If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vancouver Sun)   Toronto police say they attacked a G20 crowd singing the national anthem because of the Maple Leafs; once you hear "O Canada", you know the locals are about to get beaten   (vancouversun.com) divider line 285
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

12852 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:32 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



285 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-06-30 08:22:51 AM
IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.
 
2010-06-30 08:23:00 AM
In related news, Amnesty International released a statement of general approval.
 
2010-06-30 08:32:04 AM
Oddly, PETA has no problem with clubbing protesters... unless they're vegans

The protesters should have dressed as seal pups. The pictures would have been awesome.
 
2010-06-30 08:43:54 AM
I like this headline.
 
2010-06-30 08:51:06 AM
missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

Sitting on the road and singing is `vandalizing'? We also have `rights' as well as `laws' here. In fact, we wrote these `rights' down in a bill that was signed and everything.
 
2010-06-30 08:54:03 AM
/ +1 would LMAO again :)
 
2010-06-30 09:13:55 AM
If this is anything like WTO protests were 10 years ago, the protesters deserve everything they get. Farking out of town hippies come in, dump trash everywhere, break your neighbors windows then act like victims when the cops arrive. Yes the police go overboard, but the police are not the ones that start it.
 
2010-06-30 09:41:17 AM
Say what you will about the actions of the Toronto police, this much is certain: this was the worst goddamn f*cking venue they could have picked.

This wouldn't have happened to nearly the same extent whatsoever if they went back to Kananaskis, you know, where they had one of the most non-eventful G8 summits ever.
 
2010-06-30 09:42:01 AM
Why won't they hold these meetings on a cruise ship somewhere? Hopefully one that's crawling with Norwalk. It's bad enough that they get together at all, given that the sole purpose is to figure out how to make rich people even richer.
 
2010-06-30 10:06:11 AM
In fairness to the Police, sitting in the middle of the road doing anything, is against the law. Blocking traffic is a no no even if there are no cars.

From the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

Removal of vehicle, debris blocking traffic

134.1 (1) Where a police officer considers it reasonably necessary,

(a) to ensure orderly movement of traffic; or

(b) to prevent injury or damage to persons or property,

he or she may remove and store or order the removal and storage of a vehicle, cargo or debris that are directly or indirectly impeding or blocking the normal and reasonable movement of traffic on a highway and shall notify the owner of the vehicle of the location to which the vehicle was removed. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 20.


... and then there's this.

Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway

179. (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).


... and this.

Removing pedestrians

(3) Where a pedestrian is on a highway in contravention of a regulation made or by-law passed under this section, a police officer may require the pedestrian to accompany him or her to the nearest intersecting highway on which pedestrians are not prohibited and the pedestrian shall comply with the request. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 185 (3).


I'm sure there's more that apply here. To say these assholes weren't breaking ANY laws is just wrong. In fact, they were breaking quite a few laws.
 
2010-06-30 10:17:09 AM
Well to be fair, they were horribly out of tune.
 
2010-06-30 10:34:43 AM
Go get 'em protesters! Strike a blow for isolationism! Or voting rights for mollusks! Or whatever it is you're doing!
 
2010-06-30 10:35:29 AM
Well to be honest some of the protesters were wearing baby seal costumes.
 
2010-06-30 10:35:54 AM
OlafTheBent: I'm sure there's more that apply here. To say these assholes weren't breaking ANY laws is just wrong. In fact, they were breaking quite a few laws.

This. And it is generally recognized that free speech does not shield you from any other crimes you might commit; it only means that speech itself cannot be a crime.

And frankly, good. Freedom of speech is not a license to disrupt.
 
2010-06-30 10:37:30 AM
missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

Sitting on the road and singing is `vandalizing'? We also have `rights' as well as `laws' here. In fact, we wrote these `rights' down in a bill that was signed and everything.


There is no "Bill of Rights" in Canada. Its the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and it doesn't give you the right to act like an asshole.
 
2010-06-30 10:37:36 AM
I was vandalizing Toronto in protest of the Leafs poor performance over the last 60 years.
 
2010-06-30 10:40:00 AM
No one was attacked, watch the video...the police run up and stop right in front of them scaring the shiat out of the protesters (pretty goddamn funny if you ask me). It's the equivalent of going up to someone and shouting "BOO!!"

Sitting in the middle of the street doesn't make you a protester, it makes you a hobo.
 
2010-06-30 10:40:05 AM
PJ_the_Barbarian: Go get 'em protesters! Strike a blow for isolationism! Or voting rights for mollusks! Or whatever it is you're doing!

We can't vote in Canada?

/rise up fellow invertebrates!
 
2010-06-30 10:40:10 AM
missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

The vandalism was committed by a small group (a few hundred, who had split off from a protest of at least ten thousand), and the police didn't move in until afterwards. I don't know the full circumstances surrounding the protesters charged in the video, but they certainly weren't the ones who smashed up Yonge St.
 
2010-06-30 10:40:40 AM
That video is hilarious. I snorted. They couldn't take off fast enough, freaking protester hobbyists.
 
mjg
2010-06-30 10:41:36 AM
As long as protesters were not within 5 meters of anything, then it's cool...
 
2010-06-30 10:42:31 AM
Here's video from street level. You can almost hear the sphincters loosening.

Link (new window)
 
2010-06-30 10:42:39 AM
OlafTheBent:
From the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

Removal of vehicle, debris blocking traffic

134.1 (1) Where a police officer considers it reasonably necessary,

(a) to ensure orderly movement of traffic; or

(b) to prevent injury or damage to persons or property,

he or she may remove and store or order the removal and storage of a vehicle, cargo or debris that are directly or indirectly impeding or blocking the normal and reasonable movement of traffic on a highway and shall notify the owner of the vehicle of the location to which the vehicle was removed. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 20.

... and then there's this.

Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway

179. (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).

... and this.

Removing pedestrians

(3) Where a pedestrian is on a highway in contravention of a regulation made or by-law passed under this section, a police officer may require the pedestrian to accompany him or her to the nearest intersecting highway on which pedestrians are not prohibited and the pedestrian shall comply with the request. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 185 (3).

I'm sure there's more that apply here. To say these assholes weren't breaking ANY laws is just wrong. In fact, they were breaking quite a few laws.


Just a few issues with this...

134.1 only applies to vehicles, as it clearly states.

179 (1) and (3) apply to highways. As far as I know, Queen St. and Yonge street are NOT highways.

There is something however I think you should read, from the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.


There was one group of troublemakers running around smashing up windows. While they were at it, the police were nowhere to be found.

Instead, they went after peaceful protesters.
 
2010-06-30 10:42:45 AM
Uh, where's the second video?
 
2010-06-30 10:42:59 AM
Excellent headline. No love for the Make Believes here.

missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

The best street in Canada? You mean Yonge street? I think it's time for you to get out of the T-dot and see more of the country.
 
2010-06-30 10:43:04 AM
trappedspirit: That video is hilarious. I snorted. They couldn't take off fast enough, freaking protester hobbyists.

maybe it's the fact that there's no unity of purpose or clear moral mandate at these WTO/G20/anti-any-time-governments-meet protests. It's no surprise they aren't willing to get pummeled for some vague dissatisfaction with the status quo. I'm frankly amazed they're even motivated enough to be there.
 
2010-06-30 10:43:17 AM
I find it amusing that one of the larger costs of the G20 was security. Which was hired to among other things control protesters. Many of who were there to protest the cost.

I don't get the anger over the cost. It's not like they shipped this off to another country or some private person got a billion dollars. Most of it went to pay for goods and services. Which means it will be spent locally distributing the wealth. Essentially they pumped nearly a billion dollars into Toronto and areas economy...

How is that bad?
 
2010-06-30 10:43:35 AM
Submitter once you hear "O Canada", you know the locals are about to get beaten

I'll tell ya another thing: their beer sucks!
 
2010-06-30 10:43:44 AM
oldfarthenry: missmarsha: We also have `rights' as well as `laws' here. In fact, we wrote these `rights' down in a bill that was signed and everything.

So did we. Lot of good it does, now.
 
2010-06-30 10:44:28 AM
missmarsha [TotalFark] Quote 2010-06-30 08:22:51 AM
IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.


Stevie McSweatervest is a farker? Who knew?

Hey Stevie. Beat any children today?
 
2010-06-30 10:44:52 AM
Ah, just a problem loading video.

Why are there 3 blasts from the policeman's gun. The third looked and sounded like tear gas round, but what were those first two?
 
2010-06-30 10:45:13 AM
My city, my street, my people.

IMO the cops and missmarsha can GTFO of the GTA.


/The cops were the vandals - attacking the Goths - for shame..
// best street is right- because its denizens never kow-towed to cops.
 
2010-06-30 10:45:27 AM
misanthropologist: Excellent headline. No love for the Make Believes here.

missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

The best street in Canada? You mean Yonge street? I think it's time for you to get out of the T-dot and see more of the country.


I'm partial to the icefields parkway. I mean, HURR HURR CANADA ONLY HAS THE 1 ROAD
 
2010-06-30 10:45:56 AM
why don't they just open fire on those twats? at least then they could have something to complain about.
 
2010-06-30 10:46:40 AM
Welcome to Obama's America... or something... I guess... whatever.
 
2010-06-30 10:46:42 AM
Also awesome headline I lol'd
 
2010-06-30 10:47:09 AM
Better video here
Link (new window)
 
2010-06-30 10:47:19 AM
MK-Ultra71: missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

Sitting on the road and singing is `vandalizing'? We also have `rights' as well as `laws' here. In fact, we wrote these `rights' down in a bill that was signed and everything.

There is no "Bill of Rights" in Canada. Its the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and it doesn't give you the right to act like an asshole.


Alrighty, time to set you straight since you probably haven't even read the Charter.

Section 2: Freedom of expression. Freedom of association. Freedom of PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY. (Note: How many individuals were injured by ANY protestors - "vandals" or otherwise? Conversely, how many individuals were injured by Police, who literally are called upon as public servants to "SERVE and PROTECT" the citizenry?)

Section 8: Right to remain free from unreasonable search and seizure. (clearly untrue given most eyewitness reports and Youtube footage / also The Star)

Section 9: Right to remain free from ARBITRARY DETAINMENT OR IMPRISONMENT (both clearly violated in hundreds of instances)

Section 10: Right to LEGAL COUNSEL and HABEAS CORPUS (both clearly violated from within detention centers, easily verifiable via National Post, The Star, or CBC)

Section 12 : Right not to be subject to CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment (getting shot in the face with tear gas, being punched in the stomach or face, being whipped by a baton, and trampled by mounted police all qualify under this statute).

So, STFU, kindly, and take your authoritarian ass all the way home.

Google "Steve Paikin" and watch his testimony of the events. He was the moderator of the last Federal Leader's Debate and a respected journalist of over twenty years. He literally describes the cops threatening to arrest him for no reason whatsoever, and punching a man standing next to him in the stomach viciously who wasn't even offering any resistance.
 
2010-06-30 10:47:46 AM
I love how Canadians always complain that nobody votes. Get out and vote, they say! Be a part of the solution, make your voice heard, they say!

Then, if when Canadians make peaceful protest (and even when they don't), they deserve to get arrested and beat and have tear gas shot in their faces.

Few nationalities have as much ill will for their countrymen as Canadians do.
 
2010-06-30 10:50:03 AM
MK-Ultra71 Quote 2010-06-30 10:37:30 AM
missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

Sitting on the road and singing is `vandalizing'? We also have `rights' as well as `laws' here. In fact, we wrote these `rights' down in a bill that was signed and everything.

There is no "Bill of Rights" in Canada. Its the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and it doesn't give you the right to act like an asshole.


Peaceful protesters are assholes?

You're an idiot.
 
2010-06-30 10:50:27 AM
missmarsha: IMO they 'attacked' the G20 'protesters' because they were disobeying laws, direct orders from police, and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

1/10

trollface.jpg
 
2010-06-30 10:50:54 AM
Glenford: No one was attacked, watch the video...the police run up and stop right in front of them scaring the shiat out of the protesters (pretty goddamn funny if you ask me). It's the equivalent of going up to someone and shouting "BOO!!"

Try this one (new window) on for size. It's about 9 minutes long, and it's obviously been edited, but it does a pretty good job of showing physical confrontation.

Sitting in the middle of the street doesn't make you a protester, it makes you a hobo.

Depends on context. Even a hobo could be a protester, depending on his intentions.
 
2010-06-30 10:51:34 AM
/me waves, smiles ... from Montreal, suckahs!
 
2010-06-30 10:52:03 AM
This is I why I never stand on my head and sing O Canada anymore. It's harder to run from the police that way.
 
2010-06-30 10:52:08 AM
Oh yea, here's an actual credible account of what happened.

So all you bootlickers can STFU and watch for about 10 minutes, if you can get past your little sound bytes.

Link (new window)

Let's see you justify this.
 
2010-06-30 10:56:16 AM
Why don't they just have the G20 in Texas?

I doubt that the locals would bother the regular peaceful protesters, but I'm pretty sure that the first AW clown that vandalized a business or set fire to a police car would be dealt with appropriately and would provide an excellent example to other aspiring attention whores.
 
2010-06-30 10:56:26 AM
Would love to see this at a gay "rights" or minority run event
 
2010-06-30 10:56:47 AM
missmarsha: ... and vandalizing the best street in Canada.

North Korea Street?
 
2010-06-30 10:57:57 AM
Instead of these protests, which were predictably going to end up going exactly how they did, it would seem to make more sense to rebel in another way. If the protesters would somehow be able to agree not to file income taxes en masse or find another way to stop financially supporting the government coffers, this would seem to have be a more tanglible effect. This disconnect between the ideal of the protesters and the results of their actions makes me wonder what the real intentions of these "anarchist" groups, and who is really the driving force behind them.

/subscribes to Social Anarchism
// not an anarchist, but enjoys reading viewpoints not oft covered in traditional media
/// these protesters give anarchists a bad name.... obviously
 
2010-06-30 10:59:09 AM
Seriously, who cares?
 
Displayed 50 of 285 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report