So I alluded to a certain distrust of police in my previous post and in yet another police-bashing blog post, I’d like to explain why I’m not giving police the benefit of the doubt when questioning who was responsible for inciting and escalating violence recently in the streets of Toronto or any other time really. I should also start out by saying that I don’t actually have Any hatred for individuals employed as police officers. These are people who volunteer at food banks, help build youth centres, encourage people to give blood, often offer helping hands to their neighbors and generally act as integral and honest people. It’s odd to me therefore that these people I would otherwise get along fine with and even greatly admire seem to turn into rank evil cowards in uniform. This is my perception anyhow. Others see police as great heros who risk their lives everyday for the benefit of others but I just don’t.

The problem with this is not limited to instances as pictured above. If it were, it would be easy to rationally dismiss my own negative feelings toward police because it’s nonsensical to paint everyone with such a broad brush of condemnation. In any case, the actions of one do not dictate the character of the rest. So if I claim to understand that individual instances of ill judgment in the execution of one’s duty don’t indicate the overall character of police, why do I have such a jaded view of the blue brotherhood?

The above is a picture of police arresting police and later proving that none of them had much in the way of theatrical skill set. The story behind it is shocking, comical and stupid enough to make one wonder if police brass value freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. In this case, the police brass with Surite du Quebec specifically.

In Montebello, there was an SPP summit in 2007 and predictably, protestors descended upon it. Police were deployed to quell any potential violence and so the stage was set for a stand off between police and protestors. The three people getting “arrested” above were dressed as anarchists and had been milling about in the crowd before approaching a group, coordinated by union leader Dave Coles. Coles’ line of union members was in immediate proximity to a police line and had not acted violent in any way. While many clusters of people in a general demonstration are unorganized, this was a group of union members with clear leadership. This group had a strong case to be made for being able to quell any violent acts among the people present as this wasn’t the aim of the leadership present at the time. So what happened to lead to the three “arrests” pictured above?

The three police dressed as anarchists found incredible resistance from the union members they were mingling with. They were being yelled at to drop rocks and uncover their faces. All in all, they were being fervently condemned by protestors. Things didn’t get any better when one of them shoved Dave Coles in what I can only interpret as an attempt to get him to strike back. In short, an attempt to incite violence. While there may be an argument to be made that one of the police officers dressed as an anarchist was shoving David Coles in response to him trying to keep the guy away from police (Coles and his membership desperately wanted to keep violent acting people away from police for fear of them causing a confrontation between police and protestors) It doesn’t matter anyway because of what one of these officers in anarchist attire did moments later. In video taken of the event, one of them is seen not only gently striking a riot cop in the face mask but also gently striking a riot officer’s body shield as well with a rock. The only explanation for this is that the disguised officer was attempting to provide a pretext for the riot officers to respond. This is an incredibly brazen act and one that so intensely disgusts me, that this alone would have me question my faith in police but there’s much more that has helped me along the way and I’ll get to more of it here in a bit.

These were incredible acts of provocateurs but one may wonder how we know these three men dressed as anarchists and inciting violence were in fact police. Well, the picture above helps and the admission by top brass that they were police, three days later, helps too. What tipped people off initially though is that oddly enough, the “anarchists” had all chosen not only to buy matching boots among each other, but that the boots matched those of the Surite du Quebec riot officers as well. It also didn’t help observing how the arrests took place. The three cops spoke to one officer in the police line before they were let through the line to be subjected to one of the most gentle and unimposing arrests I’ve ever seen on film or up close. It was incredible how quickly the video of this event spread and of course, police brass came under an incredible amount of public pressure to explain why police had acted this way. Three days later, as mentioned above, police brass grudgingly admitted that the three were police.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

Just the day before, they had flatly denied it, so guess what; people like me can’t ever trust them again because they lied. They even suggested that since these boots are available publicly, the anarchists could very well have bought them. As if it isn’t enough to deny the claims, they even went so far as to try and argue the evidence when they knew the accusations of these people being police were absolutely true. Does it seem unreasonable that they lose all credibility with people like myself?

Of course they insisted that the officers had not incited violence and that they were simply performing their duties. They also made the laughable claim that they were just trying to blend in with the crowd, none of whom were masked or dressed as black bloc anarchists and all of whom were yelling “Drop the rock!” at the three officers. Coles has pushed a complaint of multiple counts of misconduct which has gone before a police ethics committee which overrode a commissioner’s finding that the complaint was without merit. Yeah, that would be the Surite du Quebec commissioner, not that I’m surprised.

But as I said, even this alone isn’t enough to bring me to the incredibly jaded viewpoint I maintain now…though before moving on, I should mention that compounding this issue in Quebec, is that the reaction from police hasn’t been a reflection on why sending provocateurs into a crowd is a violation of our charter rights; rather that next time perhaps they should include women and employ other tactics that may make them less visible. This would be fine if it was accompanied by an attitude indicating that they understood that provocateurs shouldn’t be employed and that surveillance should not include acts to incite violence but nope, it’s simply a “how do we keep from getting caught next time” kind of approach.

But yeah, moving on.

The track I’m on, you knew the battle in Seattle was coming up here right? The popularized image above is a strong demonstration of what I think went wrong in 1999 at the World Trade Organization summit. I have said previously and even recently that police were in the crowd as provocateurs but thats actually unproven. This remains uncertain to this day. What is certain is that the Seattle police, led at the time by chief Norm Stamper, lost control of Seattle resulting in the city becoming a battle ground.

I won’t go on at length about Seattle except to point out a few things that make me lose faith in police. Firstly, “the battle in Seattle” was an inadequate fashion of describing the Seattle situation. It was a police riot, not a battle between two sides. After all was said and done, it was estimated that among perhaps as many as 50,000 protestors, the violent police response to protests in Seattle were largely justified by harping on anarchists which numbered no more than about 400. But that’s just a very high level overview issue. What’s worse is that the ACLU found numerous instances where police in riot gear with no visible identification seemed to feel more comfortable in violating civil liberties. Some also targeted cameras to ensure anonymity and many refused to provide a name or badge number upon request. If you’re unaware, they are compelled by law to provide such.

Anyhow, without going on at length about police violence and detailing how police had incited violence in 1999 Seattle before any faux anarchists had damaged property, I refer you to the link below. This is an overview of studies that sought answers to questions raised in the aftermath of Seattle, 1999.

http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Events/Conference%202004/papers/JoeYoung.pdf

There’s more of course. Beyond Montebello, QC, police provocateurs in Greece most recently (yeah, same thing as in Quebec basically) and police incompetence in Seattle, I’ve had some very negative dealings with police on my own. I’ve been threatened with arrest for video taping an officer in a crowded public street. I’ve been threatened with arrest for obstruction of justice when I questioned an officer’s illegal search of a bag belonging to a youth in Saskatoon. I have seen police pull over a hot rod in Toronto at about five in the morning only to laugh and chuckle with the driver before taking the vehicle for a quick spin down a side street, clearly exceeding the speed limit big time. I’ve seen police pull up in front of a condo building, help young scantily clad women out and then use their public address system to beckon the girls’ friends down from their condo. I’ve seen police lie on the stand. I’ve seen police use excessive force and slam a fellow I knew a while back against the hood of a cruiser…while cuffed. See, what he did wrong was ask why he was under arrest. Even though the law days different, I guess in that instance, he wasn’t to be notified of the charges against him. I’ve been flipped off by undercover police because they don’t like being pointed out in a crowd. I can’t help it if they stick our like a soar thumb. I’ve been told by police that I should never protest in public again unless I wanted trouble. The Saskatoon city police smeared the reputation of the now deceased Saskatoon dad because he had a law suit in progress against them.

With all of this in mind, and more as well, it seems quite reasonable to me to consider that it is possible that police incited a lot of the violence that recently occurred in Toronto. Driving police cars for instance into the middle of the street and then abandoning them seems to be a great way of encouraging a minority element within a general protest action to destroy property. Some accounts detail how riot police were present to escort the cars to the street and then to escort the drivers away before protestors descended upon them with riot officers looking on a short distance away.

And oh yes, there’s more than that but let me go back to where I started on this post. These are not people I expect to do bad things. I think the recruiting process for police is generally so selective, that 99.9% of the time, it does indeed find integral people of honour to become police officers. It’s something about policing though that sees these people do things that frankly turn my stomach. As I said recently on John Murney’s blog, the all too common justification for police action is “we don’t make the law, we just enforce the law” and to be frank, that sounds more like an excuse rather than the clarion call of a civic hero to me.

I know most people haven’t lost faith in their police and perhaps the only reason I have is because I’ve been exposed to a disproportionate number of instances of what I perceive to be police misconduct. Seeing an officer lie on the stand years ago was an incredible wake up call, let me tell you.

I honestly do wish very often that I could have faith in police but I just can’t. There’s no way that police organizations can retain their integrity in my eyes, it’s just not possible unfortunately.

I should also mention that I think anti-globalization protestors are pretty flakey and as I watch these protests, I can’t help but wonder how some of these people come up with the world view they have. In short, none of this is written in favour of regressive protestors, rather this is a condemnation of police incompetence both in situations of a massive scale (such as in Toronto recently) and of a smaller scale such as the times I have been threatened with arrest myself as examples. So take it as it’s presented here for your consideration. If you haven’t yet lost faith in police, I’m tempted to contend that you simply haven’t been watching very closely.

I’m continuously appalled by governments and how they approach their citizens in respect to showing that they care about those things we are told so often, we’re so damned lucky to have. You know, those things we call rights, liberties and sometimes freedoms?

Now, I’m not one for lefty, independent media but I’m glad it exists because even though these fools advocate for a powerful and overbearing government, they usually do a good job at effectively utilizing their ideological bias in holding the authoritative state to account. Case in point, this video below from a group called Press For Truth based in Toronto.

I’m really not a fan of this guy’s world view but from where I sit, it’s an incredible demonstration as to why I have trouble thinking of police in a positive light. When police encounter cameras, the reaction is almost always the same. It’s either “please don’t film me” or “stop filming me now or I’ll take your camera!” of course police have the right to ask that some one stop filming them but so long as they’re in a public space, if the person behind the camera keeps rolling, they gotta deal with it. It’s like this in almost any instance these cases go to court and yet police either remain uninformed, wilfully ignorant or decide that a slap on the wrist in the courtroom is worth violating some one’s right to film.

Even though she never follows through, officer Cochrane in this video seems to assert at1:51 that she can just take a guy’s camera until she’s done talking to him and at 1:42, she assaults the guy by moving his camera. If you think that’s overblown, let’s have a chat about being charged with resisting arrest when you voluntarily go limp under the knee of an arresting officer. She forcibly moves the camera again at 2:33 and at 3:12, again makes an impotent threat to turn the camera off.

It’s clear that either these police don’t know the most basic rights of the cameraman or are willing to at least threaten to violate those rights. Either way, there’s no honour in it. Does this piss me off? Yes, yes it really does but this is just the light stuff.

This guy was walking about with a camera to document what he saw as abuses of power either on the part of police directly or on the part of government through their agents on the ground. He was present at the arrest of some one who refused to show ID. This is exceptionally upsetting because it says something terrible of police and government. It says that a government can pass a controversial law by order in council when the legislative body is in session thereby bypassing any debate in the house. It also says to me that thousands of police can be bought to an area, told that temporarily, a constitutional right has been suspended in a certain area and that seemingly without exception, none of them bat a gad danger eye! I’m sorry, these are smart people deserving of a firearm why? This shouldn’t have me seeing red why?

But wait there’s more!

The cameraman walks about some more and is right at cherry beach when he’s asked to produce ID again. The claim that he’s more than three kilometres outside of the “security zone” is truthful. I know because I’ve actually stood in the same spot he was filming. It’s waaaay outside of the security zone. While you can be asked for ID under the sketchy law mentioned above up to five meters outside of the zone (I still have major problems with that of course) the temporary law absolutely didn’t extend three and a half kilometres outside of the zone. The harassment where the cameraman Is followed and then asked for ID again by the same police who had him present ID a block away doesn’t really engender that feeling of admiration and respect so many police seem to think they deserve either.

You know, I understand that people don’t like being filmed. I mean shucks, I had a little bit of a problem with it as an entry level worker in some businesses. Of course, I actually understood the right of the employer to film their own property and the people on it. I also understand the right of others to film me if I’m in public. You know all those news reels with chunky people’s heads cropped out? News organizations could make a really good argument for keepin’ those puffy cheeks of yours in full view so…just saying. But without straying too far, let’s just point out that if I understand these rights as afforded to me as a Canadian citizen, shouldn’t my publicly provided protectors know how those rights work too? I kinda figure they should and why should I respect them if they don’t?

So yeah. I’m kinda pissed. I suppose I could focus on the idiots who destroyed private property during protests in Toronto and why I’m suspicious of police even in that regard but blogging on an iPad takes a little getting used to and overall, I think this is a slightly more important topic. Maybe the rest can be blogged about tomorrow.

I blogged some time ago about a law in Alabama that, according to some interpretations, afforded police the extraordinary power to ask American citizens for ID and proof of citizenship justified in the flimsiest of fashions. While that interpretation was potentially incorrect, (I don’t believe it is) a new and secret law was passed in Ontario by the McGuinty Liberal government that is even worse. How was it so secret? Well, it was passed by an order in council rather than in the legislature. This is usually done when the house in the legislature is not in session but it actually was in session. And so, the story of this law begins on very unsure footing for one is compelled to ask why they felt the law should be passed so secretively if it was at all justified.

So what’s the deal?  The deal is that the new law turns a portion of down town Toronto into some kind of protective zone under another law from the 30′s meant for places like a power sub station.  If you come within five feet of this zone, you can be compelled under this new law (effective for about a week) to show your identification to police.  The tricky part of that is that an office building is not a protected public works of some sort and this tricky method of skirting the boundaries of our constitution is just flatly unconscionable.

This law is absolutely unconstitutional but it also exposes such an incredible weakness in our justice system relative to its non-viability as a law.  The government can maintain very little worry that this law will be challenged before it is expired.  There’s almost zero chance that it will be heard in court until long after the law has been utilized and done away with.  The fact that it even takes an arrest for opposition law makers to hear about to attests to how shady the blasted thing is in the first place and so it should be struck immediately but that’s not going to happen.

So to sum up.  The law compels people to show identification to police upon request.  Flatly unconstitutional.  The law was passed by order in council while the legislature was actually in session.  No one (including opposition Members of Provincial Parliament) really knew about the law until some one was arrested under it, prompting the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to challenge it though who knows when a challenge will be heard.

Again, I actually wonder about police that “follow orders” in enforcing these laws.  It’s most certainly a negative character trait in my eyes…though not nearly as negative a development as what goes through the heads of political leaders it would seem.

An “array of weapons” was found amidst my intensive cloud of chuckling, according to this news story from the Globe and Mail.  This just a short while after a woman was arrested for carrying burglary tools (look near to the end of the article) that later turned out to be her office keys.  This is really quite aggravating because it would be awfully nice if police were competent and politicians didn’t spend money on absolutely asinine idiocy embodied in public policy and actions.  If this were the case, I could have perhaps a little bit of confidence in the people that I currently have pretty much zero respect for.

After the cops got all freaked out by a chick’s office keys, it seems they have decided that announcing an “arsenal of weapons” being found carried by a vehicle with a string holding one of its bumpers on would seem more credible.  As if this is some incredible success, police have been speaking about how a Hazmat team is inspecting a pop bottle found amongst other items such as a cross bow, chainsaw, baseball bat, sledge hammer, pick axe and gasoline container.  Yes, carried atop his car (a 2006 Hyundai GTL) in a makeshift travel container fashioned from sheet metal, he had weaponry that may have put Braveheart to shame…but probably not.

At this rate, I’m actually quite surprised that they didn’t include the gas in his gas tank as hazardous materials…but maybe they’re just getting to that?

So look; if you’re going to go to Toronto any time soon, just remember not to be a weaponized homeless man (HIS SHOPPING CART HAS A SHARP EDGE!) or stray 53 year old disoriented guy in a crappy 2006 Hyundai junk heap with tools being carried in it.  Oh…and don`t carry your office keys either because shucks, you may well be suspected of attempting to burgle the place you have keys for.

Honestly, is none of this cause for clinical studies of arresting officers?  This has to be genetic or something…right?

It seems that while Canada spends over $1 Billion on security for the coming G8/G20 summit, it’s determined by CSIS as having little to worry about in respect to terrorist attacks or other major instances of violence.

These summits are kind of a quirky deal anyhow.  I understand the value of meeting world leaders face to face and the flexibility in negotiation and discussion that type of meeting affords, but I’m led to wonder why none of these high profile meetings are done via telecommunication.  Here and there you may get an instance of satellite conferences but from the outsider’s perspective, it seems like this is the exception rather than the rule.

An inability to provide a virtual platform for global meetings of significance is horribly disappointing in this day and age.  The president of the United States maintains one of the world’s most advanced communication platforms on a flippin’ jet and yet, it seems that in order to have a two day meeting with every one, leaders can not even just once, stay at home to do it.  It seems to me that perhaps the only thing politicians seem to get done when they meet with each other is a gigantic waste of money each and every time.  But then, that could be the overpowering cynicism talking…wonder why it would be so prevalent.