That what life is al about Cliffy. Exploitation of other life to keep your life going.
Please don't harm yourself because of the guilt.
If you do, can I have your stuff?
Police now able to declare protests illegal
- Thread starter PoliticalNick
- Start date
That what life is al about Cliffy. Exploitation of other life to keep your life going.
Please don't harm yourself because of the guilt.
If you do, can I have your stuff?
I've read it, and obviously better understand it and how it is applied by the courts, than you.
Can you show where in the Charter it says you have to right to infringe on my rights to...
Freedom of movement?
Freedom of expression?
Liberty and security of person?
I will understand if all you reply with is an idiotic rehash of something I once said to you, it seems to be the only rebuttal you're capable of when I poke holes in your nuttery.
It's OK Capt, one of the other Usual Suspects said anyone whose business or life is at all left in upheaval because of these jackasses, can simply take them to court. At their own expense of course.
Who's going to protect the average Canadian just trying to go to work?
Funny, I was under the impression that protests by First Nations that impede daily business were seen as criminal by the original poster.
Feel free to correct me of course.
But, running on the assumption that I'm right, why would it be out of line for police to expect that protests in a city would be organized, and planned, and have an itinerary that police can follow to maintain order and ensure people aren't impeded?
Feel free to correct me of course.
But, running on the assumption that I'm right, why would it be out of line for police to expect that protests in a city would be organized, and planned, and have an itinerary that police can follow to maintain order and ensure people aren't impeded?
Yep that was his take on it......
What is a PC word for hypocrite......................8O
It takes an objective thinker to be able to see the flaws in their own groups behaviour, and a subjective thinker to only see the flaws in the other groups behaviours.
People can find all sorts of excuses to defend the behaviour of a group they agree with and still manage to vehemently argue against that same behaviour from a group they do not agree with. That's when the words begin to ring very, very hollow.
Most protests will infringe, impede, cause delays to the public. It is how much they impede, infringe and delay.
Most Canadian accept that with peaceful protests some short delays and such.
Now closing down highways and rail lines, that can cross the line, if it is repeated, long term of what the public will tolerate.
The demonstration in and Ontario where a builder was putting up homes, that went on for about 1 year. Why would Canadian tolerate that.
So let me clarify my position for those who seem to want to put words in my mouth....
I do not consider blocking rail lines and major highways a form of peaceful protest and such instances should be dealt with accordingly.
I do not consider a protest where there is willful damage to property peaceful and such instances should find those responsible under arrest and in court.
I do not consider blockading a legitimate business so they cannot conduct their normal business acceptable, but I do believe picketing at that location is fine as long as no customer is prevented entry and is not subject to intimidation.
I consider all protests taking place on govt property or locations against the govt to be entirely legitimate as long as there is no damage or violence.
Now I will also say that if the police or state initiate violent confrontation then all bets are off and the protesters have every right to defend themselves and their rights. That means if the cops decide to pepper spray people who are not committing violence or damage or blockading a private business they should be open to getting pepper sprayed back as well as facing charges for assault.
I would also add that any protest should be policed by the protesters themselves. That means if someone in the group decides to commit willful damage or violence then the group itself should assist in the arrest of that person(s) either through citizen's arrest or informing law enforcement of the act and the culprit(s).
I do not consider blocking rail lines and major highways a form of peaceful protest and such instances should be dealt with accordingly.
I do not consider a protest where there is willful damage to property peaceful and such instances should find those responsible under arrest and in court.
I do not consider blockading a legitimate business so they cannot conduct their normal business acceptable, but I do believe picketing at that location is fine as long as no customer is prevented entry and is not subject to intimidation.
I consider all protests taking place on govt property or locations against the govt to be entirely legitimate as long as there is no damage or violence.
Now I will also say that if the police or state initiate violent confrontation then all bets are off and the protesters have every right to defend themselves and their rights. That means if the cops decide to pepper spray people who are not committing violence or damage or blockading a private business they should be open to getting pepper sprayed back as well as facing charges for assault.
I would also add that any protest should be policed by the protesters themselves. That means if someone in the group decides to commit willful damage or violence then the group itself should assist in the arrest of that person(s) either through citizen's arrest or informing law enforcement of the act and the culprit(s).
For every incidence reported where it 'seems' as if police get out of hand, whether they do or not is wholly dependent upon the circumstances, there are literally dozens of marches, protests, and other methods of citizens exercising their rights in which law enforcement is entirely helpful. Providing escort, providing security to the protestors, advancing marches forward to their stated destinations. I lived in Ottawa for many, many years and I worked for several of them no more than three blocks from Parliament Hill, so this I've witnessed with my own eyes. That, however, never gets reported on.
What went on in Toronto was a complete debacle as far as I'm concerned, starting with the brilliant idea to hold a meeting that is known for attracting radical protestors in addition to peaceful ones in such a confining, downtown space. Montreal, to the best of my knowledge and experience, is notorious for protests and marches devolving into riots. That says to me that when events or circumstances attract an element that is, in effect, counter-productive to peaceful protest and actually prevents citizens from exercising their rights, that needs to be addressed.
Now should they begin to deny permits for protest, then you have a legitimate gripe for violation of Charter Rights as far as I'm concerned. Requiring that no masks be worn or to inform law enforcement of plans is not a violation, it is completely reasonable.
What went on in Toronto was a complete debacle as far as I'm concerned, starting with the brilliant idea to hold a meeting that is known for attracting radical protestors in addition to peaceful ones in such a confining, downtown space. Montreal, to the best of my knowledge and experience, is notorious for protests and marches devolving into riots. That says to me that when events or circumstances attract an element that is, in effect, counter-productive to peaceful protest and actually prevents citizens from exercising their rights, that needs to be addressed.
Now should they begin to deny permits for protest, then you have a legitimate gripe for violation of Charter Rights as far as I'm concerned. Requiring that no masks be worn or to inform law enforcement of plans is not a violation, it is completely reasonable.
With protest permits are street vending permits available?
They could protest and make themselves useful by selling fruit and Sno-Cones.
They could protest and make themselves useful by selling fruit and Sno-Cones.
Best. . . protest. . . ever.
Gallaudet University in Washington DC is the world's only university exclusively for the deaf. In 1988, when the university president retired, many students and faculty wanted to replace him with a deaf president. The Board, however, declined to even interview deaf candidates, and selected a hearing president without consultation with the students or faculty, and the Board Chair said some remarkably offensive things like "the deaf are not ready to lead in American society." Well, the students shut down the university, and then decided to take their case to Congress (Gallaudet is Federally funded), which was a short walk for them. The DC cops came out in force, and per protocol, demanded that the students disperse and return to the campus. Threats were made. Megaphones were deployed, coz nothing gets a cop's **** quite so hard as yelling through a megaphone.
They were answered with gleeful shouts of "We can't hear you!" Eventually, some of the brighter sparks on the force figured it out, and enlightened their comrades to the shocking revelation. . . deaf people can't hear!
Now, I understand that in our modern, enlightened days this wouldn't have made any difference. The cops would have waded in with clubs, Mace, tasers, and guns, and killed and wounded a bunch. The supine courts would no doubt agree that the cops had followed protocol, and that the fact that shouting at deaf people is singularly stupid and ineffective was not the cops' problem. But this was '88, and things were a mite more human back then. The cops were actually a bit nonplussed at the failure of their protocol, and didn't blame the deaf students for being unable to hear them.
So basically, not knowing what else to do, the cops escorted the students to the Capitol for their protest.
We're a smarter country now. First off, you can't get near the Capitol. And the cops know better than to let things like innocence or disability stop them from enforcing their manhood.
That's an awful lot of rules for how a protest should proceed. How would you propose achieving that in future protests, when so many protests have been highjacked by troublemakers in the past?
It has to be done first by the ones there for the cause......the people who actually want to make a difference. It seems that today's method is to get as many people to the event as possible. That is where the problem starts....that 'come one come all' idea. The people with something to say need to stop inviting 10000 yahoos and inform the cops when those people show up. A smaller, more focused & directed protest is going to do far more good for your cause than a mob scene anyway.
What about their right to associate freely?
To engage in protest?
It really just reads like you want to be the one making the rules, and have the cops enforce them as *you* tell them to. But the city also wants to make the rules, and have the cops enforce them. Whose rights trump whose?
To engage in protest?
It really just reads like you want to be the one making the rules, and have the cops enforce them as *you* tell them to. But the city also wants to make the rules, and have the cops enforce them. Whose rights trump whose?
That suggests that there needs to be some formal organization in place, possibly one that will be capable of assuming full responsibility for events if it devolves into a riot.
Bad marketing.
There are more spectactors and by-standers than rioters.
If you want to sell the rioters somethnig, sell them sour cream to help with the pepper spray and CS.