The Official Complaint Thread!

[J-Ho Fan]

Interviews first thing in the morning.

I feel like I will never fall asleep. I'd rather have an interview at like 3pm!

 

[Leafaholic99]

Getting bored being off work, but the Dr doesn't want me going unless my neck is better.

They took X-rays this past Monday and said they wouldn't call if everything looked good, well they called yesterday asking I come in next week. Get the results of my X-Rays on Wednesday.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Some vindication I suppose: http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/1038347--aggression-during-g20-rally-perpetrated-by-police-judge-rules?bn=1

 

[Damian]

Some vindication I suppose: http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/1038347--aggression-during-g20-rally-perpetrated-by-police-judge-rules?bn=1

While thats true, the whole issue of accountability is in the air... he's just one of hundreds.... and still, nobody in authority is paying a price.... some democracy

 

[TML fan]

All of this happened after the looting, vandalism and destruction of property took place. If the police hadn't acted when they did, the way they did....well, you've all seen what's happening in England. Like it or not, Toronto had one of the tamest G20 riots in the history of the event BECAUSE of what the Police did.

It's funny, listening to bystanders' comments about the riots in England, many of them are saying "Where are the Police? Why aren't they doing anything?"

It's a lose-lose situation for Police. If they act, they get blamed. If they don't act, they get blamed. They are society's Robert Reichel.

In light of recent events in other democratic nations, I'm all for a few civil rights being violated for the sake of maintaining order. I've always believed that the rights and freedoms we've been granted, that people fought and died for, come with the responsibility to act with civility and within the law. When the first bottle was thrown, the first pane of glass was broken, and the first police car was lit on fire, anyone and everyone involved in those protests lost the right to demonstrate as it was proven at that moment that it could not be done peacefully. 

At the end of the day, if this article is any indication, everyone who was wronged will have their day in court and justice will be served.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

In light of recent events in other democratic nations, I'm all for a few civil rights being violated for the sake of maintaining order. I've always believed that the rights and freedoms we've been granted, that people fought and died for, come with the responsibility to act with civility and within the law. When the first bottle was thrown, the first pane of glass was broken, and the first police car was lit on fire, anyone and everyone involved in those protests lost the right to demonstrate as it was proven at that moment that it could not be done peacefully. 

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  Denying everyone the right to peaceful protest because of the actions of the vast minority?

I don't expect the police to work magic.  I expect, if our elected leaders are going to stage an event like this in a city like Toronto, they are going to adequately protect the public.  If it is not feasible to do without wide-ranging infringements of civil liberties, then don't do it.

Otherwise, you deal with the lingering consequences.

I don't see how this has any comparison to random, wanton violence in the UK stemming from a police shooting.

 

[TML fan]

In light of recent events in other democratic nations, I'm all for a few civil rights being violated for the sake of maintaining order. I've always believed that the rights and freedoms we've been granted, that people fought and died for, come with the responsibility to act with civility and within the law. When the first bottle was thrown, the first pane of glass was broken, and the first police car was lit on fire, anyone and everyone involved in those protests lost the right to demonstrate as it was proven at that moment that it could not be done peacefully. 

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous.  Denying everyone the right to peaceful protest because of the actions of the vast minority?

I don't expect the police to work magic.  I expect, if our elected leaders are going to stage an event like this in a city like Toronto, they are going to adequately protect the public.  If it is not feasible to do without wide-ranging infringements of civil liberties, then don't do it.

Otherwise, you deal with the lingering consequences.

I don't see how this has any comparison to random, wanton violence in the UK stemming from a police shooting.

I'm sure you've heard of the "few bad apples" expression. I'm not a terrorist, but I still have to go through the security process at the airport. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff in that situation? You can't just go roaming through the crowd asking people if they're the ones lighting cars on fire.

The violence must be stopped before it spreads. Unfortunately, that means clamping down on civil liberties. If you're part of the mob and you're not stopping the violence, you're just as guilty as those perpetrating it. As far as I know, there is no provision in the Charter for "mostly peaceful protests"

The comparison to the UK is that the Police should have come down harder on those protests. Toronto could have been a lot worse than it was, and probably would have been had the Police not done what they did. Those who have been tread on will have their day in court.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The comparison to the UK is that the Police should have come down harder on those protests. Toronto could have been a lot worse than it was, and probably would have been had the Police not done what they did. Those who have been tread on will have their day in court.

From what I've seen and read, the protestors destroying stuff in Toronto, the 'black bloc' stuff, was witnessed by the police from a distance, who did nothing to intervene to stop the destruction.  It was only after they dispersed back into the crowd that the police began going after people.

The destruction went on without police stopping them for around 1.5 hours (this is all from various different websites, who knows what is verifiable and what is not, but there is a good documentary on it all).

It probably would have been a lot less if the police had stopped that from happening, rather than the tactics they used on peaceful protestors.

No there is no "mostly peaceful protest" provision, there is simply:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

    (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

This is a nice/scary report on it: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/

 

[bustaheims]

Honestly, I have a hard time actually calling the majority of people who were at the G20 mess protestors - they weren't out there rallying for any identifiable cause. Most of the people out there were there just to be there. They were the type of people who feel events like the G20 go hand in hand with protest marches and such, but don't fight for any particular cause, aren't looking to raise any particular issue, etc. Truthfully, the crowd at the G20 was less of a protest and more of a mob scene.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Agreed.

 

[Tigger]

The problem here is that the violent part of the g20 protests occurred mostly over a fairly limited time frame early on and the police watched their own cars burn while doing absolutely nothing to stop any kind of spread. The peaceful protesters took a pretty huge hit for that and the police are, slowly, being shown to have overstepped in response overall and also seem to have participated in obstructing justice after the fact.

There's an interview with Steve Paikin worth watching, he witnessed some of the events and is a pretty reliable journalist. His take on the crowd was that they were there to say they had a right to be assemble peacefully, nothing much more to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs

Going through a security check at an airport is a little different from being beaten and falsely arrested, a few bad apples doesn't justify that especially when they seemed to have rolled away unscathed.

Police are just people and they are trained to do what they did in a command structure so I don't have as much of a problem with them as I do the system overall. Like Paikin says at the end of the interview, it was a sad bloody day for democracy.

 

[Kin]

Unfortunately, that means clamping down on civil liberties. If you're part of the mob and you're not stopping the violence, you're just as guilty as those perpetrating it.

Just for the record, this isn't true by any credible definition of the word guilty.

 

[Scot4bz]

A/C is not working......not fixed until Monday(maybe) if the fix doesn't work then big dough for a new unit  :-\

 

[TML fan]

Unfortunately, that means clamping down on civil liberties. If you're part of the mob and you're not stopping the violence, you're just as guilty as those perpetrating it.

Just for the record, this isn't true by any credible definition of the word guilty.

I beg to differ. I believe you're familiar with the concept of mob mentality.

Some of the posters above have commented how the Police were allegedly aware of who was responsible for starting the violence at the time. The Police can't just walk into a crowd like that and start picking people out. The crowd won't know what they're doing and they're likely to view such actions as threatening. It's likely to just add fuel to the fire, rather than prevent a riot.

If you remove the lawful protesters, you remove the opportunity for the criminals to engage in violent activities. They are cowards and don't like to operate without the cover of the law-abiding. I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying it's the way it is.

Did the peaceful protesters disperse and go home when the violence started? Did they co-operate with Police when they attempted to stop the violence? Not from what I remember. Not leaving when stuff started to go down made it more difficult for the Police to do what they were supposed to, because of mob mentality. That strikes me as an error in judgment, which I think fits the definition of guilty.

At least according to Oxford...

 

[TML fan]

The comparison to the UK is that the Police should have come down harder on those protests. Toronto could have been a lot worse than it was, and probably would have been had the Police not done what they did. Those who have been tread on will have their day in court.

No there is no "mostly peaceful protest" provision, there is simply:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

    (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

This is a nice/scary report on it: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/

There is also this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I don't think theft, vandalism, destruction of property, and arson qualify as peaceful activities. Even if only 1% of a protest is involved in such activities, I don't see how you can call such an assembly peaceful.

 

[Kin]

I beg to differ. I believe you're familiar with the concept of mob mentality.

It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It refers to the way that being in a crowd like that can sometimes get otherwise calm people to get caught up in the tide and do things they otherwise wouldn't do. That's not the issue here you're saying that people who weren't caught up in mob mentality, who were peaceful and law-abiding, are just as guilty as those who were breaking the law by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not true both in a legal and a moral sense.

Beg to differ all you want, you can't charge someone with proximity to a crime.

 

[Damian]

I beg to differ. I believe you're familiar with the concept of mob mentality.

It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It refers to the way that being in a crowd like that can sometimes get otherwise calm people to get caught up in the tide and do things they otherwise wouldn't do. That's not the issue here you're saying that people who weren't caught up in mob mentality, who were peaceful and law-abiding, are just as guilty as those who were breaking the law by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not true both in a legal and a moral sense.

Beg to differ all you want, you can't charge someone with proximity to a crime.

Your right Nik, and to add a bit more, its actually called Convergence Theory....

"Convergence theory holds that crowd behavior is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals. Thus, crowds amount to a convergence of like-minded individuals. In other words, while contagion theory states that crowds cause people to act in a certain way, convergence theory says the opposite: that people who wish to act in a certain way come together to form crowds. An example of convergence theory states that there is no homogeneous activity within a repetitive practice, sometimes observed when an immigrant population becomes common in a previously homogeneous area, and members of the existing community (apparently spontaneously) band together to threaten those trying to move into their neighborhoods. In such cases, convergence theorists contend, the crowd itself does not generate racial hatred or violence; rather, the hostility has been simmering for some time among many local people. A crowd then arises from convergence of people who oppose the presence of these neighbors. Convergence theory claims that crowd behavior as such is not irrational; rather, people in crowds express existing beliefs and values so that the mob reaction is the rational product of widespread popular feeling."

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The comparison to the UK is that the Police should have come down harder on those protests. Toronto could have been a lot worse than it was, and probably would have been had the Police not done what they did. Those who have been tread on will have their day in court.

No there is no "mostly peaceful protest" provision, there is simply:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

    (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

This is a nice/scary report on it: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/

There is also this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I don't think theft, vandalism, destruction of property, and arson qualify as peaceful activities. Even if only 1% of a protest is involved in such activities, I don't see how you can call such an assembly peaceful.

Except much of the police response was to the peaceful protestors and not the violent acts.  It wasn't like there was one huge protest, and when there was violence, the police did nothing to quell it.  Like I said, there is plenty of evidence of them using violent tactics on peaceful protests, even within the 'official protest zone' or whatever it was called.

I highly doubt the fact you were in downtown Toronto during the G20 is evidence enough to reach this 'reasonable limit' and strip you of those Charter rights listed above, which happened to many, many people those days.

The resulting sentences, or lack thereof, are proof enough.

And what about the members of the media?  There have been numerous stories of people with press credentials, who showed police their press credentials, being abused/arrested/both in all of this.  They should be arrested for reporting on the protests because they were there when the protests turned violent?

 

[TML fan]

I beg to differ. I believe you're familiar with the concept of mob mentality.

It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It refers to the way that being in a crowd like that can sometimes get otherwise calm people to get caught up in the tide and do things they otherwise wouldn't do. That's not the issue here you're saying that people who weren't caught up in mob mentality, who were peaceful and law-abiding, are just as guilty as those who were breaking the law by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not true both in a legal and a moral sense.

Beg to differ all you want, you can't charge someone with proximity to a crime.

That's not what I'm saying. By refusing to disperse when the violence erupted, they are guilty of contributing to an environment where the violence would be allowed to continue. I know the definition of the word "guilty". You're the one who seems to think that a particular crime must be involved for the word to apply.

I thought I explained mob mentality in pretty much the same way you just did. That's why the Police can't just go charging into the crowd to arrest those responsible. If the crowd is ignorant of the situation, then that ignorance is going to cause otherwise calm and law-abiding people to question their actions, and the mob mentality would kick in. All it takes is ONE person to start yelling "shame! shame!".

 

[TML fan]

The comparison to the UK is that the Police should have come down harder on those protests. Toronto could have been a lot worse than it was, and probably would have been had the Police not done what they did. Those who have been tread on will have their day in court.

No there is no "mostly peaceful protest" provision, there is simply:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

    (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
    (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
    (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

This is a nice/scary report on it: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/

There is also this:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I don't think theft, vandalism, destruction of property, and arson qualify as peaceful activities. Even if only 1% of a protest is involved in such activities, I don't see how you can call such an assembly peaceful.

Except much of the police response was to the peaceful protestors and not the violent acts.  It wasn't like there was one huge protest, and when there was violence, the police did nothing to quell it.  Like I said, there is plenty of evidence of them using violent tactics on peaceful protests, even within the 'official protest zone' or whatever it was called.

I highly doubt the fact you were in downtown Toronto during the G20 is evidence enough to reach this 'reasonable limit' and strip you of those Charter rights listed above, which happened to many, many people those days.

The resulting sentences, or lack thereof, are proof enough.

And what about the members of the media?  There have been numerous stories of people with press credentials, who showed police their press credentials, being abused/arrested/both in all of this.  They should be arrested for reporting on the protests because they were there when the protests turned violent?

I've already explained why it's very difficult if not impossible to separate the peaceful protesters from the violent criminals in a crowd like that.

I also never once said that everything they did was above the board, or even that it was right. I believe that curtailing the right of assembly was necessary to prevent further violence, which is CERTAINLY covered in Section 1 of the Charter. I firmly believe that when the violence erupted, that the peaceful, law-abiding protesters had a RESPONSIBILITY to extricate themselves from the area and make way for the Police to apprehend those responsible. From what I can tell, that DID NOT HAPPEN.

Everything else that happened, the stuff with the media, the alleged random arrests...I can't speak to that. As I've said numerous times in these discussions I do not have all the facts and I am not taking the word of oft-sensational media outlets at face value. Everyone will have their day in court, and when the verdict is in, then I will know what to think. The man in the article had his day and he was vindicated. In his case, the Police effed up.