Topic: G8/G20 June 2010 Protest Watch

[zipperhead_cop [4]]

If he is charged and it sticks (can be something minor for all I care) he will realize in a year or two that jobs are harder to find and hold.  And when those parents he blamed (for sake of argument) his actions on go to florida for vacation, he will be stuck stateside walking the dog.   

And what in God's sweet blue creation would make you think that this bipedal turd would have ANY ambition to get a job?  Having a "job" is selling out to The Man.  And I bring you back to what country we are talking about.  There is no reason to have a job in Canada.  Work is for suckers.  Just ask any fifth generation welfare recipient. 
Chances are, a lack of parental interest in said clowns life is what got him to where he is.  I'm betting family vacations are not the norm.

It would be kinda awesome to have your rose coloured glasses, if even for an afternoon though. 

[Danjanou]

And what in God's sweet blue creation would make you think that this bipedal turd would have ANY ambition to get a job?  Having a "job" is selling out to The Man.  And I bring you back to what country we are talking about.  There is no reason to have a job in Canada.  Work is for suckers.  Just ask any fifth generation welfare recipient. 
Chances are, a lack of parental interest in said clowns life is what got him to where he is.  I'm betting family vacations are not the norm.

It would be kinda awesome to have your rose coloured glasses, if even for an afternoon though.

Can I borrow  them after you're finished with them, it's turning into one of THOSE types of days. 

[Tango18A]

Do those glasses come with a box of rubber bullets??

[zipperhead_cop [4]]

Do those glasses come with a box of rubber bullets??

I think the ones you are talking about are called "vermillion" and yes, they frequently DO come with bullets.  5.56 ball.   

[57Chevy]

Police deny G20 protesters out on bail being muzzled muzzled
TORONTO — Two G20 protesters out on bail were warned by police this week that they face re-arrest because they were close to violating the conditions of their release, but their friends claim the tactic is an attempt by police to muzzle freedom of speech.

Ontario Provincial Police said Thursday they have been monitoring Leah Henderson, 25, and Alex Hundert, 30, since their release on bail on July 19.

OPP Insp. Dave Ross wouldn't specify which bail conditions may have been violated, as the case is still before the courts. He denied it was related to comments the two had made to the media.

"We became aware of a number of public statements both individuals had been making," said Ross, who works out of OPP headquarters in Orillia, Ont. "We had a consultation with the Crown attorney and deemed that some of the statements may be in violation of their bail conditions. We contacted the individuals and warned them of this," he added.

"Certainly, we recognize freedom of speech and lawful assembly as charter rights. That's not the issue here. The issue is that these two may be in violation of their bail conditions," he said.

"Speaking to the media, speaking in public is not an offence."

As part of their bail conditions, the two agreed not to assist in planning, participating or attending any public demonstrations and not to make any postings on the Internet.

Ross said officers wanted to give the protesters "fair warning" that they may be arrested again.

article continues...

           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

[pbi]

In expressing fidelity to the "rule of law" what is really being affirmed is fidelity to the state and to the bosses. Any union that expresses fidelity to the rule of law is not worthy of the name ....

(Sorry I'm joining in a bit late).

Now, here's a frightening quote that goes directly to the heart of how so many Lefties seem to view the world.  They don't need the law imposed by "The Man". Of course, a brief review of legal history would quickly point out the various legal decisions  by "The Man's"| courts that have enshrined unions, collective bargaining, the right to strike, etc. When was the last time you saw dogs and firehoses used to break up a UAW strike? And, strangely, I'm sure these same activist types demand that the Govt take legal action to stop this or that evil , or protect this or that pet cause. Suppose, for a moment, that corporations were not "bound by law" in their dealings with unions? What then?

This revealing statement reminds me of an interview I recently heard with one of the G20 activists. When asked by the host if the trashing of small businesses, burning of police vehicles and terrifying of store employees were not actually acts of violence, her reply was that they were not. She then proceeded to reel off a classic Left-wing rant that would have stood up well back in the 'Sixties.
"Violence" was what the police were doing. "Violence" was what the corporations and the Govt were doing. The actions of the rioters were a just and rightful reaction by the oppressed BLABLABLA (you get  the idea). But they were not violence.

So....If I decide I don't like her point of view, or her activism, and I go and trash her workplace, frighten her and her co-workers, then attack the police when they show up (because, actually, the 911 system doesn't have a Left-wing voice-pattern discriminator built into it...), then all that wouldn't be violence, because I'm just exercising my right to express my point of view.

Have I got that right? Because the next step in this logic train is the justification of terrorism.

Cheers

[Tango18A]

Pretty much true for them. They want to live in a world where their own actions don't deserve justification, yet if their "rights" are infringed on, look out for the Media **** storm to follow. Maybe they should move to Albania or some other country where you just disappear for giving the Govt/ Police forces a hard time. Seems to me that they have life very easy here in Canada.

[pbi]

Maybe they should move to Albania or some other country where you just disappear for giving the Govt/ Police forces a hard time. Seems to me that they have life very easy here in Canada.

Yes, and history shows us quite clearly what a "workers' paradise" these sort create when they actually do get control of a country. Not much toleration of dissenting opinion, and people like themselves swiftly rounded up and disappeared, instead of getting their faces all over the media.

Cheers

[Tango18A]

Then maybe they should be more mindful of what message they are giving the general public that doesn't approve of their actions. I know if I burned a police car I would fully expect to spend time in the can for it.

[E.R. Campbell [5]]

The problem is that most serious people on the socio-economic and political 'left' are convinced, against all the evidence, that a socialist "workers' paradise" can be implemented, can be made to work if only intelligent, "right thinking" people, like themselves, are in charge. Most Bloqistes and Dippers are, in fact, decent, honest, well intentioned, albeit terribly naive, people who want what they are certain is best for us all. (In that they are fundamentally different from the 'left' wing of the Liberal Party which wants, above all, power for the Party and which hopes that some desirable socio-economic 'benefits' will trickle down to the masses.)

At a wild guesstimate, about one third of the public service falls into each of the categories of:

1. "serious people on the socio-economic and political 'left';" or

2. members of "the 'left' wing of the Liberal Party."

That means they are, fundamentally, opposed to the policies of the currently elected government. By the way, an equally wild quesstimate tells me that the media is more than half "serious people on the socio-economic and political 'left'." In other words, the media's bias is not pro-Liberal (if it is anything it is pro-NDP), it is, in the main just anti-Conservative because most (many? just some?) journalists really do try to hide their own, individual socio-economic preferences; they would never try to tell you to vote for the NDP but they cannot help suggesting that the Tories (and US Republicans) are evil incarnate.

[Kirkhill]

Which is to say that those "serious people on the socio-economic and political 'left';" have all the faith and religious fervour of a Dominican, Jesuit or Presbyterian Domine that, paraphrasing William Blake, they can build a new Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land.

So sayeth Saint Tommy of Falkirk and Regina.

[E.R. Campbell [5]]

While I may, do, actually, disagree with pretty much every one of Dr. Amir Khadir principles and most of his positions, I admire and support his contention that “dissidence must not be criminalized.” I need to be clear: dissidence, per se, must not be criminalized but acts that may arise from legitimate dissent can be, often are criminal and, as Dr. Khadir suggests, they may have consequences. I support Dr. Khadir’s right to oppose ideas that I find self-evidently correct and to support people I regard as, at best, “useful idiots,” but I neither support nor condone many, indeed most of the acts that the people Dr. Khadir supports undertake to give “voice” to their dissent.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an article about Amir Khadir:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-popular-anti-populism-of-a-radical-moderate/article1661098/

The popular anti-populism of a radical moderate
Fringe Quebec MNA Amir Khadir, who once threw a shoe at photo of George W. Bush, insists that dissent must not be criminalized

Les Perreaux

Montreal — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Every few months, it seems, Amir Khadir gets into trouble. At least by the standards applied to conventional politicians.

In December, 2008 – the very month he won a surprise victory to become the member of the National Assembly for Montreal’s Mercier riding – he threw a shoe at a photograph of George W. Bush to protest war. He’s donated money to a fringe sovereigntist group, and most recently he posted $5,000 in bail in Toronto for activist-provocateur Jaggi Singh, who was jailed at G20 protests.

Each act has provoked plenty of critics who say he doesn’t take his responsibilities as an elected representative with sufficient gravitas. Yet Mr. Khadir, a member of the fringe Québec solidaire party, is one of Quebec’s most popular politicians and has become a go-to MNA for cogent criticism of Jean Charest’s Liberal government.

Born in Iran in 1961, Mr. Khadir migrated to Canada with his family 10 years later. The entire family protested the regimes of the Shah and then Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Khadir became a fixture in Quebec’s left-wing activist clique while becoming a physician, leading some to call him a champagne socialist. (It’s a label that could apply to much of the gentrified Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood of Montreal, where he lives.)

Staunchly pro-Palestinian and anti-capitalist, Mr. Khadir runs counter to Quebec consensus on a few fronts. He has stood against asbestos mining and the seal hunt, and has called for an end to mining subsidies in the regions – all issues rarely questioned within the province.

How does a radical agitator like you end up being the most popular member of the most establishment of Quebec institutions? One pundit even pronounced you “rookie legislator of the year.”

Well, it was actually quite easy. There is a very cynical political culture that has been entrenched for a long time, and it’s most pure incarnation can be found in the Harper government. It’s a culture that incorporates and demands low blows, lies as modus operandi and offers mealy-mouthed evasion when one wants to avoid the lie. Just by avoiding that trap, by giving myself the freedom to speak, which most people don’t have, by acting out of a little good faith and sincerity, I look like something unusual. It seems to me it should be the norm.

But when Montreal Gazette calls you one of “24 Quebeckers we love,” don’t you risk losing your cred among your activist pals?

One of my friends told me: “Amir. Beware. If the establishment and mainstream media start singing your praises, you’d better take a good look in the mirror.” He was joking, but it’s true I don’t talk like the hard-line leftists who are always complaining and assuming our adversaries are full of bad intentions. I recognize there are a lot of people in the political machinery who wish things worked differently. There are a few people in politics, who I won’t name, who operate in bad faith, and they know it. But I understand someone like Jean Charest has to consider a complicated equation of loyalties and allegiances before he can act. On calling an inquiry into corruption, for example. There’s another solution, of course. If it was me, I’d resign. But it’s not always simple. You can have radical goals and be moderate in your tactics.

Not everyone considers throwing a shoe at an effigy of George W. Bush or bailing Jaggi Singh out of jail to be the moves of a moderate.

Dissidence must not be criminalized. People who call the entire system into question also deserve protection from the heavy hand of authority, even if I disagree with their tactics or some of their aims. Listen, I’ve never been an anarchist. But 25 years ago, we were encouraging such dissidence against the Soviet Union. My entire family has always fought for democracy in Iran the same way. We shouldn’t be hypocrites. You notice Jaggi Singh almost always wins in court? That’s because the rule of law in a democracy finally prevails after political powers and the police illegally crack down on people like him.

Do you miss medicine?

Actually, I still practise in a clinic half a day every two weeks, and for a few weeks in the summer. I keep my hand in it because I’m afraid that if I lose it, I’ll be too vulnerable to compromise. We’re human, a person has to make a living. I’m married, I have three children, I have commitments. If I become too dependent on politics, I’ll have much less freedom.

Have you drawn any new lines in the way you act since becoming a politician?

When I used to take road trips and I needed to take a leak, I would stop and piss in a farmer’s field. I can’t do that any more. If the police arrest me for peeing in public, well … you do lose a certain liberty. I don’t run red lights on my bicycle any more. At least, not very often. I know people are watching me. I’m also a better driver. Somebody wrote me a letter for telling me I was obstructing him on the freeway for driving too slow! He said, “Now we see the true nature of the politician.” I couldn’t get over it. Politically, I’m determined to stay true to what I believe. I’ll listen to my [teenage] daughters when they think a certain protest might turn out badly. But it doesn’t happen very often.

This interview was edited and condensed.

It seems to me that one of the (several) reasons that military service is a “high calling” is that we many of you defend, at risk of your very lives, Dr. Khadir’s right to hold and to express views that you may find abhorrent. You do not need to support or protect the actions, which are, often, destructive and downright illegal, of many “protestors” but you must protect and defend, with “unlimited liability,” their fundamental rights, one of which is to hold legitimate political views which are contrary to yours.

[pbi]

You notice Jaggi Singh almost always wins in court? That's because the rule of law in a democracy finally prevails after political powers and the police illegally crack down on people like him.

ER: I agree with your position that we "...must protect and defend, with “unlimited liability,” their fundamental rights, one of which is to hold legitimate political views which are contrary to yours..", and I would go beyond that to say that it isn't just the job of the CF: it's a basic premise of a truly civil society. Far too often (including, sadly, on a few occasions on these pages) when we say "free speech" what we really mean is "free speech for those who agree with me". Far better to let people speak, than to muzzle them

However, I'm not an advocate of unrestrained expression. I subscribe to the belief that is expressed in the quote above: that the rule of law will (must) triumph over abuse. Now, I'm sure the writer and I would not agree on what "unrestrained expression" might mean. To me, it means that I draw the limit at violent acts, or at words that a reasonable person would clearly understand are intended to cause violence in society.

So, I would agree completely with nonviolent demonstrations, even if they block traffic or cause temporary inconvenience. I might not like it, but I want to be sure that if I  (or my kids or friends) ever felt strongly enough to take part in a demonstration like that, we could do so safely. What I would not agree with would be vandalism, assault, intimidation or speeches that were very clearly intended to exhort people to that sort of behaviour. At that point I would expect the police to intervene, in a measured and disciplined manner, to preempt violence or restore order.

In order to preserve a civil and democratic society through rule of law (as opposed to mob rule), I am definitely not a believer that our court system should be any more responsive to politicians or popular opinion than it already is. Politicians make and pass laws: in my view that is quite enough, thanks. In my opinion, people who urge that (for example) judges should not be able to interpret written law, or that judges should not be able to amend law through precedent, etc and instead want tighter political control of judges (sometimes called "accountability) are making the huge mistake of assuming  that the politicians in charge will always be the ones they like. Far better, in my opinion, to let the legal system function as freely as possible, so that the transient government of the day can't meddle to serve its agenda or its particular constituency. I want the judge trying my case to make his decision on good legal principles and the evidence, not on whatever public opinion of the moment demands.

Cheers

[mariomike [1]]

$45 million lawsuit:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/89912--office-worker-becomes-face-of-massive-g20-lawsuit

http://g20classaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Issued-Notice-of-Action.pdf

[armychick2009]

$45 million lawsuit:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/89912--office-worker-becomes-face-of-massive-g20-lawsuit

http://g20classaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Issued-Notice-of-Action.pdf

I guess she wasn't happy being stuck in her house for a few days?