Who really gives a crap how many cops were planted within the demonstraters.They did the job and did it well.Lets give a round of applause to the surete .Next time there is a demonstration,the demonstraters wont know who the good guys are or the bad guys,because now the cops know that they should have changed their boots,LOL…
I'll keep Bert in mind for the next time someone publicly wonders why I can't be more civil.
BONUS DUMBFUCKITUDE: Blogging Tory "Backseat Blogger" dons his brownshirt and parades smartly around his parents' basement:
... On balance I’m going to come down on the side of the police in this one.
Their actions were justified to maintain public order and security while the behaviour and language of Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union was insulting at best and provocative and rabble rousing at worst.
Damn straight. Demanding that a burly, masked troublemaker put down the rock he was holding. Why ... the nerve!
Why they didn't just pull out a Taser and put 50,000 volts into Coles is still a mystery.
What a bunch of pathetic wankers.
Hey, if you want a real laugh go read the comments on Janke's thread about the War Child video and look at the one from the Free Dominion bozo who had hoped the camp in the video had been real.
These people are just unbelievable.
Well, there it is: Coles raised his voice, insulted someone, and used curse words.
We can have a police state in BT-Land, but we can't have any of that. Good thing none of the provocateurs were female...
I despise these people. Thank God they never leave their mothers' basements.
What an idiot Backseat is; I think he's actually a little touched. No gay man would ever agree with the police's actions in this situation. Doesn't he know his history?
People I'm glad and darn proud of our police force the way they acted!! Its been going on for years.Its happened under Jean Chrétien Liberals and under Paul Martins Liberal,and wish it will continue in the future.
This notion that people like me and others
are for a police state is
not only dumb its ridiculous and stupid.
People who say this,have no idea what a police state is sorry to say!!
Not even your guy Dion
and Layton have critized
the good police work have
they? At least i haven't
seen it anywhere and if they did there wrong!
You people on the extreme left yes i said
extreme left,because i
personally know people
who are on the left have
all praised the police work period. You people are just unbelievable.
Wow, Johnny, you gotta get that published.
People on the left have praised the police work period?
Oh crab your so funny
want to keep your eyes
and ears closed that's
your problem,but its
Guys, learn as much as possible from Johnny while you can. When his mom gets home from work, he'll be kicked off the computer and we'll probably have to wait till Monday to hear from him again.
"We can have a police state in BT-Land, but we can't have any of that." ....adam c
"... the state infiltrating perfectly respectable and legal public demonstrations, for the sole purpose of causing trouble and perhaps inciting violence." ...CC
The police routinely infiltrate demonstrations, though their performance is usually not as inept as that of the SQ. Just as the demonstrations themselves are not illegal, neither is the surveillance. Adam c's assertion to the contrary, this does not constitute a police state. As for your claim that the undercover officers were there to stir up trouble, that is mere speculation.
Your blog, and others to whom you link, did a good job of picking through the available video to "out" the undercover police presence. And, in my opinion, the questions you are asking about the subsequent lame attempt at denial are pertinent and deserving of answers. Your daily opponents, the BTs, should be concerned about this as much as you are.
I would suggest that overheated rhetoric about "police states", and overstating the possible conclusions about the intentions of the SQ will only hurt any attempt you make to keep pressure upon the authorities to explain themselves. If they can point to over-the-top theories of why the cops were there, it will be easier to discount your views as those of a conspiracy theorist.
Thank you for your groundless assertion.
re:"I would suggest that overheated rhetoric about "police states", and overstating the possible conclusions about the intentions of the SQ will only hurt any attempt you make to keep pressure upon the authorities to explain themselves."
Grow up M@ ( Matt Bin) if this is your real name! Your not doing any great honor to the left your action are more like someone who is 10 years old then someone who says is 34 years old. People lets see how many of you are going to criticize
his comments (2:04 PM),
and show that you are
more mature then he is, lets see how many mature people are on this blog!!
I'm not going to hold my breath. If anyone is going to criticize it will come with a(BUT)!!
Thwap, it's quite simple. If you say too much about the wrongdoing and lies of a police force, people will dismiss you as a nutcase. Even more so when the police force has demonstrably lied and acted wrongly, just as you said they did.
The fact that those "people" are idiots is beside the point. You must fear their opinions nevertheless.
I was speaking generically, thanks, not about this specific event. We don't actually live in "BT-Land".
As for your claim that the undercover officers were there to stir up trouble, that is mere speculation.
It's more than speculation; there are several indications that this was the case. For one thing, the video shows them being kicked out of the union protest line for unacceptable behaviour - even before Coles is alerted that they are likely cops. What got him so angry isn't clear from the video, but it's reasonable to assume that they were doing something besides standing around. Other people wearing masks were not being singled out.
overstating the possible conclusions about the intentions of the SQ will only hurt any attempt you make to keep pressure upon the authorities to explain themselves
This doesn't make sense. The only reason to put pressure on the authorities is to determine whether these were indeed provocateurs. If they really were there only for surveillance purposes then the police have nothing to explain or apologize for.
Oh no, Johnny has discovered my secret identity! And my secret identity's age! What intrepid detective work could have...
Oh, never mind. Just don't tell your mom, because then she'll tell my mom, and then we'll both be in trouble.
Incidentally, most of the commenters at this blog are obviously more mature "then" me, as evidenced by the fact that only I have opened a dialogue at your level. Honestly, I don't mind this level of immaturity -- at least it's better than hearing from Nonny.
"What got him so angry isn't clear from the video,..."
Which is my point: if you have to say things like "it's reasonable to assume that they were doing something besides standing around" then you don't actually know what they were doing. I don't know what else to call that but speculation.
Real answers will only come from forcing an investigation, and that will be easier for them to avoid if the people calling for it seem shrill. I am not saying there is no reason to suspect ulterior motives, I'm saying that it's not open-and-shut. Yet.
Just don't overplay your hand, is all I'm saying.
When the Surete de Quebec disciplines these guys for going undercover without their superior officers' knowledge (which is what the SQ are in essence claiming)...then I'll be quite ready to believe they're not lying through their teeth and weren't up to any skulduggery.
Well, we can argue about the definition of 'speculation' all day if we want to. My point is that the accusation didn't come out of left field - the guy's holding a fucking rock in his hand.
And again, how can we force an investigation if we don't point out that there's something to investigate? Look, I get your point about wild accusations like "Stephen Harper ordered the police to find a way to arrest all the protesters." But that kind of accusation isn't in my comment or on CC's blog.
I still wonder who had a motive to incite the protesters to riot violently:
1. The SQ: Sure...arrests and protecting the public from violence looks good for a police force.
2. Harper: Sure...WE ALL KNOW that the Conservatives consider dissent and disagreement to be dangerous and that they want the State to control it, even if it has to resort to subterfuge. This is the party of the "Dirty tricks manual" after all.
There might be all kinds of other reasons for this as well, but until the SQ is forced to be more forthcoming, it's all speculation.
Notice to those siding with the police: You are enemies of democracy and civil rights, plain and simple. Thank God progressives will never treat your freedom of peaceful assembly as contemptuously as you have treated that of those protesters.
Once again...you are enemies of democracy and civil rights.
End of story.
Who let "Johnny" out of his cage? Usually he just annoys poor KNB.
Ah, "Johnny" surfaces again--the fuckstick who expressed the hope last year that my partner would die "a slow and painful death." Anyone know more about this asshole?
I am not certain, but his writing style is the same as someone named John who loved to write the same sort of tripe at Saundrie during its active phase as well. That person got so full of himself when I decided he wasn't worth the effort of responding to anymore to rename himself John for Honest Blogging at Saundrie. I've already noted the similarity to KNB at her place some weeks back. If it is the same person he really needs to get a life, unless of course that he is paid to be such a disruptive influence, which these days would not surprise me in the least.
Pardon my ignorance but ... "KNB"?
Post a Comment