Gestopo shows up in Oshawa now.

[PoliticalNick]

Having watched the videos I have to say this was an unprovoked attack by private security and police. The man clearly states 2 or 3 times he will leave of his own accord. He is then attacked by security constituting an assault. They are then joined by a police officer who should really have stopped the attack if he knew what his real duty was. I hope there are repercussions against the security and the cops though I won't hold my breath given the history of govt thugs not being accountable for anything.

Every day there are more violations of our rights by all levels of govt and nothing is done about it. The police do the bidding of the criminals in office without a thought for their real job of serving and protecting the people. I am disgusted by the attitude displayed by the cops and politicians that they are our masters when legally they are our servants. I am more disgusted by the apathy and sometimes even support displayed by some people towards events like these.

 

[karrie]

Once again, that's not the issue that concerns me or what this subject is about. It's about our right to speak truth to power without suffering physical harm which should be a central character of any truly open state.

This man wasn't disrupting a legitimate council session he was ironically applauding the cynical actions of the council of eliminating an auditor who was investigating them. And he was physically assaulted for it after agreeing to leave.

This isn't about elected officials acting in good faith in our interests, it's about how they're abusing their positions in self interest and using the powers that come with that position to impose their idea of order.

I find it odd that you're unwilling to address a question regarding the validity of the way this has been presented.

See, the mayor is a corrupt schmuck. Removing an auditor is implication to that fact. This city needs to be reviewed for corruption, it's quite apparent. A corrupt mayor violates an entire population. It strips the democratic rights from an entire population. THAT is the story here, imo. That is the outrage.

But.... the incident with the man being asked to leave, is shown only from a certain point, and only from a certain angle. We can't see his hands when the guard snaps, and the OP clearly misrepresents facts regarding it, and, even was making up/assuming facts before they were verified. If having someone question the validity of the statements made causes such a tailspin, it makes them come across even more hollow than they seemed initially.

Oh... and calling it Nazism, trivializes it even further. It comes across like my kids when they are forcibly taken to their rooms, crying about having been beaten, when they've never been beaten a day in their lives. It smacks of naivety at what true, institutionalized government oppression looks like, versus individual government abuses which step outside the realm of their power.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

As soon as I see someone in a uniform jacket with 'security' written on it, being called 'plainclothes police', I question the validity of the entire article. So, yes, it's my main question. How is someone in a blazer with 'security' written on it, a plainclothes police officer? What police force does the officer who abused the man serve on? Is he local police? Or RCMP? Provincial Sheriff? Why can the camera see his badge, but no one else?

How is that relevant?

He could have been in red serge and what he did was still wrong. The man involved wasn't being disruptive while the security guard was standing directly over him inches away, he wasn't even looking at the guy. The "protester" wasn't being confrontational, the security guard was. And when asked to leave he agreed and as he bent over to comply the security guard used that as a pretext to attack him physically which then did provoke a response in defence.

So who cares what anybody was wearing, this isn't about fashion, it's about the freedom to openly question elected officials in an open forum.

Yes.... they are given where they are warranted. Feel free to take it up with the moderation if you've got a problem with it. I'll be more than happy to report your post instead of giving it a thumbs down.

I had no idea I was dealing with Miss Manners, I'll keep everything karrie in mind whenever I post from now on.

Are you going to go around and clean up all the questionable behavior here or just mine, the former would probably be a full time endeavour btw..

See above... I don't get how he's 'plainclothes' when his blazer has a security badge.

The fashion is important to you, I'm concerned with the substance of this event.

I find it odd that you're unwilling to address a question regarding the validity of the way this has been presented.

See, the mayor is a corrupt schmuck. Removing an auditor is implication to that fact. This city needs to be reviewed for corruption, it's quite apparent. A corrupt mayor violates an entire population. It strips the democratic rights from an entire population. THAT is the story here, imo. That is the outrage.

But.... the incident with the man being asked to leave, is shown only from a certain point, and only from a certain angle. We can't see his hands when the guard snaps, and the OP clearly misrepresents facts regarding it, and, even was making up/assuming facts before they were verified. If having someone question the validity of the statements made causes such a tailspin, it makes them come across even more hollow than they seemed initially.

Oh... and calling it Nazism, trivializes it even further. It comes across like my kids when they are forcibly taken to their rooms, crying about having been beaten, when they've never been beaten a day in their lives. It smacks of naivety at what true, institutionalized government oppression looks like, versus individual government abuses which step outside the realm of their power.

The video wasn't obscured, the man involved is clearly seen sitting in his chair with a security guard standing directly above him inches away. The "protester" wasn't even making eye contact and seemed completely in control of his actions, he wasn't throwing chairs, he wasn't yelling or even demonstrating any emotion...until the guard escalated the situation to a physical confrontation on no valid pretext.

That's the issue here, not only don't we have a right to any real democratic representation, we no longer have the right to even openly protest that. And that is what police states are built on.

 

[Goober]

It was a sister to the Sicherheitspolizei originally formed by Herman Goering from the Prussian police from what I remember. Basically a secret police used to scare and and eliminate the opponents of the Nazi state. It also operated in occupied territories and was involved in the Holocaust.

And as this is a question of a person having their right to openly express opposition to the abuse of power by elected officials in what's supposed to be a free and open society I think it's an applicable comparison.

What would you call physically assaulting someone for voicing opposition at a city council meeting.

As far as I'm concerned this is Nazi BS.

Back then- No public disagreement- They would just take you away, never to be seen again. Mind you that would be after the torture thing that the generally used.
Like hung from meat hooks, they used that after the attempt to hill Hitler.

 

[karrie]

So who cares what anybody was wearing, this isn't about fashion, it's about the freedom to openly question elected officials in an open forum.



I had no idea I was dealing with Miss Manners, I'll keep everything karrie in mind whenever I post from now on.

Are you going to go around and clean up all the questionable behavior here or just mine, the former would probably be a full time endeavour btw..

The OP, cared what they were wearing. 'Plainclothes' was part of the gripe. So YOU made it important. And he was not stopped from questioning elected officials. He was thrown out for being sarcastic about it, by your own statement. Is it right if it all went down the way you say? No. But.... the way it's being presented raised some questions. SImple as that.

As for your manners..... I registered dislike. Are you seriously going to go off the deep end over a neg rep for calling a member a s l u t?

 

[B00Mer]

The OP, cared what they were wearing. 'Plainclothes' was part of the gripe. So YOU made it important. And he was not stopped from questioning elected officials. He was thrown out for being sarcastic about it, by your own statement. Is it right if it all went down the way you say? No. But.... the way it's being presented raised some questions. SImple as that.

As for your manners..... I registered dislike. Are you seriously going to go off the deep end over a neg rep for calling a member a s l u t?

Karrie you should work for the Canadian gov't as a diplomat..

This thread is a lot of hoopla over nothing... civil discourse

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Oshawa city council brawl leads to assault charges - Toronto - CBC News

Watching the second video the undercover cops jump the second person being removed without identifying themselves. They also put the guy in what looks like a chokehold which may or may not be legal.

All this because the guys clapped over the cynical actions of the city council in eliminating an auditor for doing his job. This is a disturbing pattern across the nation.

And people can debate the semantics around using the term Gestapo here, but at the very least these are Gestapo tactics in what's supposed to be a democracy, not a police state.

The mayor and by extension the city has opened itself up to massive lawsuits over this. It's sad that the courts are becoming the last bastion of freedom here.

The OP, cared what they were wearing. 'Plainclothes' was part of the gripe. So YOU made it important. And he was not stopped from questioning elected officials. He was thrown out for being sarcastic about it, by your own statement. Is it right if it all went down the way you say? No. But.... the way it's being presented raised some questions. SImple as that.

As for your manners..... I registered dislike. Are you seriously going to go off the deep end over a neg rep for calling a member a s l u t?

The story is important, not the semantics, if you can't see that that's your problem. And protest is and always has been part of the democratic tradition, the reason we even have it is the generations that have fought so hard for it, sometimes paying the ultimate price.

If it means nothing to you, which may be the case as you seem to want to focus on the minutiae to the exclusion of the real issue, then what kind of system do you favor. One where we have no freedom to speak truth to power?

You registered a dislike then threatened to report my posts when I called you on it, which as far as I'm concerned was pretty tame by the standards of what often goes on here.

Also why have undercover cops at a city council meeting if they didn't have a pretty good idea their actions would spark a negative reaction. There's more than enough grounds here for legal action and possibly Charter Rights violations.

My feelings are the average citizens of Canada are going to become very grateful towards Pierre Trudeau for bringing the Charter to Canada, it may be the last hope we have to keep a lot of our freedoms.

Yah, these guys are dangerous rebels, "Could you please loosen these cuffs, they're extremely tight."

And the cops couldn't give a damn, which pretty much seems to sum up the attitude of far too many people in positions of power and responsibility these days...starting at the top. I don't think it's a coincidence that Canada is becoming the kind of society it is when we have such a poor example at the very top, both public and private sector.

 

[hunboldt]

The OP, cared what they were wearing. 'Plainclothes' was part of the gripe. So YOU made it important. And he was not stopped from questioning elected officials. He was thrown out for being sarcastic about it, by your own statement. Is it right if it all went down the way you say? No. But.... the way it's being presented raised some questions. SImple as that.

As for your manners..... I registered dislike. Are you seriously going to go off the deep end over a neg rep for calling a member a s l u t?

I believe you once advised me to 'simply put you on ignore.' So put CK on ignore. Its called practising what you preach.:smile:

Anyone who has ever bounced at a bar knows you let them 'sound off' as long as they are leaving.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Oshawa city council brawl leads to assault charges - Toronto - CBC News

The mayor and by extension the city has opened itself up to massive lawsuits over this. It's sad that the courts are becoming the last bastion of freedom here.

That's the purpose of the courts. It's sad that they're fulfilling their intended function?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

That's the purpose of the courts. It's sad that they're fulfilling their intended function?

The purpose of the courts is to provide a last resort when all other mechanisms in a civil society have failed in regards to citizens rights. It's not the role of elected officials to violate those rights and act in bad faith. When they do it's our responsibility to assert our rights or they effectively cease to exist.

This, "Don't worry, some unnamed agent will protect us" attitude some people have here is naive. In a democracy we are the protectors of democracy, and part of that is the ability to hold accountable those individuals and groups who act to limit and remove our rights, often in increments that can make it difficult to quantify at first.

When we're to the point where merely speaking out over obviously corrupt government practices can get you assaulted in what are supposed to be public forums then we've gone a long way to not living in a free and open society. If some people here support that then at least be honest about it. And be prepared to defend your position.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The purpose of the courts is to provide a last resort when all other mechanisms in a civil society have failed in regards to citizens rights. It's not the role of elected officials to violate those rights and act in bad faith. When they do it's our responsibility to assert our rights or they effectively cease to exist.

Not at all. It's the purpose of the courts to provide a FIRST resort when mechanisms don't work as they should.

Consider. Let us say that your town, or county, or province, or even country, is drifting in the direction of excessive power and privilege for the government and the people who are in government. What measures do you have available to you to correct this problem?

1. Wait for the next election and throw the scum out, if you can.

2. Engage in passive resistance/refusal, as in the Velvet Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and many parts of the Arab Spring.

3. Violent overthrow of the government (which often leads to an even worse government).

Or, you can have resort to the courts, if you happen to live in a country where the courts are respected (if you do, you are fortunate indeed. I would estimate that the power of the law is a significant social force in less than a quarter of the countries on the planet).

Now, certainly the court system is not speedy, but it is generally faster than waiting for the next election, and certainly less tumultuous and damaging than passive or violent revolution.

So, yes, I hear you pissing and moaning about how this situation should never have been in the first place. And I agree. But that's not the issue. It is in the nature of humans to overreach, and Lord Acton wisely said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

So, the question is "What do we do about the inevitable overreaching that will occur, whether we like it or not?"

And one extremely effective answer is "Go to the courts."

By contrast, your answer appears to be "Go on the internet and piss and moan." Yeah, that'll work a rare treat.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but if you have an alternative to what I have laid out here, or if you dispute that a certain percentage of government official will overreach sure as sunrise, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

The courts shouldn't be the first resort, they should be the last.

Citizens actions in defense of their own rights should be the first resort and only when that avenue is blocked as it is here should the courts be used. And even then there's no guarantee of a positive outcome, laws are open to interpretation and judges are human and can also be corrupt.

In the case of the US now the entire legal system has been under attack for more than a decade to replace "activist" judges with those much more friendly to private sector interests and tort reform has limited damages also protecting the interests of a privileged few. So the real responsibility is always going to end up with the average citizen to stand up for their basic rights, something you should have learned considering the country you live in.

And yes power does corrupt, which is why we have evolved complex traditions and governmental and societal structures to provide the best checks and balances possible and why we should be very wary of those who actively try and dismantle them. And one of the most important protections from abuses of power is access to objective information and the ability to present that in a public forum.

The mayor in this case doesn't own city council or the city itself but that's how far too many elected officials at every level are beginning to act, as if they own the position they're supposed to be stewards of, in the process doing harm to everyone who loses their right to even communicate let alone assert their rights.

When do you start to protest, when you have no rights at all?

That's idiotic, by that time there's no one with any power to address the situation left to listen.

It's the collective rights we hold together that protect us, not the power of those in positions of authority that we entrust to act for our benefit, that's where we're vulnerable.

And when individuals rights are under attack and begin to disappear then all of us are ultimately under attack, that's the less of history.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The courts shouldn't be the first resort, they should be the last.

Fine. Wonderful. Marvellous. All government officials should be wise, moral, and upstanding. I couldn't agree more.

But they aren't. So, can we get past the "shouldas," upon which, I re-state, I AGREE with you, and deal with what is, rather than what we would like to be?

Citizens actions in defense of their own rights should be the first resort and only when that avenue is blocked as it is here should the courts be used. And even then there's no guarantee of a positive outcome, laws are open to interpretation and judges are human and can also be corrupt.

OK, so what're you going to do? Protest? Picket? Attend meetings yourself and demand accounting? If so, how does the pendency of a court action prevent you from doing any of these things?

You speak in terms of "last resort" as if one can only go to court when all other means have been exhausted. As I have just demonstrated, that is not true. You can picket, circulate petitions, seek other candidates and supporters for the next election, all while an action in proceeding in court.

Ain't law grand?

In the case of the US now the entire legal system has been under attack for more than a decade to replace "activist" judges with those much more friendly to private sector interests and tort reform has limited damages also protecting the interests of a privileged few. So the real responsibility is always going to end up with the average citizen to stand up for their basic rights, something you should have learned considering the country you live in.

Yadda yadda yadda. That effort has been going on since the foundation of the court system, which in America pre-dates independence. The law affects politics, and politics affects the law. Which is as it should be. Otherwise the law would just get stranger and more irrelevant. Which has happened in legal history, when the law courts of England became so pernickety about forms that it was effectively inaccessible. The result was the rise of equity courts with their looser, more substance-based requirements.

And yes power does corrupt, which is why we have evolved complex traditions and governmental structures to provide the best checks and balances possible and why we should be very wary of those who actively try and dismantle them. And one of the most important protection from abuses of power is access to objective information and the ability to present that in a public forum.

Yet you decry the court system, which is an integral and critical part of those traditions and structures, and an essential element of checks and balances.

The mayor in this case doesn't own city council or the city itself but that's how far to many elected officials and every level are beginning to act, as if the own the position they're supposed to be stewards of, in the process doing harm to everyone who loses their right to even communicate let alone assert their rights.

I ask again, do you have anything to offer besides your vision of what should be (which, again, I AGREE with), and complaining and whining about how it is not?

Your posts become more complex and well-thought-out, but you seem to still be stuck on stating what would be in an ideal world, and complaining that the world in which we live falls short of that. And criticising one of the means (a non-exclusive means, I point out again) by which that can be redressed.

How many times must I say it? I agree. I agree, I agree, I agree!

Now, do you have a solution to propose, or is more b*tching all we shall have from you?

 

[DaSleeper]

It just never stops.....................:roll:

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Fine. Wonderful. Marvellous. All government officials should be wise, moral, and upstanding. I couldn't agree more.

But they aren't. So, can we get past the "shouldas," upon which, I re-state, I AGREE with you, and deal with what is, rather than what we would like to be?

I am, which is the issue here. You can't even go to a city council meeting without risking life and limb to merely voice what may an embarassing opinion in the face of corrupt officials.

What's your solution, do nothing?

OK, so what're you going to do? Protest? Picket? Attend meetings yourself and demand accounting? If so, how does the pendency of a court action prevent you from doing any of these things?

You speak in terms of "last resort" as if one can only go to court when all other means have been exhausted. As I have just demonstrated, that is not true. You can picket, circulate petitions, seek other candidates and supporters for the next election, all while an action in proceeding in court.

Ain't law grand?

What's the point in Canada, there's a sign outside our PMs riding office banning protests, when citizens do get together to assert their rights, they once again get their life and limbs put at risk by police acting in bad faith and actually posing as violent protesters to justify equally violent police actions, which we've seen at expensive high level conferences we've paid for such as SPP and the G-20 in Toronto. Most people agree that Charter Rights have been violated but nothing is being done.

Yadda yadda yadda. That effort has been going on since the foundation of the court system, which in America pre-dates independence. The law affects politics, and politics affects the law. Which is as it should be. Otherwise the law would just get stranger and more irrelevant. Which has happened in legal history, when the law courts of England became so pernickety about forms that it was effectively inaccessible. The result was the rise of equity courts with their looser, more substance-based requirements.

Yet you decry the court system, which is an integral and critical part of those traditions and structures, and an essential element of checks and balances.

That comment wasn't about the drift of law into strange territory, it was about a minority of Americans with the financial means asserting their rights over the rest of the nation, the same with government at most levels. If you don't understand how deeply your political and legal system has been compromised by corruption then there's no real point discussing this subject with you.

I ask again, do you have anything to offer besides your vision of what should be (which, again, I AGREE with), and complaining and whining about how it is not?

Your posts become more complex and well-thought-out, but you seem to still be stuck on stating what would be in an ideal world, and complaining that the world in which we live falls short of that. And criticising one of the means (a non-exclusive means, I point out again) by which that can be redressed.

So you agree with me but I should shut up?

This made me angry, excuse me for being human. I do care about Canada and the US, I have dual citizenship.

I grew up listening to the older generations of my family who didn't fool around when it came to this subject. Whether it was time to go to war in defense of the nation, going back to WW I and probably before or standing up for their democratic rights when they felt politicians were showing contempt for their positions. I vividly remember how angry my grandfather was over the actions of Frank Church in the mid 1970s, he didn't just complain, he was in on the ground floor for a movement to remove Church. You don't assert your rights in a democracy by being quiet, you do it by being assertive, and that includes being vocal.

How many times must I say it? I agree. I agree, I agree, I agree!

Now, do you have a solution to propose, or is more b*tching all we shall have from you?

Great, you agree, you just don't want to be bothered about hearing about it. So when do you get motivated to actually want to do something about what you admit is an unacceptable situation from a democratic standpoint.

I'm not advocating some ideal btw, I'm saying what we have now here in Canada isn't democratic in a functional sense. And before long we won't even have the fiction of having freedoms

 

[DaSleeper]

Now, do you have a solution to propose, or is more b*tching all we shall have from you?

Naah.....You actually had it right the first time with "Piss and Moan"!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So you agree with me but I should shut up?

No, I agree with you, but you should present some solution, or action you or others can take.

You have defined the problem, and done so quite well. Is there a next step, or is that all you got?

Great, you agree, you just don't want to be bothered about hearing about it. So when do you get motivated to actually want to do something about what you admit is an unacceptable situation from a democratic standpoint.

I'm not advocating some ideal btw, I'm saying what we have now here in Canada isn't democratic in a functional sense. And before long we won't even have the fiction of having freedoms

So, I ask again, what if anything do you propose doing about it?

Oh, heck with it. It is now clear that your only answer is to piss and moan.

Knock your socks off. You got nothing.

You have a real nice day now, hear?

 

[captain morgan]

I am, which is the issue here. You can't even go to a city council meeting without risking life and limb to merely voice what may an embarassing opinion in the face of corrupt officials.

... And the award for best dramatic, over exaggeration of reality goes too.....

What's the point in Canada, there's a sign outside our PMs riding office banning protests, when citizens do get together to assert their rights, they

And what gives the protesters the right to impact the businesses and lives of the people that work in, and/or frequent the physical site where Harper's office is located?

That's right - they don't have that right and that is what's at the heart of this matter.... Cobalt Kid's right's do not trump anyone elses.

once again get their life and limbs put at risk by police acting in bad faith and actually posing as violent protesters to justify equally violent police actions, which we've seen at expensive high level conferences we've paid for such as SPP and the G-20 in Toronto. Most people agree that Charter Rights have been violated but nothing is being done.

I suppose that it was the Harper SS and Gestapo that started hurling bricks at the cops and starting police cruisers on fire.

Your myopia is of epic proportions man.... Goebbels could learn a lot from you

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

No, I agree with you, but you should present some solution, or action you or others can take.

You have defined the problem, and done so quite well. Is there a next step, or is that all you got?

So, I ask again, what if anything do you propose doing about it?

Oh, heck with it. It is now clear that your only answer is to piss and moan.

Knock your socks off. You got nothing.

You have a real nice day now, hear?

I can see trying to have a rational discussion with you is a complete waste of time, you basically completely contradicted yourself in one post.

Considering how complex this issue is, one of the first places to start dealing with it is actually defining the dimensions of the issue, and that takes time and effort.

Repeatedly complaining about people who want to do that is bizarre, I don't know how many times people here have complained about my wanting to discuss the undemocratic behaviour of what are supposed to be elected democratic officials.

If you want the illusion of freedom without actually doing the work to have real freedom then you're not worth my or anybody else's time in my opinion.

 

[PoliticalNick]

No, I agree with you, but you should present some solution, or action you or others can take.

You have defined the problem, and done so quite well. Is there a next step, or is that all you got?



So, I ask again, what if anything do you propose doing about it?

Oh, heck with it. It is now clear that your only answer is to piss and moan.

Knock your socks off. You got nothing.

You have a real nice day now, hear?

I got a solution. It's call rebellion or revolution. I would be one of the first to take up arms to tear down this farce of a democracy. The time is coming when we will all be forced to choose either total slavery to the corporations and their puppets in govt or freedom taken by force. I know it sounds terrible to promote violent revolution but considering how things have changed in the last 12 years it may be the only feasible option remaining.

We are no longer allowed to protest without consent from the dictators, if we do we must give their thugs our agenda so they can prepare their tactics of rubber bullets (which I'm sure will become live ammo soon enough), tear gas and their newest weapon, the sound cannon. If they see an avenue for us to take back some control they make a new law preventing it.

We are spied upon like we are all criminals. They monitor our cell phones and internet usage. They know what books we take from the library, what car we drive and what restaurant we eat at. They know where we work, how much we make and how much money they can demand as tribute. They believe they are above the law. They believe the constitution and charter are irrelevant.

We do not have access to our elected representatives. They lock themselves in ivory towers and only large sums of money unlock the doors. They consider us only as a way to fill their coffers. They pander to us every 4 years promising a change and that they care and then do the bidding of their corporate masters.

I for one am tired of all of it and want to actually feel as free as we are supposed to be. If that means getting rid of the existing govt and system completely and starting over, like Iceland did, then that is what we must do. I would prefer to make these changes peacefully but am willing to use force if required. God know those in power won't hesitate to use force to keep that power.