Photos from August 7th anti-eco-tax protest in Ottawa part 2: the people

The intro to this post is in part 1.

These are photos I took at the anti eco-fee demonstration today if front of Bob Charelli’s costituency office in Ottawa.   While not all the people there were wondering whether taxes ought to be voluntary, it does appear that many Ontarians have reached the breaking point and will simply not stand for any more taxes.

By the way – it was revealed that, among the protesters, were not just conservatives and libertarians:  a few card-carrying Liberals were noticed by their neighbours.  This does not bode well for the McGuingy gang….

Now, to the pictures:

While the above sign warns of ‘Liberal spies amongst us’, I do suspect that most of the Liberals there were in agreement with the protest – after all, even many Liberals opposed Premier McGuinty’s idea of permitting industry to levy taxes on the citizens of Ontario.  After all, ‘fascism’ is, by definition, the collusion of government with industry…

This young nman, however, self identified as being from Mr. McGuinty’s office:  and, until his batteries ran out, he did record the protest!

This protest also drew a lot of ‘political’ people – more photos and ‘who’ was there will be in part 3!

Photos from August 7th anti-eco-tax protest in Ottawa part 1: the speakers

Today, yet again, hundreds of people protested the illegal taxes known as eco-fees which the Ontario Government plans to re-impose on the citizens in October 2010.  (Photos from the July demonstration can be found here and here.)

The protest was organized by two local citizens:  Shirley Mosley and Debbie Jodoin.  They are the ones who took out the permits, the ones who promoted the demonstration by phoning call-in radio shows (especially Lowell Green’s Island of Sanity on CFRA).

These ladies (and I do mean ‘ladies’ as a term of high respect:  women who are leaders) are private citizens.  These protests are not your standard ‘load up all the union-members who want to keep their jobs, give them these pre-printed protest signs and make sure they look enthusiastic, or it’s off to the unemployment line for them next week’ kind of protests.

No.

These citizen activists have taken it upon themselves to do something against the lies and ever-increasing taxation levels emanating  from the Liberal Government of Ontario, its Premier, Dalton McGuinty (or was that McGuilty?) and its Communications minister, Bob Chiarelli.

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.  So, please, turn your word-counter off, because here come some pictures from the demonstration!

Debbie Jodoin:

Shirley Mosley:

And, they had quite a lineup of speakers!

I’ll go in sequential order (though, Debbie and Shireley also spoke in-between the other speakers):

OK – I’ll admit it:  I was late and did not catch the name of this speaker from the Canadian Taxpayers’ Association.  Is someone would, please, comment with his name, I’ll update this and, hopefully, do a bit of face-saving….  My apologies!

Here he is later, talking to the crowd:

Janet Jackson Beth Graham, the Conservative candidate who challenged Bob Chiarelli in the by-election that brought Bob back into a McGuinty Cabinet:

Lisa McLeod, the Ontario Conservative MPP for the Nepean-Carleton and someone who’s making me think that my initial assessment of her was too hasty – the more I see, the more I like her:

Rob Snow, the popular CFRA radio show-host and a bit of a local celebrity (he was at the first demonstration, too):

There was nothing subtle about Mr. Rob Snow:  he is a most awesome rabble-rouser!  And, he is an excellent speaker!  To the point!  He said – among other things –  ‘We can’t do much worse than these Liberals!’

Well said.

Mr. Snow also brought greetings and words of support from the legenday broadcaster, Lowell Green, who would have come had he not been on holidays out of town.  And, he also brought greetings from Nick Vandergragt, who is also a CFRA radio host and is currently filling in for Lowell Green.  Mr. Snow told us that Mr. Vandergragt would have lved to attend the show, but could not:  today was his wife’s birthday, and, had he abandoned her to go to the protest, she threatened to vote Liberal in the next election….  I think we all understand and appreciate Mr. Vandergragt’s sacrifice!

Last – but not least – was another CFRA legend and financial guru, Mr. John Button:

With his expertise in finance and economics, Mr. Button explained the effect this unreasonable (and in my never-humble-opinion illegal) taxation is having on the economy and the real human price which is being paid for it, especially by Ontario seniors.  Regarding the Ontario Liberals, Mr. Button gave us advice above gold:  ‘Reduce taxes!’ and ‘Throw the bums out!’

Well said!

More pictures to follow in part 2.

Urgent message from Maryam Namazi: a woman’s life is in danger

Today, I received this email, which I would like to share with everyone:

Iran stoning case, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is at imminent risk of execution in Tabriz prison.Moreover, her well known human rights lawyer, Mohammad Mostafaei, is in prison in Turkey after having fled the country to evade arrest for his advocacy work. His wife remains in prison in Iran – held hostage – until he is remanded into the regime’s custody (http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/?p=1652). Given Turkey’s close relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mostafaei can face deportation back to Iran even though he has applied for refugee status with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees there.

Campaigners are concerned about the safety of Mostafaei and his wife. We are also extremely concerned for Ashtiani’s life. The regime may be preparing to execute her within the next few days, particularly given that the Tabriz prosecutor has demanded her execution and is awaiting the Tehran high court’s confirmation (http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/?p=1665).

In her most recent heart-wrenching message, she says:

“I am now quiet and sad because a part of my heart is frozen.

The day I was flogged in front of [my son] Sajjad, I was crushed and my dignity and heart were broken.

The day I was given the stoning sentence, it was as if I fell into a deep hole and I lost consciousness.

Many nights, before sleeping, I think to myself how can anybody be prepared to throw stones at me; to aim at my face and hands? Why?

I thank all of you from Tabriz Prison.

Mrs [Mina] Ahadi, tell everyone that I’m afraid of dying. Help me stay alive and hug my children.”

As a result the public outcry, Brazilian president Lula da Silva has offered Ashtiani asylum there. Ashtiani has accepted the offer (http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/08/sakineh-ashtiani-accepts-brazilian.html). The regime, however, has rejected it and continues to push for her execution and to disseminate misinformation on her case. It says it intends not to stone her but to execute her for murdering her husband. At the 30 July press conference in London, Mina Ahadi exposed the regime’s misinformation on the case and revealed court documents showing Ashtiani’s sentence of death by stoning for adultery. [In fact, she was acquitted of any murder charges; even those found guilty of murdering her husband have not been executed at the request of the victim’s family.]

At the 30 July press conference, Maryam Namazie also refuted claims made by the embassy of the Islamic regime of Iran in London and the former French ambassador to Iran that stonings in Iran were rare; she referred to a new report published by the International Committee against Executions which has found that over 100 people have been stoned with 25 known cases currently awaiting death by stoning in Iran (http://www.iransolidarity.org.uk/Stoning%20List%20(1989-2010)_edited.doc). Other speakers at the press conference AC Grayling spoke of the contradiction between a medieval government and a progressive population wanting to be free whilst Peter Tatchell stressed the importance of supporting Sakineh and all those languishing on death row.

Given the imminent risk of execution faced by Ashtiani and the insecure status of her lawyer in Turkey we urge the public to act now.

Ashtiani’s stoning and execution orders must be rescinded, she must be immediately released and there must be an end to stoning and executions.

PLEASE ACT NOW!

1- Send Sakineh a postcard of the city you live in or are visiting this summer telling her you are thinking of her and other prisoners on death row in Tabriz prison. You can address it to:
Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani
Tabriz Prison
Tabriz, Iran
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&q=tabriz+prison&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=prison&hnear=Tabriz,+Iran&view=map&cid=5511433647417998115&iwloc=A&ved=0CBcQpQY&sa=X&ei=kRVbTK2HKJOe_gaemtzoBA

2- Write letters of protest to the Islamic regime of Iran demanding Ashtiani’s release and an end to stonings and executions. Protest letters can be addressed to the below:

Head of the Judiciary
Sadeqh Larijani
Howzeh Riyasat-e Qoveh Qazaiyeh (Office of the Head of the Judiciary)
Pasteur St., Vali Asr Ave., south of Serah-e Jomhouri
Tehran 1316814737, Iran
Email: info@dadiran.ir or via website: http://www.dadiran.ir/tabid/75/Default.aspx
First starred box: your given name; second starred box: your family name; third: your email address

Head of the Judiciary in East Azerbaijan Province
Malek-Ashtar Sharifi
Office of the Head of the Judiciary in Tabriz
East Azerbaijan, Iran

Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei
The Office of the Supreme Leader
Islamic Republic Street – Shahid Keshvar Doust Street
Tehran, Iran
Email: via website: http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/index.php?p=letter (English)
http://www.leader.ir/langs/fa/index.php?p=letter (Persian)

Secretary General, High Council for Human Rights
Mohammad Javad Larijani
Howzeh Riassat-e Ghoveh Ghazaiyeh
Pasteur St, Vali Asr Ave., south of Serah-e Jomhuri
Tehran 1316814737, Iran
Fax: +98 21 3390 4986
Email: bia.judi@yahoo.com

3- Sign petitions in support of her case if you haven’t already done so. Here are two of them: http://stopstonningnow.com/sakine/sakin284.php?nr=50326944&lang=en, http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_stoning/?cl=651962225&v=6766.

4- Write to government officials, heads of state, MEPs and MPs in your country of residence calling on them to intervene to save her life and to cease recognition of a regime that stones people to death in the 21st century. See Mina Ahadi’s recent letter to heads of states on this: http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/?p=1694.

5- Join protests to save her life. On 10 August come out in support of Ashtiani. On 28 August join 100 cities against stoning. More information to follow.

6- Write to the Turkish government asking them to release Mohammad Mostafaei and to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Turkey urging them to grant him refugee status and expedite his resettlement to a safe third country.

Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
Basbakanlik
06573 Ankara, Turkey
Fax: +90-312-417 0476

Minister of Interior
Icisleri Bakanligi
06644 Ankara
Fax: +90 312 417 23 90

Minister of Foreign Affairs
Disisleri Bakanligi
06100 Ankara
Fax: +90 312 419 1547
webmaster@mfa.gov.tr

UNHCR – Branch Office in Turkey
Tiflis Cad. 552. Sok. No: 3
Sancak Mah. 06550 Ankara
Turkey
Fax: +90 312 441 21 73
Via website: http://www.unhcr.org.tr/MEP/index.aspx?pageKey=BizeUlasin

7- Donate to the important work of the International Committee Against Stoning, International Committee Against Executions and Iran Solidarity by making your cheque payable to ‘Count Me In – Iran’ and sending it to BM Box 6754, London WC1N 3XX, UK. You can also pay via Paypal (http://countmein-iran.com/donate.html). Please earmark your donation.

NOTES:

* See information on 30 July press conference in London here: http://www.youtube.com/user/rezamoradi and here: http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/07/press-coverage-on-30-july-press.html.

* See clip of Islamic Republic’s state TV’s misinformation on the 24 July International Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Day protests we organised and Ashtiani’s case. The regime blurs out her face, uses only her initials and says she was sentenced to execution for brutally murdering her husband. A translation of the court document sentencing her to death by stoning for adultery is available here which refutes their statements on her case: http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/07/islamic-regime-of-irans-broadcast-on-24.html.

* See a report of the successful 24 July International Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani Day here: http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/07/24-july-huge-success.html and here: http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/07/media-coverage-of-24-july-2010-world.html.

* For more information contact:
Mina Ahadi, Germany, International Committee Against Stoning and International Committee Against Executions Coordinator, minaahadi@aol.com, 0049 1775692413; http://notonemoreexecution.org/; http://stopstonningnow.com.

Maryam Namazie, UK, Iran Solidarity Spokesperson, iransolidaritynow@gmail.com, 0044 7719166731, Iran Solidarity: http://www.iransolidarity.org.uk; http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/.

Taxes, serfdom and the story of Kozina

When the practice of ‘serfdom’ was first introduced, it was nowhere as oppressive as it grew to be later on.  In some instances, at the beginning, the ‘serfs’ had to provide as little as 3-4 days of service to the ‘lord’ per season – in return for the ‘lord’ being responsible to maintain peace and order in his domain..

Gradually, the amount of work required of the serfs kept creeping higher and higher, the responsibilities of the ‘lord’ to the serfs kept getting smaller and smaller and the powers of the ‘lord’ over the ‘serfs’ kept getting bigger and bigger as the ‘lords’ increasingly used their powers against the ‘serfs’ instead of in their protection.

By the end, things were not so good…. People were compelled – often forced by armed guards – to work for their ‘lord’ from sun-up to sun-down 6 days a week, every week…

These days, we pay so much of our incomes in taxes – it can reach more than 50% of a family’s income.  The State sets the level of taxation one-sidedly and The State has usurped for itself extraordinary powers to compel you to pay these taxes, even suspending your innate civil rights as irrelevant in the process!

Indeed, the parallels to serfdom are increasingly undeniable!

Which is why I’d like to tell you a story about a peasant who refused to become a serf (in the original, ‘robotnik’ – this is the root of the word ‘robot’).  His name was Jan Sladky Kozina.

This narration is not exactly the way the story is written up in the history books.  Nor does it match the ‘official’ or even ‘semi-official’ narratives put on the internet by people who claim (probably rightly) to be the genetic descendants of the Dogheads.  I am not re-telling the story with any claim to ‘factual accuracy’.

Rather, here and now – to us, this version of the story has great archetypal relevancy!

Like Kozina, this storyteller (who was in his 90’s when, I was a child,) was a Chod, born and raised as a ‘Doghead’ – but a ‘few’ generations too young to have lived through these events himself.  Still, he was not so young as to not have heard the story from the grandchildren or great-grand-children of the actual people who lived this story!  (While there are many guesses – some of them more educated than others – there is no definitive answer as to who the Chods were, where they came from or what their mythology truly was.)

OK – to the story, as I remember it having been told me by an ancient story teller:

The ‘Dogheads’ were not your ordinary peasants. They were a people of their own, with a proud and ancient heritage.

One of their unique skills was in animal communication and training – especially training dogs (hence they had the head of a dog in their clan symbol (is it a coat of arms when it refers to the clan and not a specific person?) – and the nomicker ‘Dogheads’). The Dogheads were the only bunch of people in feudal Europe to have a document officially exempting them from serfdom.

Many historians claim it was written by John of Luxemburg, the father of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, in recognition for ‘extraordinary services’.

That was the ‘outside’ story.

Our ‘inside’ tradition says that the papers GIVEN to us by John of Luxembourg were simply his acknowledgment of much older and more powerful claims/documents (depending on who told the story, it was either ‘ancient claims that everyone acknowledged’ or a chest full of very ‘ancient documents’). (A few old Dogheads actually claimed these ‘even older’ documents put the Dogheads outside the jurisdiction of even the Inquisition – but that is hard to believe…)

For centuries, all the kings respected this.

Until a bad, greedy king came to power.

He refused to recognize the Dogheads innate freedoms and documents ordering all kings to recognize our rights to these freedoms. This bad king deeded their land to a nobleman who paid him off – effectively turning the Dogheads into this man’s serfs (this was a little over 3 centuries ago).

The Dogheds were not keen on this. They refused to submit to serfdom (‘robota’) and petitioned the king, but the king refused to hear the petition.

The Dogheads did not know what to do.

Many wanted to take up arms and die fighting rather than submit to serfdom – but taking up arms against the king was abhorrent, because it would be an open rebellion against the position and not just the evil man who occupied it.

They could never justify such violent means to achieve any good end.

So, Kozina (that is how he was referred to commonly by his clan) chose a different way: He publicly displayed the documents guaranteeing the Dogheads freedom from serfdom in perpetuity, proving to everyone that the king was indeed the one who was breaking the laws!

This cost the king dearly, because all the noble houses and all the people saw him for what he was…. a criminal thug! An usurper! An unfit king!

But, he still had a big army…

Embarrassing the king publicly was not so very good for Kozina’s longevity. The king had Kozina tossed into jail and sent in his army to install this nobleman (whatever his name was, we called him Lomikar) as our overlord.

Then, the king permitted Lomikar to have Kozina tortured and publicly hanged.

At the gallows, Kozina looked at Lomikar and said:

“Lomikare, Lomikare!  Do roka a do dne, zvu te na sud Bozi!  Hync sa hukaze – “

Kozina spoke in the old Chod dialect…..and the way the words are put together is said to have the quality of a magical incantation. Roughly translated:

“Lomikar, Lomikar!  In one year to the day, I challenge you to God’s judgement! Then it shall be shown – “

He never got to say any more, because Lomikar was wildly gesticulating to the executioner to ‘get it done’ and not let Kozina talk, because he feared he himself might get lynched by the people watching the execution, as the Czechs were rather empathetic to the Chods.

One year later – on the day which was the anniversary of Kozina’s execution – everyone expected Lomikar to be judged by God. Lomikar lives – Lomikar (and, by extension, the king) was right.. Lomikar dies (and stays dead) – Kozina was right.

To show just how ‘not worried’ he was, Lomikar put on a bit of a feast to which he invited his friends (but not the Dogheads).

Just as he was about to make a toast – to mock Kozina’s last words – Lomikar grabbed his chest, fell over and he breathed nevermore…

Nobody else wanted to be the overlord who turned the Dogheads into serfs. The king was told unceremoniously to stuff it and leave the Dogheads be, because God would punish ANYONE who tried to oppress us.

So, after one year of serfdom, the Dogheads were free people once again!

I do hope you liked the old storyteller’s tale.  We still can learn from Kozina!

Should taxes be mandatory?

When is the last time you went to a restaurant – and did not leave a tip?

Chances are – never.

Or the service was so poor, you were ‘making a point’…

Why?

Because we all understand that servers rely on tips for their income.

And we wish to encourage good service and so on and so on.

Nobody has the right to force you to tip.  You may not like the practice, but chances are, you still do tip ‘good service’.

This same principle also ought to apply to taxes!

Governments would be much more careful with their revenue if they did not usurp onto themselves the power to extort taxes from its citizens.  Any government caught in corruption (AdScam, e-Health,  Sewardship Ontario and on and on), that government’s revenue would dry up – and rightly so!

This, in my never-humble-opinion, is the best (if not only) means through which citizens can keep governments ‘honest’ and fiscally responsible!

Perhaps this sounds extreme – and perhaps it is.

Still, ask yourself why is it that ‘tax collectors’ have powers much greater than police officers or the military.  Why is it that in the name of ‘collecting taxes’, governments create personal files about each and every citizen, where they collect and access decades very private information?

Governments only have the powers we delegate to them.

If you do not have the right to do something, you cannot delegate that right to anyone else (including the government) to do it on your behalf.

You do not have the right to demand to know the financial details of your neighbour’s life.  Since you do not have it, you cannot ‘delegate’ this ‘right’ onto the government.  Therefore, demanding to know the details of our financial circumstances is not a power any government can legitimately exercise on behalf of its citizens.

Again, please ask yourself:  why is it that when governments cannot seem to catch ‘careful’ lawbreakers, they try to ‘get’ them on ‘tax evasion’?

That alone should make us pause.

I know this sounds extreme – it is meant to.

The reason I am raising this point is not because I am advocating any sort of a tax revolt – at least, not on a practical level.

Rather, I am saying is that we ought to think very hard about exactly how we got into the current state where we consider it ‘normal’ that the State suspends our civil liberties in order to take from us whatever amount of money it has unilaterally set.

Even more photos from the McGuinty eco-tax protest in Ottawa

Some of the photos are posted here.

Still, there were some excellent signs I didn’t get ‘in there’.  So, here are more photos:

Dalton McGrinchy

Dalton McGrinchy

Photos from ‘McGuinty eco-tax’ protest, Ottawa

Today, a crowd of several hundred people had gathered in front of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s constituency office to protest the illegal taxes he has imposed on Ontario taxpayers, disguised as ‘eco-fees’.

The photos speak for themselves:

There was a visible – put very polite and respectful police presence.  Their only concern seemed to be that nobody got run over by the many cars driving by (and mostly honking).  One could not help but get the impression that they kind of agreed with the protesters!

The above picture is across the street from Dalton McGuilty’s office – the parking lot in the ratty-little strip mall where he has his office was too small to hold the protest, so it spilled across the street (no sidewalk there) and even into the near side street!

Dalton McGrinchy himself made an appearance!

With his trusty ECO-VAC, he was vacuuming everyone’s money!

The  reporters/media just LOVED  Dalton McGrinchy!

OK – I am a really really bad reporter – I don’t even know the names of the people who organized it , or most of the speakers.  However, I did recognize CFRA’s popular Rob Snow, who really got the crowd whipped up!

By this point, it had begun to rain – a little.

Then, somebody (OK, Jessica) made a discovery:  David McGuinty, Dalton’s brother and a Liberal MP for this riding, was sitting in his car in the parking lot!

While we all concluded that even Dalton’s brother supports this protest, once his identity had been revealed, he drove away bravely.  Due to the rain, the picture I got turned out too foggy to use…  Sorry!

Anyhow…

It was quite a crowd:  young and old and in-between!

Dalton McGuinty was unavailable for comment:  rather than coming to the protest and facing the music, he chose to go on holiday….on our dime!

Update:  even more photos.

Banning ‘the veil’: the end does not justify the means

France is just one of a growing number of European countries which have been passing laws which forbid wearing veils that cover one’s face in public.

While I loath all forms of this apparel, I loath this law even more – and have said so often and loudly.

Here is my take on it:

OK – I’m not a fan…

For many reasons.

The origin of veiling women’s faces is in the practice of owning wives as a class of slaves.  This is the history.  Not good – and nothing rooted in this tradition will likely meet with my approval.

Today, some women are forced to veil their faces in public, either through physical or emotional coercion.  This, of course, is unacceptable.

In many instances, the facial veil is being used as a means of isolating a woman from the greater culture:  this form of isolation prevents her from forming social bonds of her own among the greater community – and prevents her from building a support mechanism which would help her escape from any potentially abusive situation.  I’m going to be repeating myself:  this, of course, is unacceptable.

Yes, many women today do wear the full facial veil of their own free will, as a symbol of their ‘identity’.   This, I find even more offensive!  Setting aside the whole psychoanalytical thing of women choosing to self-identify with cattle, this is an act of haughty contempt for everyone else individually and the society as a whole.  It is an aggressive assertion that they are better, worthier, more holy, than the rest of us… It is, in no uncertain terms, an outward expression of self-aggrandization and bigotry.

At the same time, it is often worn by some women as a not very subtle method of intimidation and aggression towards the greater society.  These women are themselves Islamists who understand perfectly well the fear many have of having Sharia forced upon them by the Islamits:  they wear the veil as an arrogant reminder of the threat they are posing to us all.

So, a woman wearing the ‘Islamic veil’ can either be a victim or an aggressor – either way, I don’t like it!  And that does not even touch on the whole ‘security’ issue, where criminals use the face-veil to disguise their identity…

In other words, I would be very happy never to see anyone hiding their true face!

BUT…

The ends never justify the means.

In fact, the means often undermine and invalidate the end.

I got into a somewhat heated discussion about this with Trupeers over in the comment section of BCF‘s post on this.  I think I was not very clear about it and confused the issue by poorly expressing what I mean.  Still, it helped me ‘distill’ the essence of what I mean better.

My ‘first law of human dynamics’ states that eventually, every law will be abused and stretched into unforeseen ridiculousness.  Therefore, whenever we pass laws, we must consider more than their immediate effect.  It is our responsibility to examine the not-so-obvious implications of any law and to really really foresee any potential ways in which the law could be abused.

THAT is my problem with a law that bans ‘wearing a face-covering veil in public’.

The larger implications:  we are permitting a government to legislate what people may or may not wear in public.  You know, like they do in Iran

It is always easier to give some power to a government than it is to take it back.   Once we legitimize the practice of governments  legislating and enforcing dress codes, that aspect of our existence will be at the mercy of some  future government’s whims!

G20, police behaviour and the ‘split’ on the ‘right’: part 2

In part 1, I pointed out that increasingly, the police have been given two goals which are not always congruent:  that of ‘maintaining public order’ and of ‘upholding the laws’.  And, increasingly (in ‘the West’), the police have been choosing to ‘maintain public peace’ – even at times breaking laws themselves in the process, instead of upholding them.

This has become very clear during the G8/G20 circus downtown Toronto.

Not only were the police given extraordinary powers to ‘maintain public order’ within the designated, fenced-off area, they had usurped even greater powers for themselves.  I use the term ‘usurped’ advisedly, because that is what they did.  The police chief admitted he had intentionally lied about what the powers police had been granted were.

Bill Blair’s justification of the lie is telling: ‘I was trying to keep the criminals out.’

It would appear that in this Police Chief’s view, all the people on the streets of Toronto were to be treated like criminals, until proven otherwise – may be!  Perhaps Chief Blair thought that he was on a crusade:  ‘Arrest them all – God will know his own!’  The police officers under Blair’s command certainly appeared to behave as if they took this adage to their hearts, as they often exercised powers never lawfully granted them – even going well past the police chief’s unlawful claims. (I will return to this later)

Following the ‘event’, the police continued to lie to the public!

The reason for this seems clear:  the evidence of police misconduct had been published and publicized, so the police attempted to magnify the ‘perceived threat’ in order to justify their conduct.  By displaying ‘confiscated weapons’ (some of which were toys – taken from a gamer who made them safe for kids to play with) and lying about what they were and where/how they were ‘confiscated’, the police hoped to portray the ‘protesters’ as a bunch of lawless anarchist thugs who were a threat to every decent human being.  Once this effort succeeded (as it mostly did), they could then dismiss any person who criticized their conduct by tarring her/him with the same brush.

That is a dangerous precedent!

First of all, it is not safe for anyone – law breaker as well as each and every law abiding citizen – to live in a society where the police arbitrarily usurp powers onto themselves and use threats, intimidation, arrests and, yes, violence, while exercising these usurped powers!

Whatever you think about the G8/G20 Toronto thing, just think about the implications of that!

We would live in a society where police are permitted to make the rules ‘on the go’ – and get rid of (through intimidation or arrest) anyone whom they perceive as challenging them…

If you think this is impossible in Canada (or another Western democracy), think again:  a few years ago, a study of downtown Vancouver policing practices documented searches, intimidation and various forms of detention of individuals on the fringes of society (least credible victims…) took place without any official records of the events – without these records, no effective legal action could be taken against the police officers.

Yes, the police were in a difficult situation.  Still…

While the evidence is very circumstantial, the police behaviour captured on video does suggest that at least some of the ‘violent protesters’ were indeed agent provocateurs – a tool which the police in Canada are known to have employed in past protests. (It evens appears that, prior to the G20, a Toronto Police representative was asked directly whether the police will be using agent provocateurs – only to be told that they are unwilling to reveal that type of information.)

I do not wish to get hung up on this agent provocateur thing.  The charges that the police utilized them have been made – along with claims that the worst of the violence and destruction was not committed by the protesters, but rather by the police agents themselves.  While I have seen some circumstantial evidence that lends credence to these claims, I am not yet convinced either way.

Why do I even raise the issue?

The police are in a unique position in our society.  In order to do their job – and do it right – they need people to trust them.  This trust is not a trivial thing – it must be earned, over and over.  Yet, having seen so many videos of police misconduct, having read so many reports of it, I fear this trust has been seriously compromised.

Do I believe all the charges against the police?

No, I don’t.  A few fake videos, perhaps.  A few trumped up charges – I’m willing to entertain that they are not as accurate as the ‘victims’ claim.

But some of the charges of misconduct come from sources I consider reputable (I know some of these people personally and they have earned my trust through their past behaviour).

Yet, I would like to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  And… had the police not been caught in so many lies, it would be easier to believe them…

Even if we completely set aside the issue of the agent provocateurs, there are serious problems with the police failing to enforce the law!  There are numerous videos (including some I linked above) where the police witness violent or destructive behaviour by specific individuals – yet do nothing to stop it by arresting, or even interrupting, the law-breakers!

That is not right.  It is abdication of their duty at best –  actively aiding the law-breakers at worst.

Even if there had not been an ‘over-reaction’ by the police on the Sunday and Monday (the arbitrary-seeming arrests of close to a thousand innocent people as well as all the other reported abuses of their powers), the police behaviour on Saturday, their failure to act and to apply the laws (which, according to some sources, came as ‘an order from above’) would be sufficient to shake the public trust in the police.

Sorry – I truly am sorry that this is so –  but that is the truth!

Oh – and as for labeling all the protesters as violent anarchists, who break the laws and have no respect for private property or the businesses along the protest route:  watch this and weep!  Not all protesters condoned lawless behaviour.  Some protested, hoping to talk sense into the violent thugs in their midst.  Others, like this guy, did more to stop lawless behaviour than the police did!

(Continued in ‘Part 3’)

G20, police behaviour and the ‘split’ on the ‘right’: part 1

All right – this is a difficult issue to tackle.  Still, it is an important one.  So, if I go off on a tangent – please, comment and re-focus me!

The G8/G20 event cost over 1 Billion dollars in ‘security’ costs.  Many people complained – yet, though I thought the figure high, I did not complain because I thought that if the people in positions to know thought the security costs were that hight, I was unwilling to double-guess them.  In no way ought this event have been turned into a showcase for ‘unlawful people’ – if that was going to be the cost of upholding the rule of law, I was willing to pay the bill and not grumble (too much).

I am, if such a thing can be said to exist, a ‘pro-law libertarian’:  it is my deeply held conviction that it is only through the rule of law that our rights can be respected and our liberties can be exercised.

I take a poor view of each and every individual who breaks the laws – even ‘bad laws’ (two ‘wrongs’ do not make a ‘right’), provided citizens have a recourse through their ability to lobby to change or otherwise get rid of ‘bad laws’.  Even living in a totalitarian state, (though young) I thought that leaving everything behind and running away (not so bravely) was preferable to taking the law into my own hands:  it would take a lot, including absence of any other course of action, to get me to break the laws or to condone others to do so.

Having explained my philosophical bend, I also ought to explain my attitude towards the police (and, yes, I am volunteering with the Ottawa police because I think cops ought to be ‘the good guys’).

Police officers occupy a very unique position in our society:  they are the ‘Agents of the State’ whom we entrust with upholding the rule of law in our society.  As such, they occupy a position of trust unlike those of most other people in society:  trust which has to be continuously earned by their behaviour, because the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.  (Yes – I still have the nightmares…)

Unfortunately, ‘the police’ have recently been entrusted with two completely different goals:  one is to ‘uphold the law’, the other is to ‘maintain order’.  These two tasks are not necessarily in ‘extreme’ opposition to each other – but neither are they completely congruous with each other, either!

Example (from the past – to keep the current tempers even):

A large number of militant anti-Israeli protesters sees an Israeli flag in the window of an apartment and threaten to break into the building to get rid of it (presumably looting, or at least ‘damaging’ the building in the process).  The police, ‘in order to maintain public order’, illegally enter the apartment and remove the ‘offensive’ flag in order to appease the mob which is threatening lawless violence.

These individual police officers chose to break the law, in order to ‘maintain public order’, instead of waiting for law-defying individuals to break the laws, then arresting them in order to uphold the laws of the land!

That is only one such example where the police chose to ‘maintain public peace’ rather than to ‘enforce the laws of the land’:  had they enforced the laws, they would have waited for individuals to damage the property, then and only then arrested these individual lawbreakers and brought them to justice.

We have also seen a parallel to this in Canada, when a lone pro-Israeli protester (not breaking any laws) faced a large number of anti-Israel protesters in Alberta:  the police threatened the lone, law-abiding, not-violence-threatening individual with arrest in order to ‘not provoke’ the violence-threatening (and thus law-breaking) mob because the law-abiding man’s ‘presence’ was a ‘provocation’ and thus a threat to ‘public order’.  (Sorry, I can’t find the link – if you can, please, do so in the comments:  yet, this is so common, most of us are aware of many parallel incidents!)

George Jonas (a fellow escapee from a totalitarian police state) phrases his observation of the role the  police in our society are increasingly choosing to play:

‘The only group exhibiting Canadian-style restraint was the police. They cast a calm eye on the pandemonium, took a balanced view and chose no sides between people trying to exercise their rights and bullies trying to prevent them.’

These occurrences are not isolated:  over and over, in much of the ‘free world’, we have seen police preferring to aid law-breakers (who are ‘difficult-to-handle’) in oppressing the population… instead of upholding the laws of the land.

Just consider the going-ons and race-based policing  in Caledonia!!!

So, how does this relate to the G8/G20 situation – and the ‘split’ on the ‘right’?

In how the people usually considered ‘little-c-conservatives’ perceive what happened and how we evaluate the role the police played…

Let me first get a few things off my mind:  it was idiotic to hold the G20 meeting in the middle of downtown of Canada’s largest city.  Ensuring the security of the participants was going to be a nightmare.  It was a situation where just about every possible outcome was going to draw serious – and ‘warranted’ – criticism.  In other words, it was likely to be a ‘no win’ situation…

The police who were entrusted with the task of providing security for this event were in an unenviable position:  ‘ensuring security’ necessarily put them into conflict with their primary role – that of ‘upholding the laws’!

Why?

Because ‘ensuring security’ meant the police were responsible for preventing any law-breaking which would result in ‘breeches of security’ at the summit.

However, the actual and proper role of the police is to uphold the laws:  this means that they are only permitted to intervene AFTER a law has been broken!

How can a person (or collection of persons) possibly prevent a crime – when they are, by law, permitted to intervene only after a crime has been committed?!?!?

(Continued in ‘Part 2’ and ‘Part 3’)