Saturday, August 25, 2007

The controversy may be temporary, but the stupid will last forever.


The legacy of Montebello:

In today’s editorial in the ever-comical Toronto Star, they call for a probe into Québec police behaviour. They ask stupid questions like “why did one of the officers have a rock in his hand in the first place?” Perhaps the Star’s editors don’t understand that undercover operations require you to blend in with the crowd around you? If some protesters carry rocks, so should some of the officers.

You could try to explain to Dave that it was the protestors who were yelling at the cop to drop the rock, but I'm guessing any attempt at logic with Dave is going to end up pretty much like this:



And I'm being charitable.

20 comments:

thwap said...

I like how these puss-balls think that the police have the goddamned right to spy on all of us, ... as if "undercover" work trying to infiltrate criminal gangs is fit for spying on citizen activists and trying to frame them with starting a riot.

But fine. If there's ever an NDP government that pisses them off, we'll send agents provocateurs among them to spy on them and try to provoke them to violence.

Unknown said...

Citizen activists? Give your fucking head a shake. When groups like OCAP put out pamphlets telling supporters how to equip themselves for a riot, they become more than activists. When you go to express your opinion dressed in shit-stomper boots, with goggles and a bandanna covering your face and a supply of handy projectiles in your pockets, you are looking for a fight. The fact that you dumbfucks had to rely on the make of their boots to reveal them shows just how realistic the police cover appeared on the surface. It's what all the trendy anarchists wear. But you have YouTube, so you already know that, you just can't admit it.

CC said...

A really stupid person writes:

"The fact that you dumbfucks had to rely on the make of their boots to reveal them shows just how realistic the police cover appeared on the surface."

Ah, I see that the fact that numerous people were already screaming, "They're cops!" long before they were taken down has been conveniently forgotten.

How typically, typically fergie.

thwap said...

council of canadians = citizen activists.

I like unions, so unions out protesting for the welfare of ordinary Canadian citizens is also cool.

Don't need spies to entrap them.

You are an enemy of democracy.

The fact that you got this whole story back-asswards is proof that you refuse to learn.

M@ said...

When groups like OCAP put out pamphlets telling supporters how to equip themselves for a riot, they become more than activists.

Was OCAP at this protest? I don't remember reading that anywhere. And how was, for example, Coles "equipped for a riot"? Was that his kevlar-lined, tear-gas-suppressing sport coat?

When you go to express your opinion dressed in shit-stomper boots, with goggles and a bandanna covering your face and a supply of handy projectiles in your pockets, you are looking for a fight.

Yes, yes, you're right. And that's how the agents provocateurs were dressed. And that's why the protesters singled them out and told them to leave -- as well as told them to drop their projectiles.

The fact that you dumbfucks had to rely on the make of their boots to reveal them shows just how realistic the police cover appeared on the surface.

So the fact that the legitimate protesters immediately called them out in the video -- without saying anything I could hear about their boots -- shows how wrong the police were about the nature of the protesters. It also shows how wrong you are in your assessment of this situation. The cops were identified quickly because they were not like the other protesters. I think you and Stockwell Day are the only ones who haven't figured that out -- and I suspect Day has, he's just being dishonest.

Or maybe you'd like to give me a time in the famous YouTube video where a protester other than the three cops were wearing goggles or bandannas, or carrying rocks.

The funny thing, if it weren't for the slam-dunk photos of the boot treads, people like the Surete, Stockwell Day, and you would still be standing around saying "agents provocateurs? Mais jamais! It is to laugh!"

Your little screed doesn't have a single fact in it, FR. Not a single fact.

Ti-Guy said...

Isn't Fergusrush stupid? Deliciously stupid, in fact.

You can't talk sense to these people because...and it bears repeating...they are enemies of democracy. They don't even understand the concept. They'd better pray the rest of us don't start treating them the way they think we should be treated.

Unknown said...

Absolutely right, ti-guy. They believe they are completely and entirely RIGHT, about everything, and therefore there's no need for democracy, because anyone who isn't right is already, by definition, wrong. And how could one possibly allow people who are wrong by definition to have any say in how society is run?

They're not pushing for democracy, but for totalitarianism.

Unknown said...

"Was OCAP at this protest? I don't remember reading that anywhere."

You know, the very moment I hit the button to send my comment, I wondered how long it would take for some comprehensionally-challenged fuckwad to come back with your quote, m@. Apparently you cannot understand the concept of "example". Read this next part slowly: the reason the cops expect to pass themselves off as protestors dressed the way they were is because...wait for it...it's a fucking stereotype. I know, I know, big word there, but you can ask your mommy to tell you what it means.

"Ah, I see that the fact that numerous people were already screaming, "They're cops!" long before they were taken down has been conveniently forgotten."

No, not forgotten, dumbfuck, not at all. But you yourself devoted much of your time on the boots the undercover cops wore. When you wanted to prove they were cops, you did not rely on the video of others calling out "They're cops!", you relied on the boots, because their disguise was authentic-looking. Even you did not take the protestors word for it, you looked for physical proof. Or are you trying to forget you wrote this.

And thwap, you misunderstand me if you think I disagree with activism. But it does not have to result in violence to get its point across; dressing for a riot is looking for trouble.

Unknown said...

Sorry for leaving you out, Tig-boy, but since you never actually contribute except as an ankle-biter, you are easy to forget. Thinking your own thoughts too hard for you?

M@ said...

Ooh, FR brings out the swear words, just like a big, tough grade sixer. I'm just sorry that your argument is so weak that you're reduced to pretending that others' vocabulary is weaker than yours. I'm wondering what's bringing on the bile against me, though; we've been on opposite sides of discussions before, and you and I always seemed to be able to find some common ground without getting nasty. Sorry to see that's not the case here.

Anyhow, to your "point": your example is wrong; the stereotypes are your own. The cops dressed like that apparently thinking they were at a protest where other protesters would dress and act like that. They were wrong. None of the protesters were dressed like them or acted like them.

So are you saying that the cops should act in accordance with the stereotype they perceive, rather than based on the actions of the citizens? Pretty safe to bet you're a white male, isn't it.

Just in case you're still not clear on how stupid you sound, you said:

When groups like OCAP put out pamphlets telling supporters how to equip themselves for a riot, they become more than activists.

I can't dispute that (and have no sympathy for OCAP at all), but OCAP was not present, nor were any "more than activists" activists. Except for cops dressed as fake activists.

When you go to express your opinion dressed in shit-stomper boots, with goggles and a bandanna covering your face and a supply of handy projectiles in your pockets, you are looking for a fight.

I agree again. And again, there were no protesters acting like this at the Montebello, but there were three cops that fit this description.

The fact that you dumbfucks had to rely on the make of their boots to reveal them shows just how realistic the police cover appeared on the surface.

As I argued, and as you ignored, this is not at all true. The police were noticed because they stood out from the protesters. They thought they were going to look like the protesters, for whatever reason, and they didn't. Then they lied and said they weren't in the crowd. But you're ignoring that part of the story too.

But you have YouTube, so you already know that, you just can't admit it.

Again, the YouTube video shows the opposite of what you're stating it shows. You're wrong about how you're characterizing the protesters, and you're wrong about how you're characterizing the police. You're wrong about pretty much everything you've said here.

But don't take it from a comprehensionally-challenged fuckwad. Watch the YouTube video, then read what you said, then see who looked like anarchists and who looked like peaceful citizens.

Then fuck off.

Dr.Dawg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr.Dawg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr.Dawg said...

Even you did not take the protestors word for it, you looked for physical proof.

Is this guy for real?

We looked for proof, all right, while the wingnuts were sitting with their thumbs up their asses claiming we were making the whole thing up. If we hadn't been looking for proof, we'd be "dumbfucks"; if we hadn't found proof, we'd still be "dumbfucks"; and now we both looked for and found proof...

Oh, never mind. His parents will turn off his computer by bedtime, which is hopefully soon. Sheesh. What a maroon.

Unknown said...

"Or maybe you'd like to give me a time in the famous YouTube video where a protester other than the three cops were wearing goggles or bandannas, or carrying rocks."

How about this ? Watch it and tell me if you see any protestors dressed as I describe. Pay close attention to the fellow with the mask, garbage-can-lid shield and homemade baton posing directly before a group of riot-gear clad policemen.

"So are you saying that the cops should act in accordance with the stereotype they perceive, rather than based on the actions of the citizens? Pretty safe to bet you're a white male, isn't it."

When did I say that? Why do you jump to that conclusion? I'm saying that the cops' choice of disguise was based on the stereotypical anarchist get-up. Nothing more. Then I said that coming to a protest dressed that way is a sign you wish to do more than talk.

"I'm wondering what's bringing on the bile against me, though; we've been on opposite sides of discussions before, and you and I always seemed to be able to find some common ground without getting nasty. Sorry to see that's not the case here."

Inexcusable behaviour on my part. I apologize to you, m@. I let emotion get the better of me.

Ti-Guy said...

How about this ? Watch it and tell me if you see any protestors dressed as I describe.

So what? This is a free country and as far as I know, looking like an imbecile isn't a crime (...otherwise, Cheryl Gallant, with her criminal dress sense, would be doing hard time).

This isn't about perceptions here, Fergus...it's about common decency. And having the police (who, if the citizenry doesn't trust, means nothing at all) working as agents provocateurs is indecent. Why don't you join the rest of us in supporting an inquiry? If nothing comes of it, so be it. Democracy means that you, me and all other Canadians are in charge, not the agents of the State.

We're all in this together.

Unknown said...

I believe it is speculation to assert that the cops were there to incite violence. I believe their presence was meant for surveillance.
Having said that, I also agree that it is suspicious that the SQ lied about the mere presence of the officers, so an inquiry is justified into the purpose of the operation. To be clear, I am not saying it is beyond belief that nefarious intentions existed, only that there is no proof yet, hence the need for an investigation. The police are like any large organization: they thrive on paperwork. Perhaps an inquiry will uncover the real truth.

Dr.Dawg said...

I don't see what a video taken in another part of the forest at a different time has anything to do with the story under review.

We have already heard that the "anarchists" were in the Green Zone, where older people were engaged in a decorous protest. One of these cops was asked to put down the rock--he refused. Dave Coles, who demanded it, was pushed around and sworn at and given the finger.(And no mention was made at the SQ presser about the beer bottle in the pocket of a second cop.)

No one is arguing that there shouldn't be undercovers mingling in the crowd during a protest. I was on one once, many years ago, where they probably kept us from being harmed. But what we saw here was well over the line. As one consultant to police forces (including the SQ) siad a couple of days ago, even carrying that rock could be construed as a provocation.

Unknown said...

"No one is arguing that there shouldn't be undercovers mingling in the crowd during a protest."

"I like how these puss-balls think that the police have the goddamned right to spy on all of us, ... as if "undercover" work trying to infiltrate criminal gangs is fit for spying on citizen activists and trying to frame them with starting a riot."

It would appear, dr. dawg, that thwap disagrees with you.


"But what we saw here was well over the line."

And an inquiry will able to decide that. Won't it?

"I don't see what a video taken in another part of the forest at a different time has anything to do with the story under review."

Other than bolstering my point about the undercovers' choice of get-up, nothing. That is why I chose it.

Unknown said...

have you ever asked yourself Fergus, why do people go to protests with masks on? could it be because the cops photograph crowd and try to identify dissidents and start files on people who turn up in those photos? Could it be because they don't have ready access to gas masks? could it be because the police in Canada (though to a lesser extent than other places) have a history of attacking demonstrators with pepper spray, tear gas and batons, whether they are throwing rocks or not?
Yes, there are violent protestors who come to demonstrations hoping for a confrontation with the police, but demonstration organizers generally try to sideline such people and keep protests peaceful. Since this is a democracy and the organizers cannot absolutely control who attends a protest, attempts to sideline the radicals doesn't always work and sometimes violence breaks out, often due to the actions of counter protestors (who are almost invariably looking for trouble) or a few overzealous cops who decide to "teach some hippie a lesson"

After this recent fiasco, one wonders how many of those trouble causing radicals are actually police agent provocateurs.

Unknown said...

Good points, rev, to be sure but I can't help looking at it from the other side as well: the police are charged with the duty to uphold the law and to preserve order, meaning protecting people and property. They must show up with the wherewithal to respond to any reasonably foreseeable occurrence. The protestors, however, do not have to arrive geared up for a scrap (and I know that most do not). It is a vicious circle now: cops come ready to gas protestors because they riot, while protestors come ready for gassing because the cops inevitably do so. It is predictable and tiresome.

I am a member of the largest union in the country and have some experience with the whole marching/picketing/protesting thing. I can sympathize with the organizers who wish to protest without violence: it's an uphill climb. There are always hotheads who are spoiling for a fight. It is your, and my, democratic right to assemble and protest if we desire to do so. But if we choose to do so in the company of hotheads, and if we stay in their company when they succeed in picking the fight that some of them so badly want, we have only ourselves to blame if being gassed by the police, or worse, is the result. Attend the rally, chant your slogans, and then go home before the hoodlums manage to start a brawl; best of both worlds, got to have your say and didn't spend any time being chased by cops.

I have never attended any protest/picket/march in anything but weather-appropriate clothing for the reasons above: I plan to do nothing illegal, so I have no desire nor need to cover my face, and I leave if the "bother boys" start to act up.

Who needs to be arrested? Christ, I've got bills to pay, so I've got to go to work the next day.