened somewhere else or C: There were witnesses and they would give a TRUE account of what happened... and he doesn't want that to happen.

I have not read every post on every blog commenting on what happened in Toronto to Mike Brock.

I do not know all the connections blog to blog.

But, being a small business owner, we have had more contact with police than we ever hoped to have, and some proved satisfactory. Some, definitely not!

None of it was at the personal confrontational level that Mike has described.

That said now, Mike, one eventually comes back to the practical question and that is, who will you call when you next need emergency assistance or protection?

The shotgun is way too wordy, and that equates to boring. No one is going to read it. That isn't meant as an insult, it is just a fact. It is like watching the author masturbate, a curiosity at first and then just repetitive.

That said, after reading the twitter post, it is obvious that Brock guy was out looking for it. Why? I think he was caught up in the fantasy of it all. It is called mob mentality for a reason.

I think that I can finally tell you about a horrendous incident that happened a couple of months ago on a lower mainland pier ... I really couldn't talk about it until now.

Anyway, I was on the pier and may have been crabbing. I might have been having a brewski. It was public land and a public pier. The tide was rising fast. At low tide one of my fellow travelers saw three people and a dog, a long way off, on the exposed sand. The tide was rising fast, about 10-12 feet in a couple of hours. Before I got there someone phoned the RCMP and let them know about the people out there. My eyes aren't great, I couldn't see them when I got there.

Then the sh*t storm started. A rescue boat with an ARMED RCMP onboard came close to the pier and started asking a bunch of questions ... they went away, and we thought the whole ugly incident had come to a close. Boy where we wrong!!!! They came back, and at the same time, another ARMED RCMP came up the pier ... they had us surrounded. They grilled the poor bugger that saw those 3 people like a bratwurst at a tailgate party. He was so scared he spilled his guts, even giving his name and phone number because he was under such duress.

I was so scared, I was close to showing the facist cop my fishing license ... but he didn't ask. Must have been thinking about donuts, ha ha.

PS: At the end of the interrogation the main cop said "something you" ... I assume it was f*ck you ... because sh*t you doesn't fit.

"this isn't the molehill to die on"

Heh, these are the exact words which went through my head when the Saskatoon Police (probably unlawfully) demanded to search my home at 6:30am last year.

I say probably unlawfully because the police seemed hostile toward the idea of discussing my theory that the kids in the suite upstairs denying that they dialed 9-1-1 didn't give them probable cause to search my legal suite.

A basement suite does normally have access to the wiring for other dwellings in a house. So it really is hard to say what a judge would have had to say about it.

K Stricker,

The solution is easy, you should have Brocked it.

Well, at least my question has been answered and I now know who Mike Brock is.

I have read the Western Standard on numerous occasions; however, for whatever reason I did check out the Shotgun blog portion-no offence to you Mike, FYI - I can know say I've read your blog.

I perceive that the subject of police encounters seems to be a hot button pushing topic. I have had both positive and negative experiences throughout the years with police.

The bottom line is no one died or was seriously injured during the G8/G20. Unfortunately, property was damaged, and an expected, but unwelcome group of anarchists who stood for nothing except anarchy, were able to act out their rage for several hours unabated. At least one brave civilian citizen acted with courage and tackled an anarchist, removed the stolen goods - threw the goods back into the store and gave the hooligan a proper tongue lashing about stealing.

The police, in an attempt to gain control, ensure there was no other incidences of violence, and possibly save face became hyper-vigilant after the fact. The citizens, wondering why they were being approached given that the anarchists were left alone; afterall compared to the anarchists behaviour they were doing absolutely nothing wrong and became indignant, possibly feeling that their right to assemble or move freely was being violated without realizing that the police were trying to ensure they could move freely and without danger while they exercised their right to assemble, so when approached and asked to clear areas or have their packs checked for explosives some became defensive or put off. No doubt, some police officers after dealing with indignant citizens for the umpteenth time in a very short period, lost their patience and their professionalism went out the window. However, that is no excuse for the police to punch or beat protestors or bystanders, if in fact those incidences did occur. Common sense vacated Toronto.

As I said, in my view, the police lost control the moment the violence began and was not dealt with immediately. Why they did not have plain clothes officers among the protestors, ready to act or call for assistance at the first sign of violence, as part of their security and intelligence plans is a mystery to me.

Anyway, I certainly hope that all the bloggers that hitherto supported each other, before the G8/G20 fiasco debates and discussion, can return to supporting each other and respecting each other's differences and viewpoints to avoid what could utlimately turn out to be embarrassing for you all. If the divisiveness continues it could turn into a full blown BloggerGate.

"The shotgun is way too wordy, and that equates to boring. No one is going to read it. That isn't meant as an insult, it is just a fact. It is like watching the author masturbate, a curiosity at first and then just repetitive."

I don't really agree (depends who's writing).

Kate's a master of the short biting commentary and has an insightful eye for what most of her readers like, sometimes even bypassing said commentary.

But there's a market for longer commentary and wordier fare.

I have to agree with Kate completely on this one. The great "civil libertarian", Mike Brock, when confronted with a situation where he felt his rights were being violated, complied with the "violator's" "illegitimate demands", instead of standing up for his rights. When the ordeal was over, he didn't immediately contact his lawyer, the police force or his local elected reps looking for redress. Nope, not at all. Instead, he blogged about it. The "digital libertarian" label fits perfectly...

Why Mike was where he was is irrelevant. Why the cops acted the way they did, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that, when confronted, Mike failed to retrieve his balls from the man-purse he was carrying, properly affix them, and assert his rights. Period.

Mike's not a real libertarian, he just plays one on the internets...

So Kate, apparently you can only complain about abuse from the state if you actively resist it even to the point of being arrested? I can't wait for the headline "Kate McMillan arrested for refusing to pay income tax" or "McMillan charged with attempting to bypass CWB" because until then, you are a hypocrite by your own standards.

Oh, and your arguments are only getting weaker. Your splitting hairs with the 'kicked around' comment. Pathetic.

Can't speak for Kate and would never presume to... Have a sneaking hunch, though, that if she ever put herself in a position where she was trying to sell wheat without "the board's" approval, she'd politely tell whoever was trying to stop her to "go frig their hat" and let the legal chips fall where they may...

But you and I both know that will never happen.

Anyone care to refresh their memory as to what it was I wrote that resulted in the lawsuit against me?

Just curious Cytotoxic - what would you have done?

Would you visit an area that is in close proximity to where a crime was committed a day or two earlier, wearing clothing fitting the description of those who committed the crime, and then get upset with people and call them out on someonelse's blog because they happen to mention that your clothing and/or location may have played a contributing factor in the unpleasant encounter you had with the police?

Obviously something was going on in Toronto that day; hence his own twitter report of sirens, squads at King and University, the busing of police to University and Bay, surveillance aircraft, and an active protest in front of police headquarters. This does not sound like a Toronto back to normal day after a summit to me, unless these types of activities are every-day occurrence in Toronto. The account just does not add up, IMO.

Anyone care to refresh their memory as to what it was I wrote that resulted in the lawsuit against me?

I can't remember verbatim but it went something like this:

"I'll be gone for a week. The guest bloggers are in charge."

After reading the multiple comments on this topic, AND reading those on the WS, now Brock admits he "SEXED DOWN" his encounter with the Police. Why?

Something is "fishy" with this entire story!

@No-One: I might have gone near where a crime was committed a day earlier, as is my right to, and worn darkish clothes, as is my right too. Note that Brock actually was kilometers away from where the hubbub occurred, so your parallel is faulty. Unlike Brock I may have told the police to go to Hell just for spite. I wish he had and hope he pursues serious legal action against the TO piggies.

Geez, you people talk too much. If you want justice:

1) Hire a lawyer.
2) Tell it to the judge.

Was that so hard?

Cytotoxic - yes, you have a right to wear whatever you want, whever you want. The question is - is it wise and prudent to do so? Say a bank is robbed and the robber was wearing a Bill Clinton mask. A day or two after the robbery when you know the suspect has not yet been apprehended, you decide - because it is right to do so and no one has the right to tell you what you can wear, you walk around or just sit wearing Bill Clinton mask, albeit several kilometers from the intial crime seen in the same city. Do you really expect that you should be able to just walk around/sit on a bench like that and then have the righ to tell the police to f**& off, if they stop to inquire why you are wearing a mask?

He couldn't have been too far since he was reported on police movements.

Fascinating debate on the Mike Brock incident. I've learned a lot.

Kate, I think you make some great points, but I'd have to say I am inclined to believe Mike's account and interpretation of the events. The facts that the incident happened on Monday, two days after the violence on Saturday, and quite far from any protest say a lot.

There are other convincing accounts of police abuse of power, such as this one by Steve Paikin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs&feature=player_embedded

In this case, though, the journalist defended his rights as you suggest and was arrested.