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.

(Sun News Network)   Self-proclaimed anarchist chick decides to sue Montreal police and end political profiling   (sunnewsnetwork.ca) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, Montreal police, Montreal, civil laws, University of Ottawa, Charter of Rights  
•       •       •

2055 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Aug 2013 at 2:34 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-25 10:09:58 AM
Work within the system!
 
2013-08-25 12:48:45 PM
Isn't she a little old to be an anarchist?
 
2013-08-25 02:40:06 PM
Gah! Even the anarchists in Canada are polite!
 
2013-08-25 02:41:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Isn't she a little old to be an anarchist?


img23.imageshack.us

70 year old anarchist philosopher and author John Zerzan is not sure if serious.
 
2013-08-25 02:43:50 PM
In each of those cases, she could have avoided getting a ticket had she simply informed the officer, "I do not wish to make joinder with you at this time...."  Problem solved.
 
2013-08-25 02:44:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Isn't she a little old to be an anarchist?


Aren't you cute?
 
2013-08-25 02:44:34 PM
Nothing says "anarchy" like filing a lawsuit.
 
2013-08-25 02:50:01 PM
What ever happened to good old-fashioned anarchy?
 
2013-08-25 02:53:05 PM

bwilson27: What ever happened to good old-fashioned anarchy?


9/11 changed everything.
 
2013-08-25 02:57:23 PM
Let me get this straight:  She wants to use the government (rules makers) to protect her (rule abolisher) from the rules breakers.  Right?  I'll never understand anarchists.
 
2013-08-25 03:00:17 PM

lj1330: Let me get this straight:  She wants to use the government (rules makers) to protect her (rule abolisher) from the rules breakers.  Right?  I'll never understand anarchists.


Because we acknowledge that the world in which we currently exist is not the one we're working toward and sometimes we have to confront it on its own level while we work toward changing it? How is that confusing?
 
2013-08-25 03:08:30 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: bwilson27: What ever happened to good old-fashioned anarchy?

9/11 changed everything.



It gave our masters a great opportunity to further our enslavement. Other than that, nothing changed (except for the lives of the people directly involved in the attacks).
 
2013-08-25 03:13:59 PM
Is this the thread where people have a complete misunderstanding of Anarchism and history?

Ah, I see.  Carry on.
 
2013-08-25 03:19:37 PM

Snapper Carr: Lionel Mandrake: Isn't she a little old to be an anarchist?



70 year old anarchist philosopher and author John Zerzan is not sure if serious.


I've seen this guy speak.

The audience was very smelly and he was, like, dumb as a box of rocks.
 
2013-08-25 03:22:40 PM
The urge to annoy can be a creative one.
 
2013-08-25 03:29:23 PM
Court documents allege that between May 2012 and June 2013, Montreal police ticketed Nelson for acts such as "shouting in public, not using the sidewalk during a protest, swearing in a park, and because the ash of the cigarette she was smoking fell to the ground."

A foul mouthed smoker.  What a surprise.
 
2013-08-25 03:30:40 PM
I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?
 
2013-08-25 03:33:01 PM
How ironic; an Anarchist causing problems in a talk-a-lotta-shiat-for-an-empty-toilet province hellbent on secession.

If I was Canada I'd put a gun to my head and pull the trigger.

/penis would never be the same
 
2013-08-25 03:34:38 PM
if the police targeted her for her political beliefs they were wrong to do so. a point many here and commenters at the article seem to ignore. "get a job hippy" isn't a defense against police misconduct.
 
2013-08-25 03:35:16 PM

TomD9938: and because the ash of the cigarette she was smoking fell to the ground.


I've never heard of someone cited for littering because of their cigarette ashes, as opposed to the butt. This is pretty ridiculous. Sounds like douchebags all around.
 
2013-08-25 03:36:38 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-25 03:43:47 PM

Churchill2004: TomD9938: and because the ash of the cigarette she was smoking fell to the ground.

I've never heard of someone cited for littering because of their cigarette ashes, as opposed to the butt. This is pretty ridiculous. Sounds like douchebags all around.


It would appear the cops know this chick and hate her farking guts.

She probably called them pigs one too many times.
 
2013-08-25 03:45:11 PM

Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?


Most systems of anarchist organization are structured to disperse power fairly evenly (and weakly) among the various collectives and groups that make up the organizational structure. For instance, a classic syndicalist model would have a large number of small groups organized along productive/industrial lines that maintain internal autonomy and control and connect with other groups either directly or through delegates. The idea is that no one group is powerful enough to "rule" and any that tried to would be locked out of the lines of supply and social cooperation afforded by other groups; try to take over and suddenly you have nothing to do it with.

It would in principle be possible for a group of sufficiently strong collectives to structure into a ruling force and sunder the anarchy, but that's true of any system, and is much easier in those already structured along hierarchical lines (like, say, representative democracy). It's more resilient than any hierarchical system but not invulnerable. Nothing is.
 
2013-08-25 03:49:12 PM

BafflerMeal: Is this the thread where people have a complete misunderstanding of Anarchism and history?

Ah, I see.  Carry on.


Well so far only a few anarchists have shown up. But give them time.

Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?


It wouldn't... because. Anarchists like to pretend they have a political system that would endure. Anarchy is only a transitional system. You'd think the ones who saw the rise of the Bolsheviks would have a clue but nooooooo.... they gotta prove how they're smart enough to make it work.
 
2013-08-25 03:55:44 PM
I thought they were called "libertarians" once they graduated high school?

/or is it a wealth thing?
 
2013-08-25 04:01:38 PM

TomD9938: Churchill2004: TomD9938: and because the ash of the cigarette she was smoking fell to the ground.

I've never heard of someone cited for littering because of their cigarette ashes, as opposed to the butt. This is pretty ridiculous. Sounds like douchebags all around.

It would appear the cops know this chick and hate her farking guts.

She probably called them pigs one too many times.


Cops throughout North America seem to hate anybody who is to the left of Mussolini. Look at that farkwit C.J. Grisham, the cops were gentle as kittens with him, even though he was refusing to put away his AR-15 while the cop talked to him. Yet unarmed peaceful protesters are regularly teargassed, pepper sprayed, tasered, hit with flash bangs, beaten, and arrested without charge.
 
2013-08-25 04:09:29 PM

LectertheChef: Look at that farkwit C.J. Grisham, the cops were gentle as kittens with him, even though he was refusing to put away his AR-15 while the cop talked to him. Yet unarmed peaceful protesters are regularly teargassed, pepper sprayed, tasered, hit with flash bangs, beaten, and arrested without charge.


Peaceful protesters can bring about actual change.
 
2013-08-25 04:13:07 PM

LectertheChef: Cops throughout North America seem to hate anybody who is to the left of Mussolini


I think they view protesters in general as idle class children of privilege with nothing to lose, where cops generally come from and exist in the working class.

Even if they didnt have to endure those people as part of their job, I think they'd still resent them.

It would be interesting to see how cops generally vote.  I'd imagine it's pretty much evenly split Democratic / Republican, owing to being in a union and working in government employment vs. law and order concerns.
 
2013-08-25 04:14:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?

Most systems of anarchist organization are structured to disperse power fairly evenly (and weakly) among the various collectives and groups that make up the organizational structure. For instance, a classic syndicalist model would have a large number of small groups organized along productive/industrial lines that maintain internal autonomy and control and connect with other groups either directly or through delegates. The idea is that no one group is powerful enough to "rule" and any that tried to would be locked out of the lines of supply and social cooperation afforded by other groups; try to take over and suddenly you have nothing to do it with.

It would in principle be possible for a group of sufficiently strong collectives to structure into a ruling force and sunder the anarchy, but that's true of any system, and is much easier in those already structured along hierarchical lines (like, say, representative democracy). It's more resilient than any hierarchical system but not invulnerable. Nothing is.


Sounds nice, in theory at least. I see no reason not to try it, our current system clearly isn't working, unless you're rich.
 
2013-08-25 04:54:09 PM
I'd hit it.
 
2013-08-25 05:22:00 PM

Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?


reverting? look around.
 
2013-08-25 05:46:41 PM

Churchill2004: TomD9938: and because the ash of the cigarette she was smoking fell to the ground.

I've never heard of someone cited for littering because of their cigarette ashes, as opposed to the butt. This is pretty ridiculous. Sounds like douchebags all around.


Pretty much this. A perpetual whiner versus a bunch of pissed off cops with attitude.

No winners. No heroes here.
 
2013-08-25 05:54:57 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: [i.imgur.com image 850x984]


That chick wears the scarlet letter!
 
2013-08-25 05:58:02 PM
A story from FOX News North writing a story trying to paint someone who isn't conservative in a negative light?  I am shocked.  The actions of the cops shouldn't be much of a surprise though,  cops in Montreal are a bunch of assholes.
 
2013-08-25 05:59:47 PM

LectertheChef: TomD9938: Churchill2004: TomD9938: and because the ash of the cigarette she was smoking fell to the ground.

I've never heard of someone cited for littering because of their cigarette ashes, as opposed to the butt. This is pretty ridiculous. Sounds like douchebags all around.

It would appear the cops know this chick and hate her farking guts.

She probably called them pigs one too many times.

Cops throughout North America seem to hate anybody who is to the left of Mussolini. Look at that farkwit C.J. Grisham, the cops were gentle as kittens with him, even though he was refusing to put away his AR-15 while the cop talked to him. Yet unarmed peaceful protesters are regularly teargassed, pepper sprayed, tasered, hit with flash bangs, beaten, and arrested without charge.


Almost sounds as if an armed society is a polite society....
 
2013-08-25 06:57:26 PM
There's a whole lot of archy in that girls anarchy.
 
2013-08-25 07:11:21 PM
Judging by the comments, there's a lot more derp in Canada than I thought.  Believing that human rights should only exist for people that look and act like them is Republican level stupidity.
 
2013-08-25 07:26:04 PM

CourtroomWolf: Judging by the comments, there's a lot more derp in Canada than I thought.  Believing that human rights should only exist for people that look and act like them is Republican level stupidity.


derp is pretty much universal
 
2013-08-25 07:57:05 PM
lj1330
Let me get this straight: She wants to use the government (rules makers) to protect her (rule abolisher) from the rules breakers.

It could be a publicity stunt, or an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of the system, or it could even theoretically result in the stated goal.


Felgraf
What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?

See that circle on Vlad_the_Inaner's post? It's actually an "O" standing for "Organization". Anarchism has always advocated organizing based on horizontal federation of one kind or another. The model I advocate is based on delegates, similarly to how the Zapatistas organized their end of the negotiations of the San Andres Accords. Basically, small groups of upwards of a few dozen people can effectively have direct democracy internally; each person can be a member of as many groups as will have them and they do not have to be introverted communes. For example, a person could be part of a neighbourhood, an art collective, a foundry, and an automobile workshop, or whatever. You could probably name what groups you're already part of. Each of these groups needs to communicate with other groups in order to procure supplies and determine how to distribute their product. The way this could happen is that each of the groups in the supply chain or larger organizational unit (for example, many neighbourhoods making up a city) send delegates to a meeting. Delegates are empowered only to deliver what their group says, and to report back to their group. Through Consensus, decisions can be made surprisingly quickly, and without trampling any member's autonomy.

If your question was more concrete, here's a suggestion.
 
2013-08-25 08:00:49 PM

Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?


Rule of the Gun.
 
2013-08-25 09:41:08 PM

knobmaker: Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?

Rule of the Gun.


Works for Somalia!
 
2013-08-25 10:10:48 PM

Empty Matchbook: knobmaker: Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?

Rule of the Gun.

Works for Somalia!


Somalia has a structured, non-hierarchical system of labor and social organization? Oh, wait, no, it's a warlord state (aka, the capitalist dream).
 
2013-08-25 10:44:40 PM
Stopped browsing about half way through this thread because, while I enjoy all the debate about political systems and history, I can't get past the image that's being painted of the plaintiff. Not due to anyone being malicious or anything but just that, being a local, I can't bring myself to see it through the overwhelmingly American interpretation./Kinda like when Obama is called a Lefty socialist and we Canadians roll our eyesor when Canadians refer to themselves as socialist and swaths of Europe rolls their eyes
 
2013-08-25 10:52:30 PM

Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?


What the hell prevents rule of the strong anywhere else?

I remember during the big power outage 10 years ago, society didn't descend into rule of the strong.

People tend to be far nicer to each other when there's no big hierarchical structure backing them up.
 
2013-08-25 11:38:43 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Empty Matchbook: knobmaker: Felgraf: I have a question.

What the hell prevents an anarchy from *immediately* reverting to Rule Of The Strong?

Rule of the Gun.

Works for Somalia!

Somalia has a structured, non-hierarchical system of labor and social organization? Oh, wait, no, it's a warlord state (aka, the capitalist dream).


Shhh, he's having his pudding and Wheel Of Fortune is on. Don't disturb him!
 
2013-08-26 12:32:04 AM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: I remember during the big power outage 10 years ago, society didn't descend into rule of the strong.


Exactly, a loss of electricity for a 15% of Americans and about a third of Canadians for up to a couple days is the perfect example of the lack of any accountability or law enforcement in all of society. Precisely the same impact.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: People tend to be far nicer to each other when there's no big hierarchical structure backing them up.


It doesn't matter what the vast majority of people are like, the few with the wealth and the guns are who will matter. For the exact same reasons these hierarchical structures arose, new ones would arise.

Oh, and to your "they didn't loot in the blackout, so people are all nice and friendly", how about NYC in 1977?
 
2013-08-26 12:36:33 AM

dywed88: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: I remember during the big power outage 10 years ago, society didn't descend into rule of the strong.

Exactly, a loss of electricity for a 15% of Americans and about a third of Canadians for up to a couple days is the perfect example of the lack of any accountability or law enforcement in all of society. Precisely the same impact.


Yes, this thing that no one anywhere is suggesting is frightening. Actually, lack of accountability is one of the major things anarchists object to.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: People tend to be far nicer to each other when there's no big hierarchical structure backing them up.

It doesn't matter what the vast majority of people are like, the few with the wealth and the guns are who will matter. For the exact same reasons these hierarchical structures arose, new ones would arise.

Oh, and to your "they didn't loot in the blackout, so people are all nice and friendly", how about NYC in 1977?


So it is just impossible to change societal organization.  Wow, I didn't know we still lived in tribes, learn something new every day.
 
2013-08-26 01:18:06 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: So it is just impossible to change societal organization.  Wow, I didn't know we still lived in tribes, learn something new every day.


Organization can and will change. It will not be removed. So long as humans are social creatures, some sort of hierarchy will exist. It has existed as long as human society and will continue to do so.

Look at the wealthiest of society today, do you really think they would roll over and settle into a simple life if the government was removed? Some would. Others would be content with a small domain of their own. Many would want as big of a domain as they could get. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of humans are inherently good. There will be those in power that aren't and they will pray upon others like them and the desperate to gain power.

Anarchists, whether left or right, are deluded at best.
 
2013-08-26 01:46:38 AM

dywed88: Organization can and will change. It will not be removed. So long as humans are social creatures, some sort of hierarchy will exist. It has existed as long as human society and will continue to do so.


These two words are not synonyms, and are the reason that anarchists - actual anarchists, not anarcho-capitalists, at any rate - work on creating "organization" without "hierarchy". Your whole argument hinges on the assumption that people can't organize without leaders, and yet we do it every day, everywhere in our lives.

Your whole argument hinges on an a priori fallacy, that "human nature" eliminates any possible way of organizing without hierarchy. It's specious and based on nothing; again, we organize without leaders or rulership every day.

Let's assume you're right, that there's a small percentage of the population that is social dominance oriented; we can take that as read, otherwise we wouldn't be where we are today. Why, then, does it follow that our social organizations should be structured to put those people - people who are interested in self-aggrandizement at everyone else's expense - exactly where they want to be to engage in that behavior? It's wrong-headed and asinine! However, if the larger majority is organized along horizontal lines, and power and wealth is distributed more or less fairly throughout society, there's little to no possibility for those people to gain that power in the first place.

Yes, it requires more than just "shutting down the government"; that's what right-wing "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" want, because they want exactly the situation you describe to happen. They're fascists. As soon, however, as you realize that the State as anarchists generally conceive of it encompasses more than just the structures we more-or-less arbitrarily define as "government" but the entire ruling/capitalist class, it becomes obvious that anarchist revolution involves disassembling all of those structures, both "government" and "private". This can (and, to be most effective, probably should) be done peacefully and over time, through prefigurative work like replacing corporations with worker-owned co-ops. But it does involve redistributing wealth so that we don't start out with warlords.

My question to you, however, is this: Why do you feel that if you had personal autonomy and the support of a strong collective group that you belonged to voluntarily, and worked and lived with people who were happy, healthy and productive because they also had those benefits, that you would willingly surrender that to, say, Mitt Romney (bearing in mind that he has no grand fortune, no army of cops and lawyers, no banks he owns and no way to buy you out without consent)?
 
2013-08-26 03:41:17 AM
So, what.... Am I the only person here that does not give a crap what she thinks until I see her tits?
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report