Steyn enters the fray;
And that’s my biggest problem with “law-&-order conservatives”: They seem to think when the coppers are kicking around Mike Brock, that just shows they’re doing their job. Au contraire, 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 – just as pulling over the octogenarian nun for secondary screening doesn’t demonstrate the rigor of homeland security but rather the waste of limited resources.
Except that he wasn’t “kicked” around. He was asked, rudely, for his ID and to surrender his backpack for a search – an egregious case of police being “insufficiently polite”. By his own account, there were no witnesses. But also by his own account,
The reason I said that, is because they seemed to be criticizing me as if they were aware of some sort of political positions I held without me having saying anything to them. It almost makes me think they were monitoring Twitter or something. Because I had indicated on Twitter where I was minutes earlier.
Okie… dokie.
Mark overlooked linking to my original commentary whilst summing it for his readers, so I’ll reply with my own last word here by repeating something I told Jay Currie when he declared, “Deference to Authority is not dead. And if you want to see it in action, SDA is the spot. Sad really, but there you are.”
No one HERE handed over his backpack – he did. If you have a problem with “Deference to Authority”, take it up with the Deferrer.
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?
He submitted his papers and his sack, and then scurried back to his ‘puter fast as his legs could carry him, to set in motion his very own libertarian pity party.
Paper Marxists, digital libertarians. Two sides of the same coin, I’m afraid.
(Ahem. This is sort of interesting.)
“… I was nowhere near a protest.”
Addendum: What seems to have been missed by some commentators is that while Mike has spent considerable effort here and in other venues, portraying himself as an innocent disinterested citizen inexplicably detained by roving police, his 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. (See this one, as well.) To make matters worse, the Twitter post and the Shotgun account, posted within mere minutes of each other, include a direct quote that undergoes a not-so-subtle transformation, a “sexing up”, if you will.
Perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation for the discrepancies, I don’t know. I’ve never had a reason to doubt Mike Brock, nor do I hold any animosity towards those who support him. But for me it comes down to “who to believe – he, or my own lyin’ eyes?”
Either way, one thing is certain. When it comes to throwing in my lot with someone on the strength of his word, this isn’t the molehill to die on.
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….