“This first approach was fairly tentative—largely nonviolent protesters dipping their toes into the water. Initially, the protesters were outnumbered by the cops, but then as more and more of them converged, they eventually outnumbered the police and started drawing closer and closer to the line: taking pictures, chanting, singing, screaming invective. “
More at The Torontoist (h/t subversible).
Not so related; “Sir, I’m going to ask you to move along. There’s really nothing to see here.” I’m staying off that particular bandwagon, but then again, I don’t pull over at the side of the road to rubberneck at accidents, either. In short, what appears to have started out as a police request to “move along” rapidly escalates into mockery and a overwhelming show of police non-violence.
“But civilian photographers will be rebuffed with a force in equal contradistinction to that not being applied to the rioters themselves.”
Except, you know, there was no force. They stuck around for 5 minutes and left under their own steam.
(By the way – who the hell picks a G20 weekend to hold their pro-Israel rally? I thought Jews were the smart ones?)
Shaidle to retreating cop: “I have 10,000 readers, including politicians.”
Recent Shaidle post: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2010-06-26-0008/
“I get hundreds of emails a day. And some of them are actually important, but I can’t find them easily because you keep telling how to blog.
I don’t care what you think.
Like most people who are “trying to help,” you are making my life worse.
PLEASE stop writing.
Your endless email stream of itty bitty comments and complaints and suggestions and not-very-useful “tips” are making me want to kill you.”
No wonder the gal doesn’t allow comments on her site. How he heck does she maintain a readership?
Brick 60 as i mentioned above. Me thinkith you protest too much.
Unconscious Objector:
“Brick60 stop pulling on Kathy’s pig tails we all know you secretly lurve her.”
—-> I take writers for what they write, male or female. I’m too old to have a crush and I’m not going to disrespect her for being a female.
The word “unconscious” just about covers it.
UO: “Brick 60 as i mentioned above. Me thinkith you protest too much.”
—-> Same goes for you. Perhaps you’re the one with a personal stake? Sorry, I get a kick when a phony like Shaidle gets exposed.
]in a free society you don’t ask people for ID w/o accusing them of an offense…….That’s why Canada is not and will never be free. You don’t have a concept of freedom. For you “the end justifies the means” (c) Joe Stalin
Aaron
What society you are talking about? You think of theoretical society in theoretical country not of real society in real country. It is this dream some people have believing that theory equals practice You live in theoretical society like the TO protesters – they also live in such theoretical society where police are “pigs”, government is always “bad” and others are always right (even if they aren’t). I can’t believe that you ever lived in totalitarian regime.!
Mississauga Matt
POlice everywhere were jumpy. Not only downtown.
As for political correctness -yes, that’s the problem. I think pc was probably the reason why police did not react properly but even so they were accused of brutality. Kathy was downtown on Sunday and majority of people after Saturday tried to be as far from downtown as possible. How could police predict that Sunday would be quieter then Saturday?
******
BTW You do remember what was the weather on Sunday night in downtown TO don’t you?
It’s funny, because when I was searched and detained this past evening, I didn’t see a riot. In fact, there wasn’t a single protester to be found.
I certainly wasn’t protesting. But apparently, at some point an Old Navy black tee became restricted streetwear. I certainly didn’t get the memo.
In fact, I was under the impression, that on Monday afternoon, the whole G20 thing was over, and that my neighborhood had stopped being a police state. How presumptuous of me! There I was, sitting down, talking on the phone in what was by that time, a quiet portion of the financial district.
What tenacity I had, to expect a patrol of jackboots not to show up, yell and swear at me in my face before a single word came forth from my mouth, tell me they find my black t-shirt suspicious, and demand I submit to a search of my belongings under penalty of arrest.
What unrealistic expectations I had.
I don’t think any reasonable human being could have witnessed what happened to me and considered it anything short of harassment.
Some people have suggested they just have frayed nerves. Others suggest they’re angry about how they can never win.
The truth is, I don’t care. They put on the uniform and sometimes it’s crappy job. But they’re ostensibly sworn to uphold the law, the highest law being mine and your fundamental rights. If they are unable to perform this duty under stress, or in a matter consistent with what my due process rights demand of them, I ask that they step down from their jobs and pursue a line of work that better suits the limits of their faculties. Failing an introspection as such, I expect their superiors to make that decision for them.
I think this is a reasonable position. But I sense some here are not so reasonable.
I’m thinking that a lot of people don’t understand that there are regulations for conducting a protest. You need a permit, you need to say how many participants you expect and whether it’s a street march or a gathering. You have to get the route and the times approved.
It looked to me that what some (including the media) were calling ‘legal protests’ were really just roving gangs. That seemed especially true on Sunday. The way they suddenly decided they could sit down in the middle of street and that should be okay. It doesn’t matter whether you appear peaceful and/or sing nice songs, it is still unlawful conduct without a permit. It is also unlawful to block traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, so when you are asked to move along, compliance is correct response…and even more so in those circumstances. From what I understand, the media was forewarned not to expect special treatment. No doubt mistakes were made but as of now, my sympathies are with the police.
Okay Toronto, you knew there would be payback for turning your backs on Stephen Harper, keep it up and the whole damn United Nations will be meeting there next year.
A Few Figs,
Do you live in downtown Toronto? Were you caught up in a siege by hooligans and police while going out for a walk like you always do on Saturday afternoons?
Do any of you not find it a little strange that so many people from the political right are calling foul on the police? Does that assessment not give you pause?
Is it beyond the scope of your worldview to accept that what I witnessed on the weekend and experienced this past evening has some veracity?
Apparently Mike you have become “them”…who knew?
richfisher: “For those that disagree with Arnie and Kathy come to Toronto for any…ANY demonstration and witness for yourself the fact the cops are always looking the wrong way.”
This perhaps is the crux of the matter and I was thinking about it when I woke up this morning. I suspect that policing in the ROC might be a completely different kettle of fish than here in Toronto.
Too many of us have witnessed the police being politically correct: harassing law-abiding citizens exercising their civil rights by being present at Hamas/Hezbollah demos, while turning a blind eye to outrageous behaviour and taunts by the Hamas/Hezbollah demonstrators.
It makes your hair and lip curl to see our laws being turned inside out and upside down by the very people entrusted with the safety and security of Toronto citizens.
I am predisposed to be very supportive of the police. By and large they did a very good job this past weekend (except for allowing the trashing of Yonge Street and the torching of cars without lifting a finger or making an arrest), but I am discomfited by the increasing political correctness getting in the way of pressing legitimate authority onto unruly citizens and situations.
It’s a recipe for disaster. And, yes, we need more people like Arnie and Kathy to point it out, to stand their ground, and to encourage others to stand up for their legitimate rights when all too often those rights are being abrogated by, of all people, our law enforcement authorities.
The times are out of joint. Now’s not the time to lie down and become surrender monkeys.
Here is an officer’s comment from the Sun’s Joe Warmington’s column. As we have discussed the politicization of the police at Caledonia, hamass marches, Tamil take over continues with these socialists like McGuinty and Miller. This is basically my take on taking to many officers during the weekend.
“I also wonder if Blair owes an apology to his frustrated police officers, who showed incredible restraint, professionalism and calm during the rampage on Saturday while a small group of thugs took over the city and set police cars ablaze while smashing and looting everything in their way.
A number of officers have told me they were keen to take the dirt balls down and end it early.
“We were all embarrassed beyond belief on Saturday,” an officer named John, who I got in touch with, said in an email to AM 640’s John Oakley. “Our guys wanted to wade in but our senior officers and our socialist mayor would not permit it.”
Is this true chief?
This officer with 28 years on the job said for “months we have attended endless training for this moment and when the day came we were not allowed to react and left to watch law breakers and malcontents go on an unprecedented rampage.”
He said he is “absolutely shamed and saddened” that “we were told to stand down as we did not want to appear over aggressive.” He said “we had to sit on our hands and watch these clowns make us look stupid” and “our rank and file, almost to a man and woman, are angered over this.”
How about that chief? Any response?”
mike brock – I think you are overplaying the hapless victim image.
Could you provide some evidence that ‘so many people on the political right are calling foul on the police’? I’m aware that you are using this to bolster your own point of view.
Were you ‘out for a walk’ in an area where demonstrations were going on? That’s hardly a common sense mode of behaviour. To claim that it’s your ‘right’ – what an ambiguous word that is – to do what you ‘normally’ do is to act like a robot. If the contextual situation changes, then, a common sense and reasoning reaction would be to also change. Why were you in that area?
And to be wearing black – and surely you, someone on top of the situation would hardly be unaware of the ‘black bloc’ theme and the black clothes and masks worn by the thugs…and sitting talking on a device – all within an area of potential demonstrators, is a robotic act. Someone who was thinking rather than robotic would consider that a provocative act.
When you speak of ‘the highest law’ being ‘fundamental rights – that’s utterly ambiguous. What are these ‘fundamental rights’? The four fundamental rights, for example, referred to in the charter, are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. That is, there are limits, which you, determined to act in a robotic manner, seem to ignore.
A common sense view acknowledges context. Therefore, you don’t go out on a day when violent demonstrations are taking place, in an area where they did or could occur, wearing a symbolic colour defined as a key identifier of this event’s violence, and talking via earphones to others. The context you were creating (location, colour, earphones) was screaming out: ‘I’m a member of the Black Bloc tactic”. So, claiming that you were ‘just out for a stroll’ is a bit naive and pretentious, in my view.
Mike,
Johnathon Kays piece a city of wimps applies.
http://tinyurl.com/2em2bm3
All the extraneous, its my neighborhood, I have a wife and child etc is completely unimportant to what happened, since the cops wouldnt know, nor care, nor should they.
And the protesters dont have to be nearby, the whole MO of the black block tactic was to lay in wait in other areas nearby.
So lets summarize, the cops had probable cause to ask you questions due to location and an identifiable characteristic, black clothing, backpack etc. They did not manhandle you, they spoke harshly to you (boo hoo) and then they moved on.
A week before or a week from now I would be with you on being upset, but not that day because there looks to be context for the action. But that context is fast disappearing.
So I’ll look for the signs that indicate its your neighbourhood next time, so I know where I am….
My sympathies here hinge on how volatile the situation still was on Sunday and how close Kathy and BCF were to any security zone; I’ve read the whole thread but I’m still not clear on this.
Dave – thanks for your post. That’s exactly what has been happening; it isn’t the police themselves who have been politicizied but the administrators who run them are political hacks. Above all, Miller, who is aligned with the unions and the left.
The police have several times said that they were not allowed by the administration to fight back against the Saturday violence. All in the name of ‘not appearing brutal’. But, this changed on Sunday when public angry reaction to the lack of police presence at the violence became apparent; then – Miller/Blair, allowed the police to act.
Miller/Blair refused to allow the police to move the Tamils in their sitdown on a major highway a year ago. This has been the pattern: no confrontation with groups.
By the way, the tendency of the attacker to claim victimhood is the theme today. Many of those arrested are claiming themselves as ‘victims of police brutality’ – and the complaints move from their surprise at being arrested for having ‘an old Swiss army knife that I’ve had since a child’ in my backpak..in the midst of the demonstrations, to anger at ‘so what if there was a hatchet and knife in my car’?
The black clothes types, many of them from Quebec, are doing ‘an Obama’ – which is to define their actions with different words. Just as Obama refuses to recognize the reality of Islamic terrorism by refusing to use ‘those words’; these people declare that their actions of smashing windows and cars are ‘not acts of violence’. They are valid acts against ‘capitalism’. But who gave them the right to act in such a manner against capitalism?
Oh, and the ones who came in on busses from Quebec to carry out these noble deeds, are now claiming that the police are ‘anti-Quebec’. Proof? They were arrested. Now, how did the police know they were from Quebec? They didn’t know. But, smashing windows has, although a long history in Quebec, nothing to do with ‘being Quebecois’.
Reminds me of the claims of injustice of my students who received low marks for bad work.
Mike Brock:“I think this is a reasonable position. But I sense some here are not so reasonable.”
Jay Currie: “Apparently Mike you have become “them”…who knew?”
Mike, I’ve looked on this thread for a comment that could be construed as being an “unreasonable” response to your experience or questioning your veracity in any serious way – and I can’t find one.
I can’t figure out who “them” is, either.
A couple of people have asked questions, and others have posted general thoughts related to the weekend, and yet you seem to believe you’re being challenged. (Your response to A Few Figs was especially odd, as the comments were both 100% valid, and had nothing to do with you.)
A couple of points though. I’m in Saskatchewan and I know that police had asked the public to avoid wearing black, and that searches of backpacks were turning up weapons. I know that more protests were planned for Monday.
The tactics used by the anarchists are to blend into the scenery until the moment of action arives. So, while it’s not a pleasant experience to “fit the description of the suspect” when the suspect is known to be armed and violent, that in essence, is what you managed to do.
Yeah Mike, next time try not to blend in with the scenery.
Dave @ 8:44:
“We were all embarrassed beyond belief on …. “Our guys wanted to wade in but our senior officers and our socialist mayor would not permit it.”
There it is folks.
That is exactly what I suspected. If Miller was at the ‘command post’ things were bound to be screwed up.And he had the audacity to suggest (during press conference yesterday) that he wants Feds to pay for the damage.
Did he plan all along to have PM Harper wear this?
So proud of that cop for speaking up.
Miller should be exposed, tarred and feathered.
Did he also influence the over-reaction on Sunday??
I hate inquiries. I’d rather spend the money catching those anarchists.But if an inquiry reveals more about Miller’s mess I say go for it!!
bluetech – Miller is in huge financial trouble. He’s after money any way, any how.
He’s double-taxed Ontario car registration, i.e., you have to pay double the Ontario tax if you live in Toronto; he’s double-taxed home sale registration. His parking minions are rabid cash scroungers. He has so overloaded the financial capacity of the city with his unions salary, benefits, pensions, overtime increases – that there’s no money for infrastructure, for repairs. Nothing.
That’s why he’s not running again for mayor this fall; he knows he’s in deep trouble. I doubt if the Toronto citizens really know how bad Toronto’s financial situation is.
So, Miller will use this event – and Saturday’s fiasco was his fault – to try to extort money out of Ottawa. He won’t use that to pay the store owners for broken windows! Heck no, he’ll use it to help deal with the massive debt he’s run up in Toronto.
Kate, it should be pointed out that black is what pretty near -everybody- is wearing every day in downtown Toronto. You can tell who’s a tourist by who’s not wearing all black. They look like Mennonites.
Those guys picked Mike because he was an easy target. Plain and simple. Lone white guy, safe to vent on.
There’s really nothing like being screamed at by armed men who are begging for an excuse to f- you up. Its happened to me in the past, so as a crunchy old grown-up I avoid all venues where that might happen. Like the entire city of Toronto until the fence is down and all the police have a chance to sleep off the trauma.
But if you live downtown and have a job, its going to be pretty hard to avoid. Roving bands of jacked-up, stressed out cops looking for some payback outside your front door. What a great way to live.
This is why I always say government is the most dangerous thing in our lives. If punks come after you, you can at least go down fighting, with preparation you can beat them. When the cops come after you, over NOTHING, you are stripped of all defense, legal and physical.
Mike just had that forcibly and loudly shoved up his nose, his experience leaves my head ringing with echoes of when this has happened to me. Mike isn’t -ever- going to forget that, and he’s -never- going to see police in quite the same way either.
I’m not complaining that some cops are jerks. Everybody is a jerk some days. I’m saying this whole f-ing thing was a manufactured debacle that didn’t need to happen. The government waved a big red steak at the Lefty jackals and wonder of wonders, the Lefties grabbed it and ran with it. Gee, how did that happen?
Not only did we pay money for this to happen, we all get caught in the gears too. Even out here in Hooterville the OPP had a speed-trap derby all last week, just to remind everybody who’s boss. Its not good, and I’m not happy about it.
You know what? If they’d staged this thing to sucker these f-ing protester weasels out and bust them all because they are a danger to Canada (which they are) I’d be all for it. I’d be happy to help. But that’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on is Big Brother threw a party and stuck us with the check.
Bottom line Kate, stuff like the G20 and Caledonia is grinding up our society. You’re supposed to be able to trust cops in this country, and because of LIBERAL POLICY, we -can’t-. They are being ordered to ignore crimes in one context and crack down on whoever is handy in another. Pretty soon cops are going to be hated by everybody who comes in contact with them. Then Canada will be like Mexico, with payola, crooked cops, crooked judges, the works. It won’t be hidden, it’ll be in your face. Prices will be posted on the web.
That’s the danger here, and that’s the true damage from this weekend. That’s what Kathy and Arnie are pointing up on their blog, and that’s what roughed up Mike Brock.
Now is not the time to be reasonable. Being reasonable is what got us here.
Yeah, and I once had my car pulled over and searched 8 times in three hours by the RCMP.
We had a name for that, back when I was in high school. It was called “Saturday night”. The Carlyle, SK RCMP detachment had 21 officers – for a town of 1200. They had to keep busy doing something when they weren’t up at White Bear or scraping bodies from Hwy 13. We got over it. In fact, policing in 2010 is far less arbitrary than it was in our parent’s day.
So, will someone please tell me how police are supposed to track down young men matching the description of black bloc anarchists without actually stopping and searching people who fit the description?
I’m disappointed in you. When it’s middle class men educated in a Pakistani madrassas near a high security zone, you’re all in for profiling.
But when it’s middle class men educated in Canadian universities near a high security zone, the rules become different.
A little consistency, please.
phantom – I think you live in a fantasy world of your own authorship.
I don’t think that Mike was an ‘easy target’; he was an obvious target because of his visible behaviour: black clothes, earphones and communication device; in a zone of potential violence. Why was he ignoring the context of the day, when these images were clear indicators of a possible connection to the ‘black bloc’ tactics?
I’d like some evidence that police are ‘armed and out to get people’; that they are ‘roving bands’ looking for ‘payback’. Nor are you ‘stripped of all defense- legal. [And that’s the only defense in any such situation.]
And why exactly was this event a ‘manufactured debacle’? It’s a fact that it was a G20 meeting. It’s also a fact that a lot of leftists love to demonstrate and yell and shout about the most vapid and empty issues, which they themselves have no plans or even operational will to deal with (poverty, welfare are the usual). It’s also a fact that anarchists love to destroy. So, what is ‘manufactured’?
When a govt announces a G20 meeting, the left and the anarchists each plan to do their thing: demonstrate and destroy. The anarchists hide themselves in the demonstrations..and destroy. How is this ‘manufactured by the govt’?
I fully agree with you about Caledonia. That wasn’t due to the police but to the political; McGuinty’s Liberals. And I agree that this was a violation of the rights of the people who live there. He and Miller did the same when the Tamils were blocking the Gardiner highway. And..Miller and Blair did the same this weekend. So, it’s not the police but the politicians.
Come on Kate. Monday afternoon, University Avenue, financial district is almost a mile away from the G20 site? Its all over by then, no more super security zone, supposedly. This is pure Pre-Crime harassment, and it damages the relationship of civilians and police like nothing else can. Illegal search is ILLEGAL, and for a reason, right?
“So, will someone please tell me how police are supposed to track down young men matching the description of black bloc anarchists without actually stopping and searching people who fit the description?”
You arrest Black Block vandals in mid-smash, is what you do. Something they should have been doing on Saturday but didn’t, and then started doing on Sunday but not very well by all accounts.
Or, gee whiz, don’t hand out parade permits during the Super Security G20 and arrest -everybody- who shows up to be a jerk. I’d be all for that too.
Also, slightly different threat level than “middle class men educated in a Pakistani madrassas near a high security zone”, broken windows vs. home-made Sarin gas in the subway, right?
Kate,
I am not applying any double standard, and I expected more from you than a simple “you should have known better”.
The line that divides tyranny and freedom is a tenuous one. Liberty is not something to be suspended on a whim. The purpose of police are to uphold justice. Not to screen members of the public for potential threats.
The protest going on yesterday was far from where I was, and by all accounts was peaceful.
Of course, many Supreme Court rulings have addressed this issue and would seem to side with me, up to and including the right to refuse questioning a police DUI checkpoint.
In order for police to demand someone submit to a search, they must have an articulable reason to suspect that person is committing or about to commit a crime. It is categorically not enough to asset that someone is wearing the same colour of shirt that a group of criminals wore two days prior.
The job of the police to provide public security is in fact, not paramount. What is paramount, is the upholding of fundamental justice. Security comes second.
Benjamin Franklin famously wrote that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The Supreme Court has upheld a robust definition of what an “unreasonable search”.
R v. Mann [2004]: “investigative detentions to be premised upon reasonable grounds. The detention must be viewed as reasonably necessary on an objective view of the totality of the circumstances, informing the officer’s suspicion that there is a clear nexus between the individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence.”
The court went on …
“”Police powers and police duties are not necessarily correlative. While the police have a common law duty to investigate crime, they are not empowered to undertake any and all action in the exercise of that duty. Individual liberty interests are fundamental to the Canadian constitutional order. Consequently, any intrusion upon them must not be taken lightly and, as a result, police officers do not have carte blanche to detain. The power to detain cannot be exercised on the basis of a hunch, nor can it become a de facto arrest.“”
… and R v. Collins [1987]: “”Any search incidental to the limited police power of investigative detention described above is necessarily a warrantless search. Such searches are presumed to be unreasonable unless they can be justified”
…
Here is the actual “Waterfield test” that police are expected to follow: “the detaining officer has some ‘articulable cause’ for the detention” the officer must have “a constellation of objectively discernible facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation.”
…
“”articulable cause was not sustained merely by the officer’s hunch based on intuition gained by experience.”
But when it’s middle class men educated in Canadian universities near a high security zone, the rules become different.
Kate
How true!!!
But the problem is when it is you, yourself who are targeted/profiled many of us gets angry and our objectivity goes through the roof. Theory is fine but practice……… is completely different kettle of fish.
I would like to relate the horrible experience I had yesterday … my rights were violated, we live in a police state. I decided to take a stroll on public land, and I found myself on a public pier. It’s not illegal to own or carry crab traps or bait … and I just happened to have both traps and bait with me.
There I was, alone on the pier, minding my own business, checking the condition of my traps and the bait containers. Two ARMED RCMP officers approached, then circled me. They demanded to see a fishing license … their hands, at the ends of their arms, may have been close to their guns.
I was so scared that I felt that I had to comply. I knew my rights were being violated as I produced the license. The worst part by far, after they looked at my license, they just strolled back down the pier like nothing had happened.
he detaining officer has some ‘articulable cause’ for the detention”
YUP, but that does not mean that he/she should not be able to check your ID. Detention is not checking an ID!!
*****
∞²
I also had similar experience. It is terrible, isn’t it, when police can check your ID and then go away as if nothing happened!!!
It is certainly a POLICE STATE. !!!!!
🙂
“I knew my rights were being violated as I produced the license.”
Please explain how your rights are being violated.
You need to have a license to fish, the police have a right, indeed a duty, to check on people who are fishing to see if they have one.
How can you be so stupid and alarmed that police officers are armed? Those Liberal “Guns in Our Cities” ads probably resonated loudly in the echo chamber of your brain.
Great policing on a seriously stupid person.
Mike,
And yet there is a still an argument that you fell into a “clearly articulable reason”, you matched a description, the equivalent of gang colours in this context.
As I have said, time passed makes a difference, Monday after a major incident when there are conitnuing protests and lord knows what intelligence the police had, is hardly unreasonable.
The court is correct, you have to have a reason, and the court will likely rule at some point on this. But for practical purposes, I would still say they had reasonable cause.
BTW, the fact the protest was peaceful at that moment means nothing, given that saturdays protest was peaceful until the appointed time when the Black Block emerged. Saturday was planned. As I mentioned on another thread an aquantence of mine was warned not to go into the Starbucks at Queen and John because “the action” was going to begin in 15 minutes. 15 minutes later the flare went off and the Starbucks was trashed and the vandalism began.
Oh ya . . one more thing . . .
“their hands, at the ends of their arms, ”
Where did you expect their frik’n arms to be, attached to their feet?
Failed Grade 1 science class eh?
Fred, slow down and think.
ella,
You’re incorrect, actually. The demand to present identification constitutes a search under the law. In fact, it’s considered a particularly intrusive search by the court, requiring the full articulable cause demanded by the Charter.
When police demand you present identification randomly, they are conducting a search within the definition of the Charter, and it is the same standard applied as to when the police search your bag or your car.
You really need to read about your own rights.
Fred,
I wasn’t fishing – my traps never entered the water before the cops showed up. After they left, I decided to put them in the water to calm my nerves.
They also looked into a container to see if I had any crabs – isn’t that illegal search?
ET, Monday afternoon? For wearing black in Toronto, the land of the urban Mennonites? To repeat, come on.
You’ve never been in that situation, have you? Its about the most shocking thing you can imagine short of being punched in the face. Which, hopefully, is something else you’ve never experienced and never will.
It makes you different afterwards. It really does. Maybe I’m a little touchy on the subject, but I got that way having the same experience Mike just did without even the weak excuses being given for Mike’s fun and games there.
In the moment of it, you have no defense. After the fact, any appeal to higher authority you may have does not make up for it.
The more people walking around with that experience, the less effective our police forces are. Why do you think there are never any witnesses to murders up at Jane and Finch?
So it is vile and stupid public policy to create situations for this stuff to happen. It happens enough by accident without doing it on purpose.
And you know, what the hell are cops going to do in a -free- country where half the bystanders have guns ET? Visit Phoenix some time, that’s the reality in that place. Police get their work done, and civilians back them up.
You think Mike’s going to back up the cops next time -they- need -him-? He might, but he might remember Monday and think twice too.
Its not one little thing ET, its one little thing that happens too often. Its not a sand grain. Its a sand factory.
Stephen,
a constellation of objectively discernible facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation.
Note the court’s strong use of pluralism and the word “constellation”. As in meaning, not just one or two things that make the police suspicious. And the world “objectively”. As in, any reasonable person looking at the situation would reach the same conclusion as the police.
I was on my iPhone, holding a Starbucks coffee, far from any protest, wearing a jeans and black Old Navy T-Shirt. I’m also 30 years old, and wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary.
You can go read the entire rulings yourself. But the courts have ruled on matters like this, when it comes to people “matching descriptions”.
When you “match” the description of a suspected individual, this alone does not mean anything. In a city of millions of people, many people will match the description of “wearing a black shirt”.
There was nothing objective about the supposed threat I posed at all, and I dare say any court in this land that is competent of the laws it enforces would agree. I say this after talking to several lawyers, from very reputable law firms, as well.
I didn’t say “you should have known better”. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve provided plenty for you to quote directly.
But you did write something interesting – “The purpose of police are to uphold justice. Not to screen members of the public for potential threats.”
Be sure to remember that assertion should the day come that the new neighbor starts spending afternoons at your kid’s playground – and they tell you to call after there’s been “an incident”.
Kate,
The argumentum ad consequentiam on this matter could be applied to pretty much anything. Hence it’s status as a logical fallacy.
I could say: remember saying that police shouldn’t randomly search people’s homes the next time somewhat builds a letter bomb in someone’s basement.
In any case, I hear the crime rate in Cuba and Saudi Arabia is very low.
mike brock – my reading of the supreme court decisions and Waterfield fully supports what the police did to you.
Again, the demonstrations were still ongoing, the ‘anarchists’ and their agenda were not proven to have left; you were therefore still living within the context of a security time phase and spatial domain. Not one single ‘right’ was harmed by the police asking for your ID. They were not acting in any way against the Charter. You were not detained, you were not unreasonably searched. So, what’s your beef?
Kindly provide evidence that the job of the police is ‘upholding fundamental justice’ rather than basic securities of citizens. I thought the courts had that duty of upholding justice; that is, it’s a legal issue not a police issue.
Here are the duties of the police, as outlined by the Toronto Police Service Web Site. I don’t see any duty of ‘upholding fundamental justice’ but I do see all about ‘protecting security’.
“Protecting life and preventing injury
Protecting property
Preserving the peace
Preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention
Assisting victims of crime
Apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody
Laying charges and participating in prosecutions
Executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties
Performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns
Enforcing municipal by-laws
Completing prescribed training”
Oh, and this site also says
“Officers may stop pedestrians on the street if they observe an offence, if they are investigating a complaint, or if they believe the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. These interactions usually involve the officer asking for your name, address and identification, and other questions that are appropriate to their investigation.”
So, how does asking for ID constitute a “particularly intrusive search”? And where in the Charter does it talk about a requirement for a fully articulated cause? Please tell us the Charter Section and article.
ET,
It constitutes an intrusive search because the demand someone give up their identity is a violation of their privacy. For instance, in the relevant court cases surrounding the use of DWI checkpoints across Canada, the courts have been fairly particular in the manner in which they can be conducted.
The police are allowed to stop you and question you, but you are not legally required to answer their questions. And the failure to answer their questions does not constitute grounds for search. R. v. Mann backs this up.
The refusal to volunteer information to the police as a member of the public, as a witness, as a person of interest, or under detention or arrest, has been ruled to be a matter of fundamental right, articulated under section 11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the United States, the fifth amendment
To do so, is to demand that you be a witness against yourself. Since under the rules of evidence, the police may not bring forward exculpatory information on your behalf due to the nature of our adversarial legal system.
So, to distill this down to the basics: the cops asked you, very rudely, to identify yourself and submit to a search.
You knew they required a warrant, but since it would cause you no end of trouble, gave your permission.
Then, they let you go without laying a hand on you or charging you.
So you went home to write a pissy blog post..
Because defending your rights under the law, with the law, failed to meet your Hassle Threshold, but did cross your Bitch About It In Public Afterwards Threshold.
That’s a reasonable response, actually. One I’d have likely taken, too, absent the second step.
Kate said: “the new neighbor starts spending afternoons at your kid’s playground – and they tell you to call after there’s been “an incident”.
Kate, broken windows vs. broken kid? Different threat level again. Besides, they -do- tell you to call back after there’s been an incident. Cops don’t protect us, they clean up afterwards. And in Canada they make sure we can’t protect ourselves too.
ET said: “Not one single ‘right’ was harmed by the police asking for your ID. They were not acting in any way against the Charter. You were not detained, you were not unreasonably searched. So, what’s your beef?”
ET, the beef is we don’t live to make police jobs easier. They get paid to make our lives easier. When they’re making your life hard, that’s a problem. They can’t walk up to you and demand ID, its illegal. Checkpoints are illegal. They can pull you over for nothing and demand ID though, that is legal. That’s why RIDE checks can be done.
A man sitting on a bench doing nothing is no threat. A polite -request- for ID and a look in the bag is reasonable. I personally have no problem with requests from police, I ask them if they want to look in the truck or whatever as a go-along-to-get-along- strategy.
But that isn’t what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about show me your ID or you go to jail right the hell now, expletive deleted.
The cops had a rough week, yes. There’s a limit to what a guy can put up with, absolutely. The answer to that dilemma is not for Mike to suck it up when temper overcomes brain in some ragged policemen. The answer is leadership that’s smart enough not to over-stress their troops, or put them in no-win situations.
Kate,
You’re right that I decided not to dig in my heels as a matter of hassle threshold as you put it, actually. However, the truth of the matter was, that had more to do with the absence of third-party witnesses.
If I had the benefit of a third-party video taping or a group of witnesses within earshot, I would have dug in my heals, and demand they detain me if they wanted to search me. And upon detention, I would have immediately demanded to speak to a lawyer.
But given that I was essentially alone and cornered by a bunch of jackboot police officers, I had to take into consideration that it would be my word against four or five lying police officers.
They were, of course, liars. As they smirkingly said to me, “that’s not how it happened” when I demanded to know why they were swearing at me. They actually seemed to take perverse pleasure out of the fact that they knew, that I knew, that they had just jerked me around.
I admit to being shocked by your attitude on this, Kate. It doesn’t make sense to me. On a personal level, even, given the fact I personally supported you, both morally and financially in your legal battles.
Mike – I’ll continue to differ. First, a minor point, but the 5th amendment doesn’t apply in Canada.
Second, section 11c of the Charter refers only to ‘any person charged with an offence’ has the right: ‘not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of that offence”. You weren’t charged with an offence, were you?
This article of the charter doesn’t apply by any stretch of the imagination to the police asking you for your ID.
I see no logical analysis or empirical evidence that asking for one’s identity is ”an intrusive search’ or a ‘violation of privacy’. None. How is your name a ‘witness against yourself’? Again how does your name act as a witness against yourself in..ah..what offence were you charged with?
And despite your assertions, the duty of the police is not to ‘uphold justice’ or your ‘fundamental rights’.
Mike – your assumption that the police officers were ‘lying police officers’ is..well, you seem to know about logical fallacies, and this is surely one of them.
So far, I haven’t seen any evidence from you of your claims that the police were violating your ‘fundamental rights’; that the police duty is to preserve your ‘fundamental rights’; or that they violated the charter.
Equally, I consider that your presence in a fragile temporal and spatial security zone, with key signs relevant to the Black Bloc tactics, was not something that should have been overlooked by the police. Your refusal to acknowledge both the lack of violation of your ‘fundamental rights’ and your visual and behavioural ‘signs’ of possible association with the Black Bloc is robotic and obtuse.
Legally, you haven’t a ‘leg to stand on’. The police had every right to ask you for your ID and search you. As a citizen, I’d also say that you had no moral grounds to complain; the facts are that your ‘signs’ were associated with the Black Bloc. You must have known this and why you were doing this – at that time in that area – is beyond me. Oh, and holding a Starbucks doesn’t exonerate anyone from being an anarchist.
Yet another logical fallacy on your part, is the ‘tit for tat’ special pleading attempt on your part to claim that because you’ve supported her, then she should side with you.
phantom – we don’t ‘live to make anyone’s job easier’ but we don’t have to make anyone’s job harder, do we? Why do you have such a vendetta against police? No, checkpoints are not illegal; when you go into a security zone, those checks are legal – whether it be in the G20 area or an airport or a condominium.
“The answer to that dilemma is not for Mike to suck it up when temper overcomes brain in some ragged policemen.”
Phantom and Mike: and that’s where we differ.
In extraordinary circumstances such as occurred in Toronto, I think it is. (I’m not speaking specifically to Mike’s experience, for as he says, there were no third party witnesses.)
But in general, yes – one of our responsibilities as citizens in a free and democratic society is to recognize when co-operation is necessary for the safety and security of your community. When it’s time to set aside your precious dignity and help them get the bigger job done. Because your community, perhaps the lives of others, may depend upon it.
G20 protests have an established history of riots and violence. People have been killed as a result of these ridiculous marxist parades. It’s not the Shriners gone bad, you know?
So, recording an uneventful arrest scene may be your “right”, but you’re being a self-indulgent jerk, nonetheless.
I’ve never seen a bunch of whinier, more entitled bunch of “conservatives” in a long time. Me, me, me, f’ing me and all the bad things that happened to “me”. Except that they really didn’t happen, did they? You weren’t brutalized, you weren’t detained.
You were inconvenienced. Oh, and insulted.
I really did experience worse harassment as a teenage driver. What’s wrong with you people?
As I mentioned I had worked as a motorcade driver during the G20 based primarily at the MTCC from Tuesday on. To get into the Centre you had to have a security RCMP issued pass, go through a thorough identity check to make sure the pass was yours and your picture was displayed on the security monitor, go through metal detectors and a pat down. Once inside if you know the Centre there are myriads of escalators where security personal are located at the top and bottom of each escalator rechecking your pass hanging around your neck.
To walk from the South entrance to the north where I could only go so far you would be checked at least 20 times physically and who knows how many times with cameras.
My time was spent just waiting by the hour for our little motorcade to return to the hotel or to the airport. Couldn’t return to my secured van as it required my RCMP escort with his security clearance.
Despite this on the Sunday 2 RCMP officers and a security guy separately came up to me to ask if I needed help as I was basically just standing there and or course rechecked my pass and ID.
Mike and Phantom though you may have felt you were challenged incorrectly I felt like shouting “How many &*%^$ times do you have to recheck the same guy!” Of course because they all carried big guns I let it slide.
Mike, not a good idea to get Kate on your side by trying to change HER opinion by bribing her with your past support and MAYBE your future support if she plays nice.
I look at places overwhelmed by terrorism (Gaza, Kandahar, Fallujah, etc.) and see the inevetable stories of someone whose family has been hurt by an attack on the terrorists. The victim claims to be innocent and let’s assume she is. Where did she go wrong?
When the battle is on, you need to get out of the way. If you help the terrorists hide, you are not entirely innocent. Of course, the bad guys make it hard to avoid helping them hide.
Your options are better if you act earlier. Before the battle, you can report suspicious activities, or just make it hard for the bad guys to integrate. Before they start to assemble,you can challenge their ideas to deny them acceptence in your community.
Thanks to my grandparents’ courage and lack of naivety, I don’t have to fight these battles with as much pain as someone form Gaza. Pity Shaidle. Her courage in the early stages of defence matches anyone’s and yet her neighbors’ courage doesn’t and she ends up in the battle.
Lot of verbiage here; can’t say anybody has really nailed any part of this, but there are valid statements coming out everywhere, most defined in law – what, however, is being talked about is legal pragmatism, not absolutes, nor law, actually. As every boat owner who goes to sea knows, he who owns the biggest boat, makes the rules, at least in the moment.
While agree with a lot of Mike Brock says, I don’t on a couple of points:
the police aren’t responsible to uphold justice – that’s the court’s role, and the court’s role solely (excluding citizen’s responsibility). Justice doesn’t come into the actions and authorities of the police at all. When it does, you have subverted their responsibility. That’s how this weekend’s activities came about, why Caledonia is such a failure.
and, yes, their role is to screen members of the public, or anybody else, to ascertain threats. They have a lengthy list of rules about that, but that is in their job description.
About detention… if you are approached by a police officer demanding ID, whether or not he has reasonable grounds and/or a search warrant, and you are not free to just walk away, you ARE being detained. And WITHOUT reasonable grounds (as defined by the SCC, or a warrant), the officer is without standing. The SCC has been clear on this. But in order to survive a challenge, you need to have the resources to hold your ground, else ‘he who owns the biggest boat, makes the rules, at least in the moment’.