Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Canadian cops corrupt? Quebec cops caught causing chaos

By gndn in Op-Ed
Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:28:45 PM EST
Tags: Montebello, police state, protest (all tags)

On August 20, a riot was narrowly averted at a protest in Montebello, Quebec, when an alert and observant protester noticed that three masked men seemed out of place among the crowd - one of them carried a fist-sized rock and refused to put it down when repeatedly asked. The men refused to unmask or identify themselves. Eventually, the three masked men rushed the police line and were seemingly arrested. Allegations immediately surfaced that the men were undercover police officers. These allegations were later confirmed, as the Quebec police admitted that the three masked men were, in fact, police officers.


The allegations initially surfaced to due a curious piece of video evidence - one of the shots of the three men being "arrested" showed a distinctive yellow mark on the bottom of their boots. The police had identical marks on their boots, which was a suspicious coincidence. The police initially dismissed the allegations as nonsense, but were later forced to recant in the face of growing public outrage.

The police now rather disingenuously claim that the officers were there to "monitor protesters" and "prevent any violent incidents" (as quoted by CBC) but have so far failed to offer any realistic explanation as to why one of the officers was carrying a fist-sized rock in his hand. Clearly these officers were under orders to incite a riot in order to justify the enormous security expenditures put in place to protect the North American Leaders' Summit. Had these officers succeeded in their mission, no doubt the media would be singing a different tune today. Something along the lines of "police had no choice but to use force to quell a group of violent protesters today; several were injured in the ensuing chaos."

Police infiltration of radical or even semi-radical political groups is nothing new; in fact it is a useful way of gathering intelligence and getting a feel for how dangerous (or not) the groups in question are. However, police tactics such as those employed in Montebello should be ruthlessly sanctioned - this level of corruption in a first-world police force should absolutely not be tolerated. The officers in question should be fired, and an investigation should be immediately launched to determine from whom the orders came. The most important question to be answered is this: how many times have the police used this kind of tactic without being caught? How many peaceful protests have been turned into riots not by radical political activists, but rather by police officers looking to crack some heads and restore order at all costs? This behaviour must not be tolerated.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Police infiltration of protests
o is a good thing, always - damn hippies have no rights 11%
o is a good thing, as long as it is only for peaceful intel gathering 31%
o is wrong, always - police officers should be uniformed at all times 42%
o I really don't care 11%
o Other - wipo 2%

Votes: 35
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o narrowly averted
o Allegation s
o undercover police officers
o admitted
o a curious piece of video evidence
o dismissed
o as quoted
o realistic explanation
o riot
o North American Leaders' Summit
o Also by gndn


Display: Sort:
Canadian cops corrupt? Quebec cops caught causing chaos | 97 comments (90 topical, 7 editorial, 1 hidden)
impossible (2.44 / 18) (#1)
by circletimessquare on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:04:42 PM EST

we all know this fascist shit only goes on in the usa, and the rest of the world is an idyllic pasture of peace and love


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

-1: Prison Planet Paranoia (1.18 / 11) (#2)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:07:52 PM EST

Your links point out that the officers were called out by the crowd for their refusal to throw objects.

You fail to acknowledge this and seem to think that it's out of place for someone in a crowd of people throwing objects to have objects in their hands.

FAIL.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

"refusal to throw objects" (3.00 / 6) (#4)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:14:13 PM EST

Sure, except that the video in the very first link shows pretty much the exact opposite - that the cops in fact were asked several times to drop the rock and refused each time. Explain to me why the cop would even have a rock in his hand in the first place.

[ Parent ]
Because he's in a crowd of people (1.00 / 5) (#7)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:31:56 PM EST

who are throwing shit.

When in Rome...

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

No one was throwing anything (3.00 / 3) (#8)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:38:45 PM EST

Did you even read the links? The closest I can find to one supporting your claims is this:
Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.
And you trust the police to be honest about their intentions after they've already been caught lying?

[ Parent ]
THEY ASSAULTED THE NEWS CREW (none / 0) (#11)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:45:14 PM EST

TEH GOOGLES IS UR FRIEND.

A FAILURE IS YUO

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Who is "they"? (none / 0) (#12)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:54:58 PM EST

Protesters or undercover officers? Who would benefit the most from not having cameras present?

[ Parent ]
obviously violent protesters (none / 0) (#14)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:00:51 PM EST

Why would the police bother when they could flash a badge and confiscate the tapes before they aired? It wouldn't involve violence or a chance of discovery. The protesters obviously want to be able to control the spin on the story much in the same way PETA goes to Africa and photographs piles of dead cats and airbrushes out the starving Africans. The protesters will very obviously lose their advantage of having the police fire on them if they can't edit out the incitement.

You have me convinced more than anything you bought Prisonplanet's spin hook, line, and sinker.  Even the news crew says they were assaulted by protesters, not masked and booted men.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

"obviously" (none / 0) (#15)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:07:28 PM EST

Even the news crew says they were assaulted by protesters, not masked and booted men.
Except that the news crew has no way of knowing which ones are protesters and which ones are provocateurs. You have me convinced that you've bought the police's spin hook, line, and sinker. All I'm saying (last paragraph in article) is that an investigation should be immediately opened to determine whether this was an isolated incident or whether this represents a pattern of behaviour on the part of the police.

[ Parent ]
Sure they do (none / 0) (#17)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:11:25 PM EST

The police are the ones wearing the boots you fuckwit.  Or do you not buy into the truth of your own submission?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

You twit (none / 0) (#18)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:15:50 PM EST

The three cops in question screwed up by getting caught and by wearing boots that helped identify them. One of my questions in the article is how many times has something like this happened where the cops didn't screw up? How many provocateurs were there in the crowd? Just the three that got "arrested" or were there more? If there were more, were they all stupid enough to wear their police-issued boots or did some of them have the presence of mind to dress down for the occasion? My point is that we don't have the answers to these questions, and an investigation should be launched.

[ Parent ]
an investigation into what? (none / 0) (#20)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:20:06 PM EST

Your article doesn't really pose any questions, it just makes the assumption that the police were pushing people around. Just because there's gay sex in the Survivalism video does not mean Trent Reznor is talking about Canada.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

An investigation into this incident (none / 0) (#21)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:23:26 PM EST

and into police tactics in general. From the article, which I assume you pretended to read:
how many times have the police used this kind of tactic without being caught? How many peaceful protests have been turned into riots not by radical political activists, but rather by police officers looking to crack some heads and restore order at all costs?


[ Parent ]
ohhhh ok (none / 0) (#22)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:27:03 PM EST

So we're back to assuming a giant evil conspiracy is at hand! And the protesters are completely innocent and absolutely did not throw rocks nor beat up a camera man!  Clearly the news crew is in on the conspiracy!

Quick, call Mulder! It's an Ay-File!

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

The biggest conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#23)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:29:21 PM EST

is the theory that there are no conspiracies. And I don't recall ever saying that the protesters were entirely innocent.

[ Parent ]
This makes a new defense (1.50 / 2) (#29)
by Troll Hard on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:34:22 PM EST

claiming that undercover cops started the violence, and then claiming that it makes the violence that you did justified and you are unable to have charges pressed against you for it.

Then the prosecution would say "If someone told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?"

To which they would answer "I am a protester, I think with my emotions instead of logic, that makes me a retard who listens to anything people tell me, so yes I would jump off a bridge."

Then the prosecution would say "If you saw someone throwing rocks, and you know throwing rocks is wrong, why would you throw rocks?"

To which they would answer, "Well I am a retard, so technically that makes me like a monkey rather than a human being. Logic makes no sense to me. Monkey see, monkey do. I'd throw my own shit at people if I saw other people do it first."

Then the judge would decide, "Not Guilty by reason of stupidity, the defendant is free to go."

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

Nice strawman (none / 1) (#30)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:48:09 PM EST

If any protesters were throwing rocks, then hell yes, they deserve a beatdown and a night in the local lockup with formal charges pending. I'm not trying to give the protesters a free pass here. I'm simply saying the police should be held to account for having a masked undercover officer with a fucking rock in his hand in the midst of a largely peaceful gathering. What was he planning on doing? What were his orders, precisely, and who gave those orders? Was this an isolated incident or do the police do this all the time? Those are the questions I want answered.

The police are charged with upholding the law, therefore they should be held to a very high standard of conduct while discharging their duties.

[ Parent ]
How do you know (1.50 / 2) (#32)
by Troll Hard on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:21:18 PM EST

that the Undercover Police Officers didn't take those rocks from protesters and told them not to throw the rocks? In saying that the Police Officers threw rocks, or manipulated people into throwing rocks is a nice strawman of itself.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]
It appears you are attempting to discredit (none / 0) (#49)
by Josh Smith II on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:42:42 AM EST

this story by pretending to play the devil's advocate. You don't seem willing to play the devil's advocate so much for the protestors though. Is that because you have an anti-protestor bias?

Why the police officer has the rock is irrelevant. The issue here is that he had the rock, refused to put it down, was disguised as a protestor, and no admission was ever made as to why he refused to put the rock down. His silence does not necessarily imply guilt, but in such a public case as this you would think a public statement would be warranted from those wanting to clear their name.

The story author seems to be slanting this somewhat in the direction of the protestors, but is saying an investigation needs to be made. I agree with him, and I tend to think anyone who's not knee-jerking about the event or buying too much the bullshit of either side would agree that an investigation should be made.

Finally, I think the question of how often this does happen without acknowledgement is a very good one. Whether you like it or not, protests are integral to the functioning of a democratic society. I myself am a moderate and rarely agree with the issues brought up in a protest, but I think this latest trend for "conservatives" to demonize protesting is just a defense measure similar to sticking fingers in their ears.

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.
[ Parent ]

Why the police officer has the rock is irrelevant? (none / 0) (#51)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:55:06 AM EST

IT WAS RELEVANT TO YOU TWO POSTS AGO.

you would think a public statement would be warranted from those wanting to clear their name.

He did not throw the rock.  Open and shut.  Just because I drive a car, should I be tried for attempted vehicular murder?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Are you talking to me or JSII? (none / 0) (#62)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:59:06 PM EST

Either way, you're an idiot.

[ Parent ]
Who was I quoting, goldfish? (none / 0) (#63)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:14:00 PM EST

You have a memory of all of three seconds.

I would love to know what your argument provides as an exception for police officers teargassing crowds.  This clearly violates the law you quoted.

I understand your distress at seeing pictures of your intellectual superior being handled like that but try to keep your head on.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Well, you said "two posts ago" (none / 0) (#64)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:31:07 PM EST

while talking to someone who has only posted one comment to this article, so pardon my confusion if you came across as a bit schizo. To answer your question, police are granted special authority to use force while discharging their duties. This would include using teargas on a crowd, or doing other things (like locking someone up) that would be considered illegal for anyone else to do (unlawful confinement). In this case, however, the cops were trying to pass themselves off as regular protesters, most likely to provide an unlawful justification for the use of police force in dispersing this otherwise mostly lawful crowd. I'm not intimately familiar with the internal code of conduct of the SQ, but I'm fairly certain this is an ethical if not criminal breach, and at the very least warrants an investigation to see if this was an isolated incident or if it represents a pattern of behaviour on the part of the police.

[ Parent ]
THAR YOU GO (none / 0) (#65)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:35:00 PM EST

It doesn't matter.

They're authorized to use force.

We go back to the same old problem you've got where your original article outed the cops as cops because they weren't throwing things with the crowd.  Nowhere in your youtube videos or anything you've linked to have those undercover officers committed any type of goading or other such sillyness on tape.  The ones that do use force are clearly identified officers.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Holy fucking shit (none / 0) (#67)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:43:15 PM EST

Are you trying to give me a stroke or do you actually believe the unadulterated horseshit that is spewing forth from your keyboard? Are you seriously saying that you think it's okay for cops to dress up like civilians, enter a crowd of protesters, pick up a rock... and what, exactly? You imply that he had that rock in his hand for lawful reasons, but you have yet to offer any reasonable explanation for that assertion. Now you're equating it to using tear gas on an unruly mob... are you perhaps suggesting that these valiant, heroic cops were going to use force from within the crowd to disperse it? That a plainclothes police officer can brain someone with a rock without identifying himself as a cop? You say that the video doesn't show the undercover officer "goading", yet I've already shown you the section of the CC that clearly states the opposite. Are you trolling? If so, well done sir, you really do come across as sincere. If not, jesus christ pal, go back to Germany circa 1938 if you want to bootlick the police like this.

[ Parent ]
My main problem with this (none / 1) (#55)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 02:56:27 PM EST

is that real protesters refused to drop their rocks as well, but they aren't arrested and thrown in jail because they weren't undercover cops. The undercover cops were doing the very same things as the protesters, and only the cops got arrested because they wore police issue boots and got spotted as cops.

Hot stove rules say that if the cops got arrested, you should arrest the protesters as well. Anything else is a bias and a product of favoritism and discrimination.

Besides earlier in this diary, gndn said that it mattered that the cops had rocks in their hands.

You also seem to be answering for gndn, who hasn't replied to my posts yet, are you a dupe for gndn or is gndn a dupe of yours and you are posting with the wrong account?

Besides let us say that the people arrested were protesters who refused to drop their rocks. What crime did they commit? Since they didn't throw the rocks, you cannot charge them with assault and battery, nor can you charge them with property damage because nothing got damaged. I mean are they charged with picking up rocks or something? What statute did that come from?

What next, they arrest protesters who refuse to quiet down when the cops ask them to? Do we charge them with disturbing the peace and violate their civil rights to free speech and a public assembly?

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

Is it retard day on K5 or something? (3.00 / 3) (#60)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:55:06 PM EST

Yes, it matters that the cop had a rock in his hands. The Unlawful Assemblies and Riots section of the Canadian Criminal Code clearly states that three or more persons gathered for common purpose are breaking the law if they:
conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
  1. will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
  2. will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
(emphasis mine). Picking up a rock when you're out for an evening stroll is not a criminal offense. Picking up a rock when you're in the middle of a large crowd of political protesters and flanked by two masked buddies is a criminal offense. And yes, I've already said elsewhere in this comments section that if any protesters were out of line, they should go to jail also.

My point (yet again) is that because the police are responsible for enforcing the law, they should be held to a very high standard of conduct while discharging their duties. This incident warrants an investigation and raises the question of how many times the police have done this sort of thing without getting caught. Any other questions, moron?

[ Parent ]
Yes I have some questions (none / 1) (#72)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:22:13 PM EST

"cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds"

What constitutes reasonable grounds? I don't think that holding onto rocks constitutes reasonable grounds. I also don't think that holding rocks can cause people to fear either.

Now if they made movements with their arms, like they are going to throw the rock at someone that is different, but that is not what they are accused of, they are only accused of holding rocks.

Yes I used to work with lawyers, and yes I know just how hard it is to prove wrongdoings in these issues when the law in question is too vague as to define what reasonable grounds and fear really are.

The only moron here is you, who hasn't thought this thing through, or allowed due process in that "innocent until proven guilty" because you already found them guilty in a court of public opinion.

Opinions are not facts, moron!

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

I'm not answering for anyone (none / 0) (#70)
by Josh Smith II on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:39:29 PM EST

and I'm not a dupe. Gndn is being a bit of a pigheaded liberal at the moment. Your post here was actually rather reasonable and brings up some interesting points. I'd like to clarify that I don't believe the police officers in this situation need any reprimand for just holding rocks, unless there was further intent that may be revealed by an investigation.

At this moment, a lot of what is going around seems to be dogmatic BS from either side. Either side could be right or wrong, and obviously an investigation is warranted. Additionally, the thought that police may be infiltrating and even causing riots is something worthy of debate.

If these were protestors against Clinton and cops were potentially causing riots to prevent protests I think a few of the people here would change face. I hate the "for us or against us" political mindset in the States that cause most people's eyes to glaze over and rabidly defend even the most idiotic or heinous things that "their team" has done or wants to do.

I'm just trying to bring about a balanced viewpoint as to whether these counter-points to the article are politically contrived in nature, or a result of critical thinking. Political bias sadly ruins a lot of potentialy decent debate as people move into red herrings, strawmen, and other less intelligent "debate winning" tactics to prove their side as "right". There is no black or white, just a sickly shade of gray.

-- Josh Smith recommends you take a hulver hike.
[ Parent ]

You're missing the best part (2.83 / 6) (#34)
by rusty on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:32:18 PM EST

The evidence the police point to that the cops were called out for "refusing to throw things" is going to be exactly the line you're quoting -- the older gentleman saying "put the rock down" and the cops refusing to. You gotta love that kind of spin.

I'm actually pretty surprised the Quebec police have admitted it. American police never would.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Yet the best part he is missing (1.33 / 3) (#45)
by Troll Hard on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:59:56 PM EST

is that the Police never threw the rocks. Holding a rock in your hand is not something that is illegal. Not until you throw it does it become illegal.

What are they charged on, refusal to throw rocks, refusal to drop rocks, conspiracy to hold rocks and refuse to throw them?

Now then were these police officers on duty or not? If they were not on duty, they could have any reason to be in the crowds. If they were on duty and not in uniform there needs to be some reason why they were plains clothed. Maybe they picked up rocks to look like the rest of the crowd to blend in, but refused to throw the rocks like everyone else did. That means protesters picked up rocks first, and then the cops picked up rocks to look like anyone else and not blow their cover.

Did these cops in deed throw rocks? If so, they need charges pressed against them. If they didn't throw rocks at all, what crime can you charge them with? Even cops have civil rights you know.

"Let those among you without sin, cast the first stone!" -Jesus

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

Criminal Menacing (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by phayd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:04:03 PM EST

The same thing other citizens would be charged with.

[ Parent ]
WTF is Criminal Menacing? (none / 1) (#57)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:19:35 PM EST

Did the Canadian Thought Police think up that Thought Crime?

I mean, if this is a law, Criminal Menacing, then you can technically arrest anyone who menaces you and causes you to feel fear.

So that a protester with a picket sign, you ask them to put it down. They refuse. The stick of the picket sign could be used to hit you with and it has a pointy end that could stab you with, so you arrest them for Criminal Menacing.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0) (#59)
by phayd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:24:16 PM EST

And that's How Thangs Work

[ Parent ]
"Criminal Menacing" (3.00 / 3) (#61)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:56:39 PM EST

Is not a legal term that I'm aware of (at least, not in Canada). However, the officers' behaviour was unlawful as explained here.

[ Parent ]
So then you admit you made up that term? (none / 1) (#73)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:24:02 PM EST

You also admit that you found the cops guilty in a court of public opinion and denied them their civil rights to a fair trial and to be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

Opinions are not facts, moron!

I explain it better here you should read it.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

Wow, you fail it on several levels at once (none / 0) (#76)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:04:44 PM EST

First, I didn't use that term, phayd did, and I jumped in with a correction after you questioned him on it. Second, your "I explain it better here" link is completely borked, and third, you're still a retard.

[ Parent ]
Try this link (none / 1) (#80)
by Troll Hard on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:44:21 AM EST

This is the original link

Kuro5hin borked my original link, it used to work fine but now it goes to a blank post.


--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

Another link (none / 1) (#81)
by Troll Hard on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 07:45:31 AM EST

This is another link on the subject

I thought you are phayd and you posted with the wrong dupe account.

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!
[ Parent ]

The term is not made up (none / 0) (#82)
by phayd on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:26:45 AM EST

I was referring to the behavior as described by Criminal Menacing (a USian term), which is illegal in the US and Canada.

As gndn pointed out, what would be described as Criminal Menacing in the US is also illegal in Canada.

Semantics games will not protect the Status Quo.

Make your time.

Your age is over.

[ Parent ]

You have clearly never been in a fight. (none / 0) (#96)
by vectro on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 03:58:46 PM EST

If you want for the other guy to throw his rock/fist/knife/whatever, you have already lost.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Which link says that? (3.00 / 5) (#5)
by Corey Haim on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:16:23 PM EST

I thought they pretty much all said that three burly men dressed in black, wearing bandanas, one with a big rock in his hand, were pushing their way to the front of a group of mostly aged, peaceful protestors, many of whom were wearing suits. No mention at all of any prior rock throwing. And they were called out by an oldish, suited union leader, precisely because of their threatening behaviour and the rock-carrying (and the additional clue of wearing police-issue boots).

I might have missed it, but which link did you read saying the exact opposite of all that?

And don't say the wikipedia one, because anyone can change that to say the national anthem of Jamaica is "Thunder in Paradise Theme" sung by Hulk Hogan. Trusting that got me into trouble at the ambassador's reception.

[ Parent ]

From the CBC... (none / 0) (#9)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:42:45 PM EST

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

Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.

The tip of the failure is that the protesters were "mostly peaceful".  Which is why police had to use tear gas and pepper spray to hold the crowd back?

The article gndn isn't linking to is the one where one of many arrested protesters predicts police aggression.  Which is more likely?  The protesters took a page from the PETA manual and tried to bait police into action (which is probably what happened at Montebello given the three arrests gndn isn't mentioning) or there is a Secret Police State Conspiracy?  The protesters were so stupid they even assaulted the news crew covering the event.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

lol yeah (3.00 / 6) (#13)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:57:26 PM EST

Afterward, the footage shows a male officer approaching some of the other protesters, shoving two of them, then chasing and arresting a protester who shoved back. That man was Morgan-Brown, Willmott said.
Your own link shows evidence of police aggression, not protester aggression. I like how you say they "had to use" tear gas and pepper spray "to hold the crowd back" - that is EXACTLY what the police were apparently hoping everyone would think. If their provocateurs hadn't been found out, the level of violence would have been much higher, and of course the police would be cast as you have done, as having no choice but to resort to violence, whereas in fact it was their plan all along to use violence.

[ Parent ]
Ever heard of reading? (none / 0) (#16)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:10:32 PM EST

Ottawa Police Const. Alain Boucher said Sawyer was arrested after an officer tried to stop some graffiti from happening and Sawyer allegedly intervened, ending up in an altercation with the officer.

That's pretty cut and dried when you're not picking two sentences from content that doesn't fit your narrowminded world view.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Yes, have you? (3.00 / 5) (#19)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:19:25 PM EST

Because you still haven't offered a good explanation as to why the officer mentioned in the article would have had a rock in his hand in the first place other than "when in rome". I'm not naive enough to believe that these protesters are 100% pure and innocent, and perhaps there were troublemakers present, as there always will be to some extent in any protest, but the more important question in my mind is how can the police justify using provocateurs in this fashion? Also - what would those officers have done had they not been found out?

[ Parent ]
The same thing they were doing (none / 1) (#24)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:29:33 PM EST

Observing the crowd, blending in with the crowd, and being yelled at by the crowd for not throwing the rocks when they attempted to blend in.

Your word choice shows your brain isn't working. There are no "provocateurs" in here, just observers trying to blend in. How much of a major cockup would it have been if the police incited protesters into shooting and the police wasted their own?  Do you seriously think they would have been so stupid?

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (none / 1) (#25)
by gndn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:35:39 PM EST

There are no "provocateurs" in here, just observers trying to blend in.
That is precisely what an investigation would (hopefully) resolve.

[ Parent ]
No, it wouldn't (none / 0) (#53)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:58:25 AM EST

For you, similar to your decisions about your own marriage counseling, it's one big rabbit hole. If the investigation comes up blank, you're going to claim the investigators were corrupt. You're not going to be happy until you invent a time machine and a mind reader so you personally can rifle through everyone elses head.  Heil gndn!

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

Dude, losing fight here. (3.00 / 5) (#36)
by ksandstr on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:03:01 PM EST

You ought to withdraw while you still look a tiny bit unlike the sort of person who'll kiss any old hound's arse long as it's got the loudest bark and the biggest nuts.

Fin.
[ Parent ]
I would like to think (none / 0) (#52)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:56:40 AM EST

I don't look like Fox Mulder yelling at the smoke and mirrors in my own head and pretending I have an open mind to my own marriage counseling.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

No, that's not what you said (3.00 / 7) (#27)
by Corey Haim on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:47:53 PM EST

You said something along the lines of "the links show they were called out for not throwing rocks".

The quote you're giving to back it up says, "the police said they were called out for not throwing rocks"

But it seems obvious this was not the case if you watch the video and read the eyewitness accounts. The old guy confronted them, said they were cops, told them to put the rock down. That's what the links show, no? Nowhere can I see anything saying that rocks were already being thrown at the time of this incident, or that they were called out by other rock throwers. The story told by the links says pretty much the exact opposite.

Whether the article suffers for not giving more info on the fact that there were violent incidents elsewhere in the event is moot, because you're questioning the specifics of who called the guys out and for what reason. These aren't touched on at all in the article you've linked to, and from what I see they're covered perfectly well in the links given.

[ Parent ]

what are you talking about? (none / 0) (#6)
by Kingmaker on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:18:58 PM EST

Cut and paste plz thx

[ Parent ]
click and read plz thx (none / 0) (#10)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:43:33 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2007/8/28/135820/757/9#9

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

yes, I know what the police said (3.00 / 5) (#26)
by Kingmaker on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:41:32 PM EST

Video speaks a million words

[ Parent ]
CADANIANS, EH??? (2.16 / 6) (#3)
by eejit on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:51:26 PM EST

¡lol ǝıqɹɐq ǝɥʇ uo dɯıɹɥs ɹǝɥʇouɐ ʇnd

'CLEVER' CAPTIONS CRETINS CONCOCT CLICHÉD (1.33 / 3) (#28)
by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:43:45 PM EST

Go back to indymedia, cocksucker.

___
I'm a pompous windbag, I take myself far too seriously, and I single-handedly messed up K5 by causing the fiction section to be created. --localroger

Cops suck.. (1.33 / 3) (#35)
by undermyne on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:45:54 PM EST

particularly french cops.

That said, members of radical groups/protesters suck harder, deeper, and longer and then take it in the face.


"SEALED MASTICATION MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT? " thekubrix
+1 canuck corruption (1.25 / 4) (#40)
by achievingfluidity on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:54:59 PM EST

conundrums. Creating chaos and craps for the world.

--
ANNOY A LIBERAL USE FACTS AND LOGIC


most governments hate free assembly (2.80 / 5) (#41)
by blackbart on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:01:41 PM EST

and its in their interests for crowds to behave as badly as possible, especially if media is present.

"I use this dupe for modbombing and impersonating a highly paid government worker"
- army of phred

Fuquez les policiers (1.66 / 6) (#42)
by Booger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:10:38 PM EST

Ils ne sont pas mes niggaz.

-
I did think of a derogatory term for white people--RICH. Call some white guy RICH and it doesn't matter how much money they have, they'll start squealin about how oh they wish they were rich.--tdillo

+1 Alliteration. (2.75 / 8) (#44)
by destroyallofit on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:32:06 PM EST

I once had a race and gender professor tell me alliteration wasn't a word lol.

race and gender studies should be limited to (3.00 / 7) (#48)
by insomnyuk on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:12:13 AM EST

viewing interracial pornography.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
I once had a gender studies prof (none / 1) (#69)
by Booger on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:11:13 PM EST

tell me that "cunnilingus" wasn't a word.  But then again, she had a penis.

-

I did think of a derogatory term for white people--RICH. Call some white guy RICH and it doesn't matter how much money they have, they'll start squealin about how oh they wish they were rich.--tdillo
[ Parent ]

Admit it (2.42 / 7) (#50)
by anno1602 on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:44:44 AM EST

You only wrote this article so you could use that headline.
--
"Where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit." - Murphy
you can thank me later (2.25 / 8) (#54)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 01:30:07 PM EST

my vote sent it fp

i have to do my small part to spread more of the anti-canadian propaganda


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Here's why it matters (2.85 / 7) (#58)
by phayd on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:22:51 PM EST

Police can take whatever repressive actions they were already planning with the crowd because some of their undercover cops have a rock in their hand.  The cops with the rock in their hand provide "Reasonable Suspicion" as well as allowing the Police to claim they felt threatened.

The Status Quo is able to discredit peaceful protesters and their message when The Media take pictures of said undercover "Black Bloc" protesters with rocks in their hands.

Why is the government of Quebec trying to illegally suppress political speech presented by non-violent protestors.  Is it perhaps because they have no argument that would stand up to the claims presented by the protestors?

In my opinion... (none / 0) (#77)
by NoMoreNicksLeft on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:44:12 AM EST

It's unlikely that they'd use this level of repression for run-of-the-mill political speech. With the exception of Dubya, the same would go for the US (he's just an asshat).

But in this one circumstance, something really spooky was going on. Our masters are ready to implement another stage of their one world government, and for reasons only they know it is imperative that things go smoothly.

And these idiots thought they were just peacefully protesting WTO/globalization/Starbucks.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]

parfois nous devons tricher pour servir la justice (none / 1) (#66)
by mikelist on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:37:43 PM EST



Nous devons respecter nos principes (none / 0) (#68)
by gndn on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:45:57 PM EST

pour confirmer la justice. Autrement, nous sommes des criminels nous-mêmes.

[ Parent ]
Well, (2.25 / 4) (#71)
by trhurler on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:40:47 PM EST

Since Canadians have no legally enforceable rights anyway, it doesn't really matter does it? I mean, the Canadian government regularly seizes printed material it dislikes at the border, and nobody can do anything about it. Video games can be banned, speakers silenced, the weapons of resistance taken away, homes, vehicles, and businesses searched at whim (there is a process, but no effective penalty or process of redress for not following it,) and so on. Given that, how can you possibly care about some police trying to start a riot? It is the CIVILIANS who should be rioting in a police state like that.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

The US has legally enforceable rights? (none / 1) (#74)
by Zombie Gautama Buddha on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:36:23 PM EST

I mean, I know they're supposed to be, but...

[ Parent ]
Oh, man (none / 0) (#94)
by wji on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:21:28 PM EST

You used to be good at that shit, trhurler, now you're just one step above pagewidening.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
All people are created equal (1.33 / 3) (#75)
by Troll Hard on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:31:43 PM EST

some people are more equal than others!

We hold cops to a higher standard, so they are not as equal as other people.

Other people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, cops are not innocent but are guilty in a court of public opinion and must prove themselves innocent!

Please don't plagiarize George Orwell when you are trying to prove that Canadian Law comes from "Animal Farm".

--------
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! Mind over Matter Fringe Science for the win!

Narrowly? (1.00 / 2) (#78)
by boxed on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:51:20 AM EST

So if the crowd hasn't discovered that they were cops they would have gladly participated in the violence? If you want to sound sensationalist you should not say that the riot was narrowly avoided, but that police assault against civilians was narrowly avoided, or something.

People seem to be having a hard time with this (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by gndn on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:54:57 AM EST

so let me explain what I think would have happened:
  • the undercover officer throws his rock at the line of riot police
  • the riot police respond with batons, tear gas, and general ass kicking
  • the undercover officers run away or escape in the confusion
  • the peaceful crowd is now on the receiving end of a vicious beat down; any who attempt to defend themselves are guilty of "assaulting the police" or "resisting arrest" and are therefore subject to an even more vicious beat down
  • the media swoops in to cover the violence
  • the police use the fact that a rock was thrown at them to justify their violent response
  • the media falls in line and reports that the police had "no choice" but to use violence to quell an unruly mob
I have yet to hear a different/better explanation for why the undercover officer would have a rock in his hand.

[ Parent ]
Forgot the most important point: (none / 1) (#84)
by gndn on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:10:06 AM EST

  • The protesters vehemently deny having started the riot, but no one believes them because it's their word against the cops and the media present the story with a very cop-friendly slant.


[ Parent ]
perhaps, but that's a separate issue (2.75 / 4) (#88)
by Delirium on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:47:00 PM EST

I don't think the police should be trying to incite riots, even among people who might not mind rioting. Now if those people start a riot on their own despite everyone's best efforts to prevent (not to start) one, then that remains a problem, and they should probably be arrested. But that's separate from whether police should be trying to increase the amount of rioting going on, which I think it's clear they shouldn't be.

[ Parent ]
It's pretty amazing (2.50 / 2) (#79)
by Kingmaker on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 04:35:41 AM EST

How many people are siding with the police when the VIDEO EVIDENCE IS SO BLATANT.

You goose stepping fucks are gonna burn if there's a hell.

there isn't a hell, sorry (nt) (none / 0) (#87)
by Delirium on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:42:28 PM EST



[ Parent ]
whoosh over your head (none / 1) (#89)
by Kingmaker on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:41:24 PM EST



[ Parent ]
there is a hell (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by rhiannon on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:19:12 AM EST

right here on earth

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
It's all Bush's Fault (1.25 / 4) (#85)
by nlscb on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:54:37 PM EST

It always was, always is, and always will be.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

It would help if the protesters behaved themselves (2.00 / 2) (#86)
by nlscb on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:59:09 PM EST

Were the cops acting in a criminal manner? Absolutely.

But the protesters actions severely strain my ability to sympathize. Elected leaders confering privately is not illegal and not a sign of conspiracy. If you lost the election (Harper, Calderón, and Bush all won fair and square in the their elections), that means you lost and have to deal with it. You may protest peacefully, but if you bully the press and act obnoxiously, most people will just press for the letter, and the spirit, of the law ot be enfoced.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

Happens in Denmark as well (2.66 / 3) (#90)
by Per Abrahamsen on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 03:07:59 AM EST

It is quite common.  The undercover cops are usually easy to spot, they tend to spend a lot more time in the gym than the "real" demonstrators, and often combine it with steroids abuse.  It does show.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, the good old "never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity" applies here.  Especially as steroids are known to affect temper and judgment, it is enough explain why the undercover cops tend to be far the most aggressive of the "demonstrators".

OMG! Some Pothead squatters got 371kt3d! (none / 1) (#92)
by nlscb on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 11:18:04 PM EST

Give me a break. Look, either 4m3r1k4 or DKia is the world's home of fascism. PICK AND CHOOSE OR STFU! Everyone loves your socialist paradise now and wants to move there with the naive hope of fucking your increasingly fat women and driving up real estate prices.

It's amazing what shit Danish tax payers put up with. Maybe that's why there all moving to Malmo?

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Discredit (2.80 / 5) (#91)
by hebertrich on Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 07:00:31 PM EST

I live right here in Quebec , it's an old thing with
the Surete Du Quebec and the cops in general in the
province .. Make a search for the Samedi de la matraque .. numerous other occasions too. There's
a good chance that this manoeuver was to shift the focus of attention of the media/population from the
content of the discussions and the total lack of any
transparency nor information about what was discussed behind closed doors , to violent protesters that were disrupting the important summit.
Well .. BUSTED .. but we still havent a clue about
what truly went on behind closed doors and they wont
tell us cause chances are that the Harper minority government would be in serious trouble.

Offtopic (none / 1) (#95)
by wji on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:26:04 PM EST

Does anybody else think it's fitting that a discussion on provocateurs is attracting the trolls?

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
WIPO: False dichotomy. (none / 0) (#97)
by vectro on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 04:00:58 PM EST

Police should be allowed to infiltrate only criminal organizations without uniforms, but it's quite rare for a criminal organization to stage a protest,

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
Canadian cops corrupt? Quebec cops caught causing chaos | 97 comments (90 topical, 7 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!