This is Not America

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ming
Nahhhh... he really is saying that the right of the protester for free speech is more important than your rights... and that if you are inconvienced, it's just too bad for you.

He calls that freedom

Whats funny is that the thread began when Che felt somewhat detained by the police and that was a terrible thing. Now I'm seeing detention of an entire office building of people being cited as a good thing.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Well Che, I'm not sure what Florida law states regarding the search of your bag, but I do remember reading some case in NM (I believe) where it was determined that if an officer asks/demands to see an ID, you are required to show it to them if you have it (I am in no way argueing for or against this, I'm just stating that I have seen it). Most likely the search of your bag had something to do with probable cause. What that probable cause would have been I don't know. Perhaps an officer saw you attempting to avoid the area and thought that you were actually trying to sneak away after you did something wrong, then got other officers to back him up just in case he was right and you might cause trouble.

As for the scowl, well, I admit that I do that too. Not really sure why. Perhaps its from over 7 years of constantly being untrusted, berated, lied too and scrutinized with a microscope (amongst other things). Please remember that just because your getting scowled at doesn't mean that your disliked, its usually that the person probably has alot of other unpleasent scenerios running through his head in an attempt to be as prepared for any eventuality that may araise.

That was in Nevada.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If I'm important enough for the government to be paying atteniotn to me, they already know all about me. If I'm not, then they aren't. According to them, they aren't. I did an FoI request on my FBI file some years back and was saddened to find out there was nothing on me . . . at least that they were willing to admit to.

And after organizing most of the universities in Chicago against the first U.S. Gulf War, too.

Che if there is a file on you, there would be two, one that you could see and then what they call the raw file that you would never see or be told about.

Remember the Clinton staffer who had pulled the Raw Files on the Rep. That is were all of the dirt is.

We had files at MI that I could see, but if someone had wrote a letter about me and it was in the file, that letter would be removed prior to me seeing my file.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Gangs are usually youth organizations.

Wrong. Hell Angle have member who are 50th to 60th year old. When I was young I beat the **** out of 4 Federal Bureas of Idiot agent who where insulting me and threw the first punck. J.F. Hover called up the police police willing to bail me out and he ask the police to drop charge against me as his agents acted illegality and he is taken action against these agent. J.F. Hover never let the FBI agent get out of control as the unfit government suit running it today. Like the illegal arresting two muslim teenager girls base on hear say evidence. The FBI is total unable to fight terrism as they are idiots. J>F>Hover would have the will and knowlege to fight terrorist not the hight IQ idiot today in the FBI.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

But don't you get it-- a given individual or group may speak an opinion shared by a lot of people on one topic and then spout something supported by very few on another. Diversity-- isn't it grand?

They may... but in this case they aren't. Your comment was perverse and unsupported by any sort of evidence.

First your first suggestion is a platitude as is really your second.

And you asked what they want. Do you think it is somehow witty or intellectual to deny that a group has a reasonably coherent agenda, and then the next minute describe their formerly non-existent agenda as a platitutde. Interesting...

Direct elections by whom-- worldwide? That would be fun.

Who said that? Why can't we elect our own instead of having them appointed?

Oh and what were my bizzare notions exactly? That the protest movement was a collection of widely diverse viewpoints with widely differing ultimate agendas that are in many cases conflicting??

And is this any different from most other political organizations, say for example the Canadian Liberal Party. When you get a large group of people together for a common cause, they may well have some conflicting beliefs, but generally these are put aside for the time being in favour of things that almost all of them agree on. It's called compromise and is an obvious feature of democracy. I find it strange that you have lived in a democracy your whole life and haven't noticed this ubiquitous phenomenon.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what they agree on, nor does it take a rocket scientist to understand the basic remedies that that protesters wish for - more accountability from institutions like the IMF currently have. This demand is held in common among such diverse groups as the radical teddy bear throwers and people like Joseph Stiglitz.

ha-ha-- Since I said next to nothing about the IMF, I am amazed at your perceptive abilities and what you can glean from silence. On the other hand, you have displayed your customary rudeness.

Which you deserved for making deliberately asinine comments.

I have no doubt that the leader had some clear and cogent statements. Heck I read many of them at the time. As for my word, it has always been good. Lets just see I recall in a parade there were

palestenians protesting Israeli opression and US support
Afghanis protestin US actions
A group with signs about freeing Chechnya
Another bunch with signs about protecting the environment
Some signs about scrapping the nukes

Again this was a G-8 !! There were several groups that had very little to say about the IMF and the World Bank. Believe me or not but I was there and I know what I saw. Do you really think that everyone that is protesting Bush or Putin are primarily concerned with the IMF? Don't be silly.

I have no idea of what went on at the Alberta protest. At the Quebec protest in 2001 the focus was on the FTAA. At various other protests it depends on who is there. who organizes and who turns up.

Why do you regard it as somehow strange that diverse groups of people might want to protest the G-8 for different reasons? Is there some rule to which only you are privy which states that only one issue may be protested at any given meeting?

But none of this changes the fact that there is a significant commonality of purpose and general agreement among the so-called "anti-globalization" protesters – they tend to be in the vast majority at these things. If some Afghans want to protest about something else, who is going to stop them? Shall we tell them that Flubber thinks that it's not going to work for them unless they suddenly abandon their core issue and throw their lot in with the lunatics who protest water fluoridation?

Can you at least be consistent in your silliness.

You're calling me silly? You're the one who seems to find the bleeding obvious somehow odd or mysterious.

Earlier you said people should not break the law. Well jaywalking is a law put in place for public safety and essentially to keep order since if everyone walked and drove where and how they wanted, things would get crazy and deadly pretty quickly.

And a bunch of people doing a sit down protest is not particularly dangerous. Things like this happen all the time in free societies. People will occasionally gather in the streets for all sorts of spontaneous reasons. Sports victories are one. I take it you don't think that the police should be called in to beat the crap out of such revellers even though it might be stopping traffic. Things like this happen in free societies. There's no real difference in terms of public safety between a public gathering to celebrate a sports win and a protest. Both will be attended by a few odd lunatics out to cause mischief, but by and large most people are there to behave themselves.

Let's see. Canada won the Olympic hockey gold medal and large parts of downtown Toronto were simply shut down. Did people who don't like hockey (of whom there are in fact many in Toronto) squeal and whine about it?

No.

Why didn't they squeal and moan like you are suggesting? Why weren't thousands of non-hockey fans in a lather at this appalling takeover of public space and violation of their so-called rights? Did people swear revenge on Toronto's Greeks for taking over the Danforth when their team won the European Championship? Of course not.

Hardly anyone complained because most of them are grown ups who realize that things like this occasionally happen in a free society, whether the local authorities sanction it or not.

There's no real difference between this and most protests. Of course it is good manners for those who are holding a march to notify the authorities so that they can make arrangements for public safety, but it's an outrage that people should require a permit to have a peaceful protest (the potential for abuse of power in the granting of permits is obvious).

What's happening here is that you are moaning because you don't agree with the politics of the protesters. So what if you don't? Part of living in a country where people are free to gather to express themselves in pretty much whatever the peaceful way they like is that you occasionally get inconvenienced. That's just life in a free society. The alternative is worse.

Most people who moan about anti-war protesters don't see anything wrong with people choking up the streets for a Stanley Cup party. It's just a lame double standard.

Lets make it simpler-- Assume 8-10 people that are part of the anti communist league decide to picket your house/apartment and create a ring so you can't leave. They link arms and sing kumbiya or something and there is no way by. Is this acceptable?

This is a completely silly example. Why on earth would anyone do this? At least confine yourself to examples that have some sort of rationale behind them like picketing a world bank meeting. Jesus... I can't think of any radicals I know who would consider it appropriate to imprison someone in their house. Picketing is of course appropriate in various situations, but not imprisoning someone you disagree with in their home.

Jeez.. even the police know this. Their standard practice is to let pickets like the one our union did of the university administration stand for a while until the political point has been made, and then ask for it to be let go. Your arguments seem to dispense with the rules of appropriateness for protests that almost anyone who's been on one already knows.

Here's a good example of why you are just plain wrong about the whole thing. When the Iraq war started the U of T students had a spontaneous march down Yonge Street. Some of my students dragged me along (I was one of the more gentlemanly looking marchers) and we did a sit down at Yonge and Bloor. There were a lot of us, and some people cheered and some people jeered (more cheers though). Some people in cars got caught up in it. I talked to some of them – they just accepted it because they were grown ups and they knew that we'd soon move along. A few people in cars complained to the few police (who were caught by surprise) about it and the cops just told them to shut up and deal with it.

That's the real world of protests, not the bizarre crap you've been spouting.

[Commy]

Agathon, I don't know what planet you are from, but this is planet earth, and the stupidest species here are humans, and the protest for just about everything in just about every way...

Flubber's examples not only are good examples, but also very accurate...in fact, last night, on the History channel, Ethiopians formed a circle around a house so some convicted priest couldn't leave...their reason of course, was that he was holy, so they couldn't punish him, but since he committed a crime (IIRC, he destroyed someones fence and let their livestock loose for some odd reason), they made sure to punish him by not letting him leave...

Well, it wasn't exactly Kumbaya, but some Ethiopian chant they kept singing all day long...

So, just remember, Agathon, never underestimate the power of people, or their craziness, rather...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Commy
Agathon, I don't know what planet you are from, but this is planet earth, and the stupidest species here are humans, and the protest for just about everything in just about every way...

Flubber's examples not only are good examples, but also very accurate...

Rubbish.

in fact, last night, on the History channel, Ethiopians formed a circle around a house so some convicted priest couldn't leave...their reason of course, was that he was holy, so they couldn't punish him, but since he committed a crime (IIRC, he destroyed someones fence and let their livestock loose for some odd reason), they made sure to punish him by not letting him leave...

In Ethiopia as a result of some weird religious custom. Gee.. that sure applies to western countries and their tradition of protest.

So, just remember, Agathon, never underestimate the power of people, or their craziness, rather...

So because Ethiopians have weird customs people in developed countries shouldn't be allowed to protest.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sports victories are one. I take it you don't think that the police should be called in to beat the crap out of such revellers even though it might be stopping traffic.

I do.

[Flubber]

Great long post Agathon-- next time you might try talking somewhere in the neighborhood of what I actually said

One example of this

[SIZE=1]


Why do you regard it as somehow strange that diverse groups of people might want to protest the G-8 for different reasons? Is there some rule to which only you are privy which states that only one issue may be protested at any given meeting?
.

Hmm I said repeatedly that the protesters weren't united on one issue and I always saw this as normal and natural. I would be shocked if a gathering that involved several world leaders only had a dozen very diverse issues being debated and advocated by protest groups. Thats what I said throughout my posts, that I did not witness ONE coherent agenda. heck after debating me at length, you now admit that you don't know what went on at the Alberta protests!!!


On protests and sports celebrations, both groups break traffic laws at various points and in both cases the police probably do a common sense assessment of the trouble the crowd is causing versus the trouble and effort required to intervene. Numbers matter in this assessment. But IMHO neither have a RIGHT to block traffic and if police decided to always let protesters block whatever road they wanted for as long as they wanted, I would still feel the same way.

Common sense indicates that most sports celebrations are later in the evening (soccer ones may be earlier but smaller) when road blockages are less troublesome and just like most parades/protests, the polce just let things go.

Did you know that Calgary brags that they had zero arrests or injuries related to the g-8 summit protesting?They let the protesters parade around and all they did was guide them on an arranged route to minimize traffic disruption and prevent them getting killed.

As for the rest of you post, I'm tired and you don't read what I actually write anyway. For instance, the cause being promoted is irrelevant to people's "right" to blockade streets. yet you continue to say I oppose the protester's cause and thats why I don't like protests-- WRONG. I could agree with every cause a "protester" is advocating . . but his freedom of expression gives him NO right to blockade me.

As an aside I think that protests can be an effective form of political expression but I fear that the story of the expected violence and the actions of some fringe folks means that the message can get lost. The big story now whenever anyone has some sort of summit is the necessary security. And whether its mainstream propoganda or not, many average people fear the protesters and expect violence.

Its not about the time or inconvenience. Che lost hardly any time when the police asked to search his bag. Its about a person's right to the security of their own person and that includes the liberty to not be imprisoned at the whim of another. Got it yet??

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber
Great long post Agathon-- next time you might try talking somewhere in the neighborhood of what I actually said

What you are actually claiming is unclear. You seem to be complaining about something that no-one in their right mind complains about.

Hmm I said repeatedly that the protesters weren't united on one issue and I always saw this as normal and natural. I would be shocked if a gathering that involved several world leaders only had a dozen very diverse issues being debated and advocated by protest groups. Thats what I said throughout my posts, that I did not witness ONE coherent agenda.

This is a fallacy of equivocation. If you are claiming that the protest as a whole did not have one overarching agenda, but was attended by different groups, then that is true but trivial. Why did you bother pointing that out? It's so mind numbingly obvious that I'm surprised that you find this surprising. Do you enjoy pointing out the obvious?

It's another thing entirely to imply that none of the groups have a coherent agenda, or that a larger portion of the groups have an overall agreement on what is wrong and a general set of principles they agree on to solve it. Most of the groups have a prima facie coherent agenda (stopping pollution, relieving third world debt), and most agree on the causes (transnational capital, failure of international institutions on account of not being representative), AND there is general agreement on what to do about it (a general compromise within the groups). Most would like to see human and environmental rights internationalized along with capital (that's why "anti-globalization" is somewhat of a misnomer). Of course the communists are going to disagree with the anarchists over what is to be done 100 years down the track, but that is no different from any other political marriage of convenience, like the Conservative Party of Canada.

The point of the protests, from the point of view of the majority of the protesters (excluding your beloved Afghans and other fringe groups) is to put human and environmental rights on the same international footing as the rights of capital. That's just obvious. Why do you think they protest the IMF and WTO in the first place rather than the International Brotherhood of Water Buffaloes?

I find it incredible that you've bothered to argue this. One one interpretation your point is true but utterly trivial, and on the other it is demonstrably false.

heck after debating me at length, you now admit that you don't know what went on at the Alberta protests!!!

Oh ha ha. I know plenty of people who went. I didn't know that a few Afghans' rights activists were there, but of course that is an unpardonable sin.

On protests and sports celebrations, both groups break traffic laws at various points and in both cases the police probably do a common sense assessment of the trouble the crowd is causing versus the trouble and effort required to intervene. Numbers matter in this assessment. But IMHO neither have a RIGHT to block traffic and if police decided to always let protesters block whatever road they wanted for as long as they wanted, I would still feel the same way.

You just don't get it. No-one is saying that people have a right to block traffic whenever they want. Nobody says this: get it through your head.

But it is commonly accepted in our society that people can do it sometimes, as long as it doesn't happen too often. If people blocked traffic everyday, we would have a problem. But the answer to your argument is simple: THEY DON'T!

Common sense indicates that most sports celebrations are later in the evening (soccer ones may be earlier but smaller) when road blockages are less troublesome and just like most parades/protests, the polce just let things go.

Weak. Koreans were blocking streets at all hours during the last world cup here in Toronto. Greeks were doing it in the middle of the day. It doesn't matter. It is accepted in our society that these things happen and that it is a legitimate expression of freedom as long as it doesn't happen to often so as to become completely disruptive.

As for the rest of you post, I'm tired and you don't read what I actually write anyway. For instance, the cause being promoted is irrelevant to people's "right" to blockade streets. yet you continue to say I oppose the protester's cause and thats why I don't like protests-- WRONG. I could agree with every cause a "protester" is advocating . . but his freedom of expression gives him NO right to blockade me.

Yes it does. It is accepted in our society that these things happen. You seem to be the only person who doesn't think so. People have a right to gather in mobs if they want to. Other people have a right not to be blockaded. But the point is: NONE OF THESE ARE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS!!! They conflict, so we have a system whereby people suffer infrequent blockades because others are gathering in mobs. Most of us are both mob gatherers and blockaded persons at one time or another. If mobs caused society to grind to a complete halt, then it would be time to restrict mob gathering – BUT THEY DON'T. If people's rights not to be blockaded caused a complete halt to mob gathering, it would be time to loosen those rights – BUT THEY DON'T.

As an aside I think that protests can be an effective form of political expression but I fear that the story of the expected violence and the actions of some fringe folks means that the message can get lost. The big story now whenever anyone has some sort of summit is the necessary security. And whether its mainstream propoganda or not, many average people fear the protesters and expect violence.

And you think people don't know this. It's the old decision. Either get in the papers for bad news or don't get in at all. That's just the media.

Its not about the time or inconvenience. Che lost hardly any time when the police asked to search his bag. Its about a person's right to the security of their own person and that includes the liberty to not be imprisoned at the whim of another. Got it yet??

Che's constitutional rights were violated without just cause. The police do not have that right. In certain circumstances they might do, but the trouble is that once you allow such exceptions the police sometimes go overboard, as they did in this case. Again, it is a case of balancing rights.

I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time posting this stuff, because you are simply wrong.

[DaShi]

I don't have time to read the whole thread so:

Has anyone mentioned Burma or pointed out that these types of problems occur everywhere?

[Agathon]

No. But Burma is an extreme case. We're discussing whether it is reasonable to expect that protests and other spontaneous gatherings should be allowed to happen, despite the fact that Flubber wants to drive his SUV through the streets at the same time.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon


I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time posting this stuff, because you are simply wrong.

Nope. No problem anyway since I type reasonably fast.

As for my arguing the obvious, all this began as a FOOTNOTE to my comment about people claiming to represent "the people" which was a side comment itself to my description of police treatment of protesters in calgary . I commented that I opposed some of what was being said and then added an asterisk with a comment below that indicated that it is difficult to say you support or oppose "the protester's" causes as there are so many diverse causes among the protesters. It was this statement that you then spent several posts opposing and which you now proclaim as trite and obvious .


Talking with you is like asking what 2+2 equals and hearing the response "purple".


My main point remains that individuals have rights and I don't care if those rights are infringed by police or some protest group, the rights are still infringed. Now our rights are infringed every single day. The neighbor's dog craps on your front step. Definitely a trespass but do you make a stink about it-- No -- not of it happens once . . . its just not worth it. Its just part of life. I see the request to look in che's bag in the same manner -- a minor inconvenience that may have infringed on some of his rights.

See the thing you don't realize is that we agree on some stuff here. If a protest blocks traffic for a few minutes I also just shrug my shoulders and don't expect anything to happen . Its like if someone drives 2 km/h over the speed limit, I don't expect them to get pulled over. The protest may have broken some laws and by its very nature it infringed on my right to use the street. . .and I'm talking here where the protesters are expressly TRYING to block the street.

You appeared to be talking as if the right to expression supersedes other rights and I just don't accept that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon
No. But Burma is an extreme case. We're discussing whether it is reasonable to expect that protests and other spontaneous gatherings should be allowed to happen, despite the fact that Flubber wants to drive his SUV through the streets at the same time.

Simple answer is sure thay should be allowed to happen. I never said otherwise. But many of them will break some laws and by their very nature infringe on the rights of others.

agathon likes extremes. In this very thread he has advocated firebombing my house

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flubber

My main point remains that individuals have rights and I don't care if those rights are infringed by police or some protest group, the rights are still infringed. Now our rights are infringed every single day. The neighbor's dog craps on your front step. Definitely a trespass but do you make a stink about it-- No -- not of it happens once . . . its just not worth it. Its just part of life. I see the request to look in che's bag in the same manner -- a minor inconvenience that may have infringed on some of his rights.

Um no. The problem he is addressing is that the authorities use security as an excuse to overstep their powers.

It's the same with privacy rights. These are designed to protect individuals, but just end up being used by corporations as an excuse not to tell people things they need to know.

See the thing you don't realize is that we agree on some stuff here. If a protest blocks traffic for a few minutes I also just shrug my shoulders and don't expect anything to happen . Its like if someone drives 2 km/h over the speed limit, I don't expect them to get pulled over. The protest may have broken some laws and by its very nature it infringed on my right to use the street. . .and I'm talking here where the protesters are expressly TRYING to block the street.

You don't have an absolute right to use the street. In fact the language of rights is postively misleading here, since it almost always suggests absolutism.

You appeared to be talking as if the right to expression supersedes other rights and I just don't accept that.

I did not say that. In our society people are expected to give up their opportunity to drive down a street if there is a protest on it. If protests were happening every day and no-one could get anywhere, the rules would have to be changed. But in fact they don't: people put up with them for the same reason they put up with sports celebrations – they are comparatively rare occurrences and they serve a public need: allowing people to express their political opinions and get some press.