Topic: G8/G20 June 2010 Protest Watch

[Kirkhill]

Which is to say that those "serious people on the socio-economic and political 'left';" have all the faith and religious fervour of a Dominican, Jesuit or Presbyterian Domine that, paraphrasing William Blake, they can build a new Jerusalem in this green and pleasant land.

So sayeth Saint Tommy of Falkirk and Regina.

[E.R. Campbell]

While I may, do, actually, disagree with pretty much every one of Dr. Amir Khadir principles and most of his positions, I admire and support his contention that “dissidence must not be criminalized.” I need to be clear: dissidence, per se, must not be criminalized but acts that may arise from legitimate dissent can be, often are criminal and, as Dr. Khadir suggests, they may have consequences. I support Dr. Khadir’s right to oppose ideas that I find self-evidently correct and to support people I regard as, at best, “useful idiots,” but I neither support nor condone many, indeed most of the acts that the people Dr. Khadir supports undertake to give “voice” to their dissent.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an article about Amir Khadir:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-popular-anti-populism-of-a-radical-moderate/article1661098/

The popular anti-populism of a radical moderate
Fringe Quebec MNA Amir Khadir, who once threw a shoe at photo of George W. Bush, insists that dissent must not be criminalized

Les Perreaux

Montreal — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Every few months, it seems, Amir Khadir gets into trouble. At least by the standards applied to conventional politicians.

In December, 2008 – the very month he won a surprise victory to become the member of the National Assembly for Montreal’s Mercier riding – he threw a shoe at a photograph of George W. Bush to protest war. He’s donated money to a fringe sovereigntist group, and most recently he posted $5,000 in bail in Toronto for activist-provocateur Jaggi Singh, who was jailed at G20 protests.

Each act has provoked plenty of critics who say he doesn’t take his responsibilities as an elected representative with sufficient gravitas. Yet Mr. Khadir, a member of the fringe Québec solidaire party, is one of Quebec’s most popular politicians and has become a go-to MNA for cogent criticism of Jean Charest’s Liberal government.

Born in Iran in 1961, Mr. Khadir migrated to Canada with his family 10 years later. The entire family protested the regimes of the Shah and then Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Khadir became a fixture in Quebec’s left-wing activist clique while becoming a physician, leading some to call him a champagne socialist. (It’s a label that could apply to much of the gentrified Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood of Montreal, where he lives.)

Staunchly pro-Palestinian and anti-capitalist, Mr. Khadir runs counter to Quebec consensus on a few fronts. He has stood against asbestos mining and the seal hunt, and has called for an end to mining subsidies in the regions – all issues rarely questioned within the province.

How does a radical agitator like you end up being the most popular member of the most establishment of Quebec institutions? One pundit even pronounced you “rookie legislator of the year.”

Well, it was actually quite easy. There is a very cynical political culture that has been entrenched for a long time, and it’s most pure incarnation can be found in the Harper government. It’s a culture that incorporates and demands low blows, lies as modus operandi and offers mealy-mouthed evasion when one wants to avoid the lie. Just by avoiding that trap, by giving myself the freedom to speak, which most people don’t have, by acting out of a little good faith and sincerity, I look like something unusual. It seems to me it should be the norm.

But when Montreal Gazette calls you one of “24 Quebeckers we love,” don’t you risk losing your cred among your activist pals?

One of my friends told me: “Amir. Beware. If the establishment and mainstream media start singing your praises, you’d better take a good look in the mirror.” He was joking, but it’s true I don’t talk like the hard-line leftists who are always complaining and assuming our adversaries are full of bad intentions. I recognize there are a lot of people in the political machinery who wish things worked differently. There are a few people in politics, who I won’t name, who operate in bad faith, and they know it. But I understand someone like Jean Charest has to consider a complicated equation of loyalties and allegiances before he can act. On calling an inquiry into corruption, for example. There’s another solution, of course. If it was me, I’d resign. But it’s not always simple. You can have radical goals and be moderate in your tactics.

Not everyone considers throwing a shoe at an effigy of George W. Bush or bailing Jaggi Singh out of jail to be the moves of a moderate.

Dissidence must not be criminalized. People who call the entire system into question also deserve protection from the heavy hand of authority, even if I disagree with their tactics or some of their aims. Listen, I’ve never been an anarchist. But 25 years ago, we were encouraging such dissidence against the Soviet Union. My entire family has always fought for democracy in Iran the same way. We shouldn’t be hypocrites. You notice Jaggi Singh almost always wins in court? That’s because the rule of law in a democracy finally prevails after political powers and the police illegally crack down on people like him.

Do you miss medicine?

Actually, I still practise in a clinic half a day every two weeks, and for a few weeks in the summer. I keep my hand in it because I’m afraid that if I lose it, I’ll be too vulnerable to compromise. We’re human, a person has to make a living. I’m married, I have three children, I have commitments. If I become too dependent on politics, I’ll have much less freedom.

Have you drawn any new lines in the way you act since becoming a politician?

When I used to take road trips and I needed to take a leak, I would stop and piss in a farmer’s field. I can’t do that any more. If the police arrest me for peeing in public, well … you do lose a certain liberty. I don’t run red lights on my bicycle any more. At least, not very often. I know people are watching me. I’m also a better driver. Somebody wrote me a letter for telling me I was obstructing him on the freeway for driving too slow! He said, “Now we see the true nature of the politician.” I couldn’t get over it. Politically, I’m determined to stay true to what I believe. I’ll listen to my [teenage] daughters when they think a certain protest might turn out badly. But it doesn’t happen very often.

This interview was edited and condensed.

It seems to me that one of the (several) reasons that military service is a “high calling” is that we many of you defend, at risk of your very lives, Dr. Khadir’s right to hold and to express views that you may find abhorrent. You do not need to support or protect the actions, which are, often, destructive and downright illegal, of many “protestors” but you must protect and defend, with “unlimited liability,” their fundamental rights, one of which is to hold legitimate political views which are contrary to yours.

[pbi]

You notice Jaggi Singh almost always wins in court? That's because the rule of law in a democracy finally prevails after political powers and the police illegally crack down on people like him.

ER: I agree with your position that we "...must protect and defend, with “unlimited liability,” their fundamental rights, one of which is to hold legitimate political views which are contrary to yours..", and I would go beyond that to say that it isn't just the job of the CF: it's a basic premise of a truly civil society. Far too often (including, sadly, on a few occasions on these pages) when we say "free speech" what we really mean is "free speech for those who agree with me". Far better to let people speak, than to muzzle them

However, I'm not an advocate of unrestrained expression. I subscribe to the belief that is expressed in the quote above: that the rule of law will (must) triumph over abuse. Now, I'm sure the writer and I would not agree on what "unrestrained expression" might mean. To me, it means that I draw the limit at violent acts, or at words that a reasonable person would clearly understand are intended to cause violence in society.

So, I would agree completely with nonviolent demonstrations, even if they block traffic or cause temporary inconvenience. I might not like it, but I want to be sure that if I  (or my kids or friends) ever felt strongly enough to take part in a demonstration like that, we could do so safely. What I would not agree with would be vandalism, assault, intimidation or speeches that were very clearly intended to exhort people to that sort of behaviour. At that point I would expect the police to intervene, in a measured and disciplined manner, to preempt violence or restore order.

In order to preserve a civil and democratic society through rule of law (as opposed to mob rule), I am definitely not a believer that our court system should be any more responsive to politicians or popular opinion than it already is. Politicians make and pass laws: in my view that is quite enough, thanks. In my opinion, people who urge that (for example) judges should not be able to interpret written law, or that judges should not be able to amend law through precedent, etc and instead want tighter political control of judges (sometimes called "accountability) are making the huge mistake of assuming  that the politicians in charge will always be the ones they like. Far better, in my opinion, to let the legal system function as freely as possible, so that the transient government of the day can't meddle to serve its agenda or its particular constituency. I want the judge trying my case to make his decision on good legal principles and the evidence, not on whatever public opinion of the moment demands.

Cheers

[mariomike]

$45 million lawsuit:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/89912--office-worker-becomes-face-of-massive-g20-lawsuit

http://g20classaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Issued-Notice-of-Action.pdf

[armychick2009]

$45 million lawsuit:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/89912--office-worker-becomes-face-of-massive-g20-lawsuit

http://g20classaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Issued-Notice-of-Action.pdf

I guess she wasn't happy being stuck in her house for a few days?

[milnews.ca]

<lesson learned tangent>
Remember the "even if we DID want to deal with black block protesters in our midst, how could we possibly do so?" philosophy espoused by some?

Here's a bit of a case study re:  what can happen when a group is unhappy with what some smaller team of troublemakers is doing:

Six local queer grassroots activists and allies protested the military recruitment booth yesterday located in the heart of the post pride parade celebration at sunset beach. Some of the activists were wearing Guantonamo bay detainee suits, and knelt in front of their table, as the others handed out anti-military propaganda.

Within 5 minutes of being there, activists were forcefully surrounded by over 20 hostile security volunteers. The volunteers immediately began to snatch leaflets from protesters hands as well as the people who received them. The volunteers asked them to leave the premises, telling them that it was an illegal action, then they proceeded to create a human shield that would not allow sight to the action as they shouted "[the activists] are not welcome here.”

The police were eventually called, and the activists were escorted off the grounds. While queer supporters of the anti-war activists followed them to show their solidarity with the cause. The juxtaposition was that the volunteer queers were protecting the state as the state sat on their asses and watched the whole thing go down.

Vancouver Pride president and full time reactionary alarmist Ken Coolen was especially hostile when confronting the protesters. Tension was high as this was not the first time Coolen had tried to infringe on the communities freedom of expression ....

Also note the "those dirty rotten organizers siding with the oppresive state apparatus" messaging as well.
</lesson learned tangent>

[Technoviking]

I'm confused...Who was protesting what, and who did what to whom?

[milnews.ca]

I'm confused...Who was protesting what, and who did what to whom?

Small group of rabble-rousers protest CF presence at Gay Pride Event, GP Event folks confront them and say, "not the time, place", called cops, had rabble-rousers taken away.  That was for those saying, "well, what CAN we do if there's people we don't want around?"

Meanwhile, more charges laid against one of those arrested earlier - this via Postmedia News:

A young Ontario woman accused of being one of the organizers of violent action during the G20 Summit in Toronto in June now faces 13 criminal charges.

The Crown laid additional charges Thursday during a bail hearing for Kelly Rose Pflug-Back, 21, of Norwood, Ont.

The new charges include conspiracy, intimidation of a police officer and obstruction of justice. She is currently in custody on seven counts of mischief over $5,000.

Pflug-Back is accused of smashing windows and destroying property at a number of downtown Toronto businesses including an Urban Outfitters, Adidas store, McDonald's restaurant and a CIBC bank branch.

The University of Guelph student appeared for the hearing in a green prison jumpsuit.

Pflug-Back is alleged to be one of the organizers who used anarchist "Black Bloc" tactics, in which members dress in black with their faces concealed behind handkerchiefs to prevent police from knowing their identities. The group has been blamed for torching police cruisers and causing at least $250,000 in damages.

Pflug-Back's parents, Douglas Back and Ursula Pflug, sat in the front row of the courtroom.

A temporary publication ban has been placed on evidence presented at the proceedings ....

[Technoviking]

Pflug-Back is alleged to be one of the organizers who used anarchist "Black Bloc" tactics, in which members dress in black with their faces concealed behind handkerchiefs to prevent police from knowing their identities.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, the Technoviking unconceals Kelly Rose Pflug-Back's  face:

[Jim Seggie]

Well done Techno!!

[Technoviking]

Look at this photo:



Please note the flag in the background.  No, not the PRIDE flag, but the PLO flag.

I'm sorry, but if you associate with elements such as that, you lost, in my opinion, all credibility.

[zipperhead_cop]

She's pflugly alright.  Put the mask back on. 

[Technoviking]

She's pflugly alright.  Put the mask back on.

Naw, she's just an idealistic 21 year old who still believes that we older folks "just dont' get it" and that she is the modern hippy.  I suspect that she's going to get a severe dose of reality, when her education comes crashing down and all her peers (eg: same aged students) end up going on and living their lives.

Irony: when she has to work at one of the stores she smashed, just to pay for more ear loop thingies. 

EDIT TO ADD:
I'm not much into profiling, but I suspect the following about her:
She's vegan or vegetarian, or whatever it is where you can't eat meat.  OK, she's an herbivore.
She's lesbian.
She's unemployed.  Or she works at PETA or some hemp shop.
She's from a rich family.
She always rebelled at home for "some reason"

Now, I suspect all of the above, because a quick google search shows that she's in the press more than once for "activism".  Someone that age with that much time on their hands has no meaningful employment keeping them busy (hence not gainfully employed).  Now, given that the meat industry is just that, and she's against "the man", well, she's not going to partake now, is she?  She goes to university, so I suspect her family has means.  And as such, her tuition (quite expensive) is paid for.  And coming from a rich family, she probably has two hard-working (workaholic?) parents.  As such, she had to jump up and down to scream (figuratively) to get their attention.  I suspect that this trend continued through her teen years.  This leads me to her being a lesbian, not because she is a lesbian, but because "coming out" to her parents as one probably shocked them.  Same with all of her tattooes, her ridiculously sized earrings.
Anyway, she is facing serious charges, is most likely a bit of a martyr to her peers.  Hopefully that once she serves her debt to society, she "grows up" (as it were), because I also suspect that she's rather intelligent.  She appears to be a "leader" (in a bad way, yes), but a leader nonetheless.  She knows what she wants, but in the end, I put it all down to being naive.  Unfortunately, for her, she's probably going to learn a very expensive lesson, because if she's convicted of these crimes, she faces steep penalties indeed.

[zipperhead_cop]

Unfortunately, for her, she's probably going to learn a very expensive lesson, because if she's convicted of these crimes, she faces steep penalties indeed.

Doubt it.  If she's as useless a ration converter as the appears to be, she'll qualify for legal assistance.  She'll kick around in lock up until the trial comes, she'll plead guilty to time served and agree to do a bunch of "community service" where she'll be such a disruptive beeotch she will get punted out with minimal hours served.  She'll be on probation for three years with some sort of idiotic condition like "sustain from deliberately creating public disorder" or some other unenforceable condition.  And I'm also betting she never pays back a cent.  Either she'll plead hardship and she can't pay or the Gothic nerd squad vandals she hangs out with will pony up the money for her. 

[recceguy]

That is not a vegan!

No one that 'normal looking' subsists on a vegan diet. I'll bet a dollar to donuts (cooked in animal fat) that she regularly cranks out uncontrolled flatulance caused by the digestion of humongous amounts of animal protien. You just can't subsist on greens and tofu and look that regular and healthy.

[George Wallace]

And here, ladies and gentlemen, the Technoviking unconceals

Looks like her "colleagues" in the background are also easily identifiable "Black Bloc" activists at the G8/G20 in much of the film and video footage shot.

[George Wallace]

The question of money was brought up just a few posts ago.



Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



G20 protester granted bail on $80,000 bond


Postmedia News
August 13, 2010

LINK

A woman accused of being part of a group of protesters who caused $250,000 in damage to Toronto storefronts and police cruisers during the G20 Summit in June was granted bail Thursday. Kelly Rose Pflug-Back, 21, of Norwood, Ont., was released on $80,000 bond to her parents, Doug Back and Ursula Pflug. Justice of the Peace Lynette Stethem ordered that Pflug-Back must live with her parents, obey any rules they set and be placed under house arrest unless in the direct company of a parent. She must also be available within 15 minutes to the police if she's home. Pflug-Back faces a total of 13 criminal charges.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

=================================================================


G20 protester granted bail


By Linda Nguyen, Postmedia News
August 13, 2010

LINK

A young Ontario woman accused of being part of a group of protesters who caused $250,000 in damages to Toronto storefronts and police cruisers during the G20 Summit in June was granted bail Thursday.

Kelly Rose Pflug-Back, 21, of Norwood, Ont., was released on $80,000 bond to her parents, Doug Back and Ursula Pflug.

Ontario Justice of the Peace Lynette Stethem ordered Pflug-Back must live with her parents, obey any rules they set and be placed under house arrest unless in the direct company of a parent. She must also be available within 15 minutes to the police if she's home.

She was also ordered to not contact any of the other suspected G20 protesters or members of an activist group she founded in Guelph, Ont., not possess any weapons or drugs and is forbidden to use the social networking site Facebook.

Stethem also prohibited the accused from organizing or participating in any protests and she can only be present with her fiance, Julian Icham, who is also charged with G20 crimes, in the company of her parents.

Pflug-Back faces a total of 13 criminal charges related to incidents on the weekend of June 26 and 27. These include eight counts of mischief over $5,000, one count of conspiracy, one count of wearing a disguise, one count of obstruction, one count of failure to comply with an undertaking and one count of intimidation of a justice official.

Originally only facing the mischief charges, Crown Attorney John Hely laid the additional, more serious charges in light of new evidence, which came out during the two-day bail hearing.

The Toronto police have still and video images of someone who looks like Pflug-Back smashing windows and destroying property at a number of downtown Toronto businesses, including an Urban Outfitters, Adidas store, McDonald's restaurant and a CIBC bank branch.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

===================================================

[Technoviking]

Well, one of my assumptions appears to be correct: she's from a family of wealth.

[Technoviking]

Both parents appear to be artists, so maybe not the "establishment" types at all:

Mother

But certainly accomplished.  I wonder if Mom and Dad are proud or concerned about their daughter's "exploits"

[zipperhead_cop]

Well, one of my assumptions appears to be correct: she's from a family of wealth.

Not necessarily.  People sign "bonds" all the time and never put up a cent.  Basically, you are saying that you agree to be on the hook for that money if the person they are vouching for screws up.  The fun part (Go Justice!!) is that when the breach of conditions occurs, they don't generally go after anyone for the money.  So they could have put up a $10 000 000 bond and it wouldn't matter.  Now, if they had put up an $80 000 cash surety, that is different. 
Oh, and even if brat gets pinched breaching, her parents can hustle down to the police station and do a report requesting their bond be revoked.  As long as the report is in before the kid goes to court they are extra Scott free. 
So basically, the bond means nothing.  At least with her out, she isn't getting any dead time credit. 

Honestly, if this was your idiot child, would you bail her out?  I sure as hell wouldn't.  Nice message they are sending her. 

[Technoviking]

Honestly, if this was your idiot child, would you bail her out? 

I would bail out my kid.  Then my kid would be begging to go back to jail.  Not to get her away from "the man".

But thanks for the info. 

[57Chevy]

Looks like her "colleagues" in the background are also easily identifiable "Black Bloc" activists at the G8/G20 in much of the film and video footage shot.

I see we are still encountering these hooliganistic bric and brac instigators out there.
I can't help to notice the fatty in the picture. The same that was all decked out
in black busting up something or other much earlier in the thread.

Oh.....Techno...I agree......Lesbian.......but could add "Man Hater" [the worse kind (of that species)]

[canada94]

This was scary times, both of my parents where there with the RCMP. Interesting stories from them.

[WB]

$115M G20 class-action lawsuit launched
Last Updated: Thursday, September 2, 2010 | 6:16 PM ET Comments1Recommend1
CBC News

Two people who were jailed during June's G20 summit in Toronto have launched a $115-million class-action lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board, federal Attorney General Rob Nicholson and the Peel Police Services Board.

Mike Barber and Miranda McQuade, both of Toronto, are acting as representative plaintiffs for the approximately 1,150 people who were detained, arrested and incarcerated at a temporary detention centre in Toronto's east end after police clamped down on demonstrators after high-profile incidents of vandalism.

The suit was filed Thursday at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto.

The plaintiffs said in a statement of claim that they launched the lawsuit to, among other things:

    * ensure that democratic rights and fundamental freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be exercised by everyone without fear of detention, arrest, harassment
    * deter the defendants and any other public authority from acting in a manner that arbitrarily limits people's democratic and constitutional rights.
    * bring the practices of public authorities into line with the Charter and common law.

The class-action lawsuit is the second one in less than a month.

In a separate lawsuit that's seeking $45 million, Sherry Good is acting as the representative plaintiff for more than 800 people who claim they were wrongfully arrested during the G20 summit. That one filed Aug. 6 is against the Toronto Police Services Board and the federal attorney general.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/09/02/g20-class-action-lawsuit.html#ixzz0yPnU7x00

I'm not surprised that there are so many people claiming to have been wrongfully arrested.   It seems as though cop cars were torched and windows smashed by only a few dozen people at most.  How is it that well over 1000 found themselves detained?

[George Wallace]

I hope the majority of these IDIOTS have their cases thrown out of court and are charged all court fees.