G-20 Summit in Toronto

[nfitz]

a bunch of people being rounded up and waiting to to be taken somewhere in the rain is hardly a human right violation.

That's exactly what it is. It's a violation of 2a) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "freedom of peaceful assembly". It's also a violation of 9) "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.". Those who were kettled were also denied 10a), 10b), and 10c) "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.". The detention in the torrential downpour may violate 12) "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment"; this was most unusual treatment.

Clearly human rights were violated. To suggest otherwise is mind boggling.

I have just one question on the validity of the alleged mass abuses and some of the media caught up in the dragnet. Why hasn't Steve Paikin' face been plastered all over the papers on this or been interviewed by other media on his attack at the hands of the cops?

Perhaps because his job is to report the news, not be the news. Surely the initial report of him, and other media, should suffice, and he shouldn't have to stand up every day to repeat the story while the legal process against the police officers continues. What a bizarre question! It's almost as if you doubt his story ...

 

[Darwinkgo]

So basically you say it's okay to illegally arrest people, beat them, verbally abuse them, and degrade them.

I guess you must be one of Toronto's finest then.

Ok or not isn't the question. I think we can all acknowledge that what happened was unpleasant.

Whether or not rights were trampled is not the question, it is whether those rights were trampled for a good reason (an objective), and whether the method of rights denial was the minimal one could do to meet the set objective (minimal impairment).

Plus, one has to look at what the remedy for most of these charter violations is - release from custody. With a pressing and substantial objective (security) I could see the violations upheld, and no compensation offered for degrading treatment - why would it? The court case from Vancouver damages were only assigned because the strip search was degrading and there was little reason to do it. Even with kettling, the police could arguably say they believed there was elements within the crowd that they thought were a security threat - and if they had little way to rapidly sort and process the crowd to separate the wheat from the chaff, they were justified in doing so and holding people for many hours.

That they then released everyone was not an admission that they had acted wrong - that the rights of people were trampled for an unjustifiable reason. Knowledge and the situation on the ground can change, and police can change what they are doing based on that.

 

[nfitz]

Ok or not isn't the question. I think we can all acknowledge that what happened was unpleasant.

Your are ignoring that some police officers physically beat some of the detainees. That goes beyond unpleasant, and into a criminal act.

 

[doug]

What a bizarre question! It's almost as if you doubt his story ...

He appears to be extremely uninformed and unaware of what occurs around him.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Your are ignoring that some police officers physically beat some of the detainees. That goes beyond unpleasant, and into a criminal act.

True (your second statement), and every person that feels wronged should file complaints at the appropriate bodies - I doubt most cases will go any distance however (not as in people not filing, but in findings that in their particular case nothing wrong happened). I would suspect if a lawsuit was filed in the above case that the police would be found at fault. But isolated serious incidents don't add up into a class action suit.

 

[poppajojo]

Ok or not isn't the question. I think we can all acknowledge that what happened was unpleasant.

Whether or not rights were trampled is not the question, it is whether those rights were trampled for a good reason (an objective), and whether the method of rights denial was the minimal one could do to meet the set objective (minimal impairment).

Plus, one has to look at what the remedy for most of these charter violations is - release from custody. With a pressing and substantial objective (security) I could see the violations upheld, and no compensation offered for degrading treatment - why would it? The court case from Vancouver damages were only assigned because the strip search was degrading and there was little reason to do it. Even with kettling, the police could arguably say they believed there was elements within the crowd that they thought were a security threat - and if they had little way to rapidly sort and process the crowd to separate the wheat from the chaff, they were justified in doing so and holding people for many hours.

That they then released everyone was not an admission that they had acted wrong - that the rights of people were trampled for an unjustifiable reason. Knowledge and the situation on the ground can change, and police can change what they are doing based on that.

Objective is not a good reason, anything can be an objective... Release from custody is a remedy? lmao... The situation was not dire enough to expel civil liberties. That is the main question and it's an easy answer. No, smashing windows of some buildings is not dire enough to expel civil liberties... simple as that. The end definitely did not justify the means. People believe the October Crisis was not reason enough.
There was strip-searches in this situation, and in many cases of innocent people who did not deserve it and were shortly released. You have the premise right, the conclusion wrong. The end did not justify the means.

That they then released everyone was not an admission that they had acted wrong - that the rights of people were trampled for an unjustifiable reason. Knowledge and the situation on the ground can change, and police can change what they are doing based on that.

So basically you believe the police have cart blanche on arresting people regardless of it being justified, thankfully you're wrong.

 

[Darwinkgo]

All I am saying is that every rights 'abuse' must be viewed under section one of the charter.

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.

The court has established the following process to see if a section one will overrule a right.

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
1. The means must be rationally connected to the objective
2. There must be minimal impairment of rights
3. There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

I think most of the actions of police during the weekend pass the test, and in some individual cases the actions do not. That you think that the crimes being committed and the security or world leaders is not a pressing and substantial objective I think the courts would disagree.

Individual events likely won't pass the proportionality test, like beatings at the Novotel for example, but that doesn't make all the other events of the weekend unconstitutional.

 

[nfitz]

All I am saying is that every rights 'abuse' must be viewed under section one of the charter.



The court has established the following process to see if a section one will overrule a right.



I think most of the actions of police during the weekend pass the test, and in some individual cases the actions do not. That you think that the crimes being committed and the security or world leaders is not a pressing and substantial objective I think the courts would disagree.

Individual events likely won't pass the proportionality test, like beatings at the Novotel for example, but that doesn't make all the other events of the weekend unconstitutional.

It's going to be an interesting court process over the next decade or so.

But one question is, what limit is it prescribed by law that allows police to kettle?

 

[poppajojo]

♦

I think most of the actions of police during the weekend pass the test, and in some individual cases the actions do not. That you think that the crimes being committed and the security or world leaders is not a pressing and substantial objective I think the courts would disagree.

My prior post was basically a statement on the test. All arrests of innocent protesters, bystanders and media do not pass the test. The vandalism was done outside of the secure zone, it does not give the police carte blanche to arrest everybody. It actually doesn't pass the first test of a pressing and substantial objective either. The police with its far larger numbers had the ability to specifically arrest the vandals in the act. The world leaders were completely safe, broken windows do not even hurt their feelings. One can't really argue for minimal impairment and proportionality. It definitely doesn't pass the test for most of the people arrested.

It'll be at the discretion of the judge, but if the U.S. courts are critical and against this with their eroding rights, I definitely think Canada will follow the same path. It's the Canadian way.

 

[Darwinkgo]

It's going to be an interesting court process over the next decade or so.

But one question is, what limit is it prescribed by law that allows police to kettle?

Prescribed by law doesn't mean it is written down, either as a law, regulation, or policy. An action or inaction by government is 'perscribed by law'. Perscribed by law isn't the important part of section 1 when your dealing with citizen vs government, the important part is "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

 

[Darwinkgo]

My prior post was basically a statement on the test. All arrests of innocent protesters, bystanders and media do not pass the test. The vandalism was done outside of the secure zone, it does not give the police carte blanche to arrest everybody. It actually doesn't pass the first test of a pressing and substantial objective either. The police with its far larger numbers had the ability to specifically arrest the vandals in the act. The world leaders were completely safe, broken windows do not even hurt their feelings. One can't really argue for minimal impairment and proportionality. It definitely doesn't pass the test for most of the people arrested.

It'll be at the discretion of the judge, but if the U.S. courts are critical and against this with their eroding rights, I definitely think Canada will follow the same path. It's the Canadian way.

So maintaining public order, protecting property wasn't a pressing and substaintive objective? Come on. The objective isn't solely protecting world leaders.

As for USA vs Canada, remember that their Bill of Rights rights are not measured by a test like Section 1. Hence our hate speech laws for example, vs none in the US of A.

 

[poppajojo]

So maintaining public order, protecting property wasn't a pressing and substaintive objective? Come on. The objective isn't solely protecting world leaders.

As for USA vs Canada, remember that their Bill of Rights rights are not measured by a test like Section 1. Hence our hate speech laws for example, vs none in the US of A.

No, you come on. The objective was definitely of insufficient importance to expel civil rights. The city wasn't being burned down, windows of some, not many stores were broken. Vandals could have been caught in the act. It doesn't pass the second step either, so it doesn't pass the test anyway. In terms of freedom to protest, I hope the court process is expedited and a conclusion of support is quickly reached. It obviously doesn't pass the test.

 

[Second_in_pie]

So maintaining public order, protecting property wasn't a pressing and substaintive objective? Come on. The objective isn't solely protecting world leaders.

But then it gets into a more convoluted argument into what's a reasonable way to respond to a totally different group of people causing needless violence in a completely different part of the city, which the police well knew would happen, while we've at least been given evidence that this was nothing but a peaceful protest.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a society where the police are free to do whatever they want at the slightest sign of trouble. You need to have reason, and detaining hundreds of people for hours on end with absolutely no charges is in fact in complete violation of human rights, whether you think the intention was good or not or whether they deserved it or not. They exist for a reason, you know.

 

[nfitz]

I tell you know ... it will be 10 years and the Supreme Court before this is all answered.

 

[tkip]

But then it gets into a more convoluted argument into what's a reasonable way to respond to a totally different group of people causing needless violence in a completely different part of the city, which the police well knew would happen, while we've at least been given evidence that this was nothing but a peaceful protest.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a society where the police are free to do whatever they want at the slightest sign of trouble. You need to have reason, and detaining hundreds of people for hours on end with absolutely no charges is in fact in complete violation of human rights, whether you think the intention was good or not or whether they deserved it or not. They exist for a reason, you know.

I can't believe people are suggesting we're on a slippery slope with law enforcement and human rights in this country.

Having just seen The Exependables and how that movie reminded me of what my co-workers who are from parts of south america experienced firsthand, where people we're/are truly brutalized and murdered by their own government, we need to put what happened during the protests in proper perspective.

In Canada, people can practically do anything they want. I mean that quite literally. People are using human rights boards to punish those that disagree with them. That's how free and nuts we've become.