"Liberal" use of violence with Protesters.
Just one laugh after another.
So.
The armchair quarterbacks are running amok.
Amidst a host of Liberal bloggers decrying the security during the G20, and alleged "abuse" of protesters, one marvels at the lack of short-term memory.
Going back a few years, to one of the supposed architects of the current "Librocrat" alliance, Jean Chretien, we discover that he had his own problems with security of foreign visitors during the 1997 APEC Summit in Vancouver.. you may recall the "Peppergate" scandal.
To recap, during the APEC Summit, under the direction of the Liberal Government under Jean Chretien, the RCMP engaged in various actions that resulted in an inquiry into their conduct and the conduct of government, which included using attack dogs on protesters, using pepper spray on protesters, taking down signs on private property, protesters were unnecessarily strip-searched.
The report found widespread abuse of rights of free expression and excessive use of force by the RCMP, accompanied by inappropriate involvement of the Government in directing the RCMP's use of force to avoid embarrassment of a foreign dignitary.
A commission of inquiry into police actions at APEC last November has revealed disturbing evidence of the prime minister's involvement in the violation of protesters' constitutional and human rights.
Ironically enough, as reported in"Green Left":
Documents released demonstrate that in his zeal to prevent then president Suharto of Indonesia seeing unsightly protesters and signs supporting human rights and free speech, Chrétien's office ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to get rid of the protesters.
As a result, protesters were roughed up, pepper-sprayed, arrested and strip-searched by police, merely for holding signs promoting freedom of speech, or for standing too close to where the "dignitaries'" motorcade would pass.
Constitutional experts have argued that Chrétien's office violated the law, which could potentially throw the country into a constitutional crisis, by breaching the barrier between legislators and the police force.
Human rights advocates in Canada have launched a petition calling for Chrétien to resign.
When Jean Chretien was asked about use of pepper spray, in the face of this damning report, Chretien joked, "Pepper? For me I put it on my food."
How many times must I respond to Liberal attacks..
"Rocks, Glass houses.. you know the rest."
4 comments:
Ya I remember that, and being outraged about it. But two wrongs don't make a right. Just as the police actions at the APEC summit were a mistake that reflected poorly on Chretien; it makes perfect sense for the same to be true for this G20 summit and Harper.
Neither were right, both ought to have been avoided, and in both cases the PM should be held accountable.
My point, slinger, is that as reflected in the report regarding the APEC summit, even back in 1997 there was a recognition of the growing use of violence and destruction as an adjunct to alleged "free expression" - and that the issue is more complicated than some suggest - particularly from a partisan persepctive.
In other words, Chretien had to try and walk the line and Harper had to walk the line - and it's not an easy line.
Saturday, complaints are the police didn't do enough.
Sunday, complaints are the police did too much.
We are seeing a growing sophistication with anarchists and foreign and domestic terrorists that human rights protections in free and democratic countries can effectively be weilded as a "weapon".
Witness the actions of the so-called black bloc. They insinuate themsevles into a crowd, they go on rampage and then hide in the crowd, discard their garb and when the police then have to control a mob including obvious criminals, but without any ability to -at that moment - describe and apprehend the specific guilty party - their choice, really, is:
a) Do nothing; or
b) Seek to effectively control and detain in some respect the whole crowd - and, if they do wish to assure that arrests can be made of the "guilty" parties, take a large group into temporary custody to allow for some ability to identify the chief wrong-doers.
And, rest assured, it's not like the prosters are making the work easier by pointing and saying, "There they are.".
Harvie,
I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of your argument.
You make an excellent argument and I agree that there is a problem with these criminals using guerrilla tactics to preform hit and runs on opportune targets. Clearly, new methods have to be developed to deal with it.
Also I agree that use of violence is not a valid form of free expression.
The complaints by the media between the police doing too much or too little doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the situation. Frankly, I think the police work on Saturday and earlier was fine, minus the loss of 3 police cars.
But Sunday was too much. For example blocking people into an intersection in the rain for hours on end and making no effort to separate the criminals from the legal protesters and people who just happened to be there is just silly.
There are also a number of flaws with your argument.
It may not be an easy line but it can and ought to be scrutinized if our right and freedoms are to be anything more than just a legal fiction.
These Black Bloc criminals are hiding in the crowd and using the democratic right to protest as a tool in their efforts. But how can you prevent them from doing it without damaging the aforementioned right. Even if section 1 is used the guiding principle is still minimal impairment. So yes democratic rights can be exploited, the real question is what can be done to prevent it?
Also there's a lot that can be done between nothing and arresting everyone. First, I doubt that nothing was ever being done. Even before Saturday night and Sunday, when most arrests were made, a large number of people were taken into custody and I suspect that a higher percentage of those arrests were legitimate.
Also the treatment that detainees received upon arrest has been deplorable. There have been reports of sexual assault, depriving prisoners of needed medical attention (one man just needed his insulin), and depriving prisoners of food and water for up to 20 hours. I'm sure you'll agree that if these are true and there's no reason to doubt it, police conduct was improper.
As for the political aspect of this, the question remains how much of this could have been avoided by holding the summit in a more remote area than downtown Toronto. It would have resulted in less violence, the police presence wouldn't have needed to be as great and cost way less. Regardless of who is the PM the decision to have the summit in Toronto reflects poorly on them.
Oh.. I agree. In a free society, we can't have government abusing it's citizens for standing up, in a non-violent way - to challenge it's policies.
I've actually been struck as a by-stander by a riot cop with a baton while walking into the periphery of a riot in Penticton back in the 80's.. so I get the idea.. though I remember even then, in my 20's, being more or less understanding that they had a situation and when I got pushed back and told to walk away.. I got the message and never considered that I was abused - even though I was basically a pedestrian walking into the wrong place at the wrong time.
As far as the allegations against the police, every complaint requires at least some review - but I'll reserve my judgment on the abuse allegations for the moment.
However, you're bang-on about the issue of the choice of venue.
Put them all on a big boat in the middle of Lake Superior surrounded by Coast Guard and RCMP.
Post a Comment