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.