# Protesting while serving



## marlborough (8 Oct 2009)

Hi there, I have been mulling this question over and couldn't find an answer.

Once I join the military, what are the rules regarding protesting?
I assume that my personal opinions will not always match exactly with those of the government or even the military.  Am I still afforded the same rights to protest against the government even though I have taken an oath to serve the queen?


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2009)

In your own personal capacity, as a citizen, not representing DND in any way, then participating in a lawful protest action is perfectly legal.


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2009)

marlborough said:
			
		

> Once I join the military, what are the rules regarding protesting?



My opinion ( so take that for what it is worth ) is that you can engage in lawful protest when not on duty, and not in uniform, and you may not identify yourself as a member of the CF verbally or in writing, because you do not speak for them.


----------



## Roy Harding (8 Oct 2009)

The previous posters have it right.  As long as you don't identify yourself as a member of the CF - protest away.


----------



## Occam (8 Oct 2009)

Marlborough, you may want to take a look at these references:

QR&O 19.14
QR&O 19.36
QR&O 19.44 

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/tc-tm-019-eng.asp

As long as you stay within the constraints of the QR&Os above, you should be okay.


----------



## gcclarke (8 Oct 2009)

From the Queen's Regulations and Orders: 



> 19.14 – IMPROPER COMMENTS
> 
> (1) No officer or non-commissioned member shall make remarks or pass criticism tending to bring a superior into contempt, except as may be necessary for the proper presentation of a grievance under Chapter 7 (Grievances). (15 June 2000)
> 
> ...



And;



> 19.36 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
> 
> (1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.
> 
> ...



The gist of it being as was stated above. Don't wear your uniform. Don't identify yourself as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially not to the press. 

Don't do anything that could give anyone the impression that you are talking on behalf of anyone other than yourself.


----------



## marlborough (8 Oct 2009)

Thanks for the info everyone, this is all reasonable and sensible.

It sounds to me like there could be a problem taking any leading role in a protest, as your background is sure to be discovered.  So I guess the most a serving member can do is add their voice or be someone in that crowd with a sign.


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2009)

The rules have been posted. :
There's also an unwritten rule, "Don't make waves."


----------



## gcclarke (8 Oct 2009)

There's also the other unwritten rule, "Don't get caught."


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2009)

That's the exception that proves the rule!  ;D
"Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m."; "The exception proves the rule."


----------



## mellian (9 Oct 2009)

I was actually talking about that yesterday. 

Do not identify yourself as part of the CF, do not disclosed any information, and do not get actively involved, at least in regards to protests against the government, military, and current conflicts, including certain protests that is seen as security concerns like anti-globalization and anti-capitalism protests. I would think it can also be treated as black marks to higher level of security clearances as well. 

Besides, once in the CF, one will not get accepted all that well within certain protest groups anyways if discovered, limiting to just participating.


----------



## mariomike (9 Oct 2009)

They always figure out where you work: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xtbmvhBaQs


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> I would think it can also be treated as black marks to higher level of security clearances as well.



Absolutely - your friends could have a lot to do with security clearances.  Their names could very well show up on a CSIS or RCMP list and be connected to you.

Not especially a military thing, but you are promoted based on evaluation by your superiors.   They might very well base less than excellent evaluations on the whole package which might include negative perceptions of your activities and you will never know.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Oct 2009)

I'd be careful with being part of one of these protest groups. You have no idea what investigative agency has a file on them, or if they've been linked to more than peaceful protests in the past. No matter how innocent your involvement, you may be waving goodbye to a higher security clearance down the road. There's a lot of digging done that you'll never know about.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (10 Oct 2009)

Here's a different question.What ever happened to people joining who looked forward to beating hippies protesting? ;D

Get back....get back...get back...
Now that's good fun.Tiring but good fun!


----------



## Otis (10 Oct 2009)

I remember the days when we were forbidden from being in any way political. 

We were told we weren't even allowed to sign petitions.

I still use that as my personal policy, just to avoid any problems. I keep my personal politics inside the voting booth and inside my own home as much as I can (though sometimes they sneak out in conversation)

Otis


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Here's a different question.What ever happened to people joining who looked forward to beating hippies protesting? ;D



I wanted the uniform. But, looking back, there was a lot going on. The FLQ Crisis. The Kent State Massacre. The war in Vietnam. Hippies in Yorkville and Rochdale College ( I became familiar with them a couple of years later ).  But, compared to what men who were still only in their early forties had been through, it was pretty tame. 
What you said reminded me of what Mayor Dennison said at the time, "A few hippies and deserters are Toronto's only problem." We all felt that way!


----------



## Nauticus (11 Oct 2009)

Otis said:
			
		

> I remember the days when we were forbidden from being in any way political.
> 
> We were told we weren't even allowed to sign petitions.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with this. Not saying anybody else has to, but I just accept that there are certain things I gave up when I took my oath.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I wanted the uniform. But, looking back, there was a lot going on. The FLQ Crisis. The Kent State Massacre. The war in Vietnam. Hippies in Yorkville and Rochdale College ( I became familiar with them a couple of years later ).  But, compared to what men who were still only in their early forties had been through, it was pretty tame.
> What you said reminded me of what Mayor Dennison said at the time, "A few hippies and deserters are Toronto's only problem." We all felt that way!



Now dont get me totally wrong.Protest is sometimes needed/valid.However I have zero problem heading down to (inset city) to stop some hippie protest against the government.I.E the red paint throwing hippies.

Why we didnt deal with the Tamil's is beyond me.(Toronto and Ottawa)


----------



## Journeyman (11 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Why we didnt deal with the Tamil's is beyond me.(Toronto and Ottawa)



Because Federal Liberal Ministers were regular guests at Tamil Tiger fundraisers.


> "....including two members of the federal cabinet, Maria Minna, then minister of international cooperation, and Paul Martin, then minister of finance, who was the guest of honour."
> 
> Stewart Bell, _Cold Terror: How Canada Nurtures and Exports Terrorism Around the World_. Mississauga: Wiley Press, 2005, p.71


With Martin, and later, Chretien, as Prime Minister, appeasing a Liberal riding was much more important than fighting terrorism.


----------



## mellian (11 Oct 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd be careful with being part of one of these protest groups. You have no idea what investigative agency has a file on them, or if they've been linked to more than peaceful protests in the past. No matter how innocent your involvement, you may be waving goodbye to a higher security clearance down the road. There's a lot of digging done that you'll never know about.



Which in some ways it can be silly, like getting black listed for clearances just for standing beside some guy in a protest that you do not know, or being acquaintances with someone for a short time who later commits some dumb crime. Especially if one has no criminal record and presently not active with any protest groups.


----------



## mellian (11 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Here's a different question.What ever happened to people joining who looked forward to beating hippies protesting? ;D
> 
> Get back....get back...get back...
> Now that's good fun.Tiring but good fun!



I consider them just as idiotic as those who go into protests just to throw stuff at the police or break windows.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

Sorry for being Idiotic.Riot control use to be a part of our job I enjoyed,and being a person whom enjoys conflict I would relish heading down to a protest to keep and peace,and when that turned south (as many do) conducting snatch teams or holding the line in a exhausting days work.

I dunno. I find it rewarding to be a part of the solution to idiotic protesters who can't control themselves and suddenly become 6 foot tall and bullet proof once surrounded by a crowd. 

Mellian I won't condone your protesting,or beliefs or choice of sport.Just remember we come from totally different times in history,and I have no idea how to deal with young people with your demeanor.I have not had to deal with young people such as yourself in my trade which usually attracts like minded people to myself for the most part.

Believe me I have varying beliefs,some I cannot express until I am not under the Queen's control.I keep them to myself.Other avenues I wish to pursue I look into and usually support financially if legal,and if doesn't cause a conflict of interest with my employer.

And yes I still have wet dreams of smacking war protesters...probably never happen...but just having that thought of having one hit me with something on the line or attempt to drag a soldier off the line into the crowd...oh to daydream.

Good luck in your peaceful protesting.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2009)

Well said.


----------



## mellian (11 Oct 2009)

From my experience with protests of the 21st century, things go south more out of police intimidation and aggression than some idiot attacking an officer. Worse if the police have the silly idea of seeding 'undercover' cops dress like thugs or some anarchist into the protest, or conduct snatch teams of anyone wearing black clothing or an bandanna.

I admit, I get some kind of rush and enjoyment being in protest, like anything that is action paced. Yet my concern is always making sure the protest is well organized and safe for all involved with no violence than its political message. Of course, that goal can be difficult to achieve when you are dealing with violent prone officers looking to bash a few protester's heads, or simply panic in a violent manner like nearly having a taser in the face. Also does not help when some of those officers taunt you when they are off-duty and outside of protests.

In the end, no matter the differences in politics and views, it is hypocritical for anyone that suppose to keep the peace to wanting to commit acts that breaks it, and then go on holding views of others doing so as well. 







			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Sorry for being Idiotic.Riot control use to be a part of our job I enjoyed,and being a person whom enjoys conflict I would relish heading down to a protest to keep and peace,and when that turned south (as many do) conducting snatch teams or holding the line in a exhausting days work.
> 
> I dunno. I find it rewarding to be a part of the solution to idiotic protesters who can't control themselves and suddenly become 6 foot tall and bullet proof once surrounded by a crowd.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2009)

A detective schools a hippie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo2hhvvlpw&feature=player_embedded#


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> From my experience with protests of the 21st century, things go south more out of police intimidation and aggression than some idiot attacking an officer.



I'd see that being a biased opinion from someone who is out protesting authority. Granted, there are some idiot officers who go way over what should be considered reasonable use of force. How would you like to be on the other side of the riot shield? 50,000 screaming people who really don't care if you get hurt because you're "the man" who's out to get them? I'd be a little antsy to clear up the streets too.


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Oct 2009)

I think a lot of you are mistaking "protest" for "violent protest and riots".  One is LEGAL (and in my view, REQUIRED of an informed citizenry), the other is ILLEGAL and should not be participated in by law abiding citizens (including members of the CF).  My views on civil disobedience occupy the grey area between the two - and don't belong on this thread.

I, too, enjoyed the riot control (what used to be called "Internal Security", or IS) aspect of various training I've taken over the years.  One of my favourite memories involves putting down a "riot" by TQ3 Infmn by using a firetruck - in DECEMBER, in Wainwright - during my CLC.  "GET BACK! (BANG)  GET BACK! (BANG), GET BACK YOU FREAKING IDIOTS OR WE'LL FREEZE YOU WHERE YOU STAND".  Good times.  (Wasn't so great when we lost control of the firehose and froze OURSELVES where we stood).

However - don't confuse peaceful and lawful protest with rioting - they aren't the same thing.

As much as I think most protesting is a waste of time (stop protesting what someone ELSE is doing, and start DOING something yourself!), I think there is a valid and profound reason it is legal.  It is, sometimes, the only way the citizenry can get their voice heard.  SOMETIMES, being able to protest (legally), can defuse an inflamed citizenry enough that rioting and insurrection can be avoided.  

I firmly believe that a member of the CF need not fear taking part in any LEGAL protest (unless, of course, that protest is in support of the disbandment of the CF, or some such.)

RIOTING, on the other hand, is something to be avoided by members of the CF, and, when called upon by the civil authority, something to be put down (with firehoses or other means).


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> From my experience with protests of the 21st century, things go south more out of police intimidation and aggression than some idiot attacking an officer. Worse if the police have the silly idea of seeding 'undercover' cops dress like thugs or some anarchist into the protest, or conduct snatch teams of anyone wearing black clothing or an bandanna.
> 
> I admit, I get some kind of rush and enjoyment being in protest, like anything that is action paced. Yet my concern is always making sure the protest is well organized and safe for all involved with no violence than its political message. Of course, that goal can be difficult to achieve when you are dealing with violent prone officers looking to bash a few protester's heads, or simply panic in a violent manner like nearly having a taser in the face. Also does not help when some of those officers taunt you when they are off-duty and outside of protests.
> 
> In the end, no matter the differences in politics and views, it is hypocritical for anyone that, and then go on holding views of others doing so as well.


So your blaming protest going south on police aggression?Nice.Do you think snatch teams go out for no purpose?Do you not think the people getting arrested are getting arrested for good reason?

As for the"  suppose to keep the peace to wanting to commit acts that breaks it" its called having a mindset.You go into situations prepared for the worst,hoping for the best.It's called controlled aggression.Something I have applied during my career from lowest use to highest use of force.

I hope and pray that one day if you do get in you get to stare at 60,000 people who are up in your face mouthing off for hours on end,nailing you with rocks, pulling people into the crowd to beat the living piss outta you.

Welcome to the real world.You would be the first to complain if the guys on the line backed off and the crowd destroyed your place of worship,house etc.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> One of my favourite memories involves putting down a "riot" by TQ3 Infmn by using a firetruck - in DECEMBER, in Wainwright - during my CLC.  "GET BACK! (BANG)  GET BACK! (BANG), GET BACK YOU FREAKING IDIOTS OR WE'LL FREEZE YOU WHERE YOU STAND".  Good times.  (Wasn't so great when we lost control of the firehose and froze OURSELVES where we stood).



Sounds like good clean fun, Roy! But, you will *never* see any fire department in North America do that. Not since the riots down south in the 1960's and 1970's. 
I should also add that crew cabs were added on big city firetrucks to protect the firemen from rocks etc thrown by rioters. They were vulnerable when they only had the back step to ride on. 
However, that doesn't mean the police or CF won't use them!
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42183000/jpg/_42183732_watercanon_ap416.jpg

"In the mid-1960s, major cities throughout the nation experienced episodes of violent civil unrest. Riots and the resulting fires severely overtaxed fire departments, but worse, firefighters and their apparatus became targets. Fire apparatus were bombarded with bricks, bottles, fire bombs and gunshots. Firefighters were killed and injured.

Most apparatus in service at the time were open-cab models, with equipment carried on running boards and other exposed locations, available for rapid use. Inner-city fire companies reacted by constructing makeshift cabs, roof enclosures over the back steps, enclosed tiller seats and even individual personnel enclosures that resembled telephone booths on the apparatus. Some strange-looking apparatus resulted. These events, more than any other single factor, led to the design of crew cabs, where all firefighters rode in enclosed positions, and compartmentation, to carry all tools inside locked compartments."
http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/american/apparatus.html


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A detective schools a hippie:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo2hhvvlpw&feature=player_embedded#



Jesus I am dragnet!
You guys growing up on instant orange juice.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

Here's a video of Brits training americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oifDFOzoiPQ&feature=PlayList&p=F655604C5CA9F292&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=48

I had a buddy that just finished the course out east.Molotov and all.He said it was a excellent course.


----------



## Jungle (11 Oct 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> ... (and in my view, REQUIRED of an _*informed*_ citizenry)...



And that is the reason why most protesters should stay away from protests...


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So your blaming protest going south on police aggression?Nice.Do you think snatch teams go out for no purpose?Do you not think the people getting arrested are getting arrested for good reason?
> 
> As for the"  suppose to keep the peace to wanting to commit acts that breaks it" its called having a mindset.You go into situations prepared for the worst,hoping for the best.It's called controlled aggression.Something I have applied during my career from lowest use to highest use of force.



No, I am saying, from my experience, that treating a protest as if all in it are guilty and like a riot is asking for it to become one, asking for people to attack you. From the G20 protest in 2001 to the SPP protest in 2007 in Ottawa, Ottawa Police and RCMP have improved considerably in their handling of major protests and in turn resulted more peaceful protests. 

A lot of it is protest groups also improved their handling and organizing of protests, but the biggest is the decrease in the number of police officers, all of them in regular uniform apart from the tactical unit in riot gear held in reserve and out of view, not using any tear gas or dogs or water hose or pepper spray (well, in indiscriminate use anyway). G20 was a huge mess, being smaller version of what happened in Quebec City and Seattle before that. Bush protest when he came to Ottawa for the first time, same number of people or more, yet lot more peaceful and riot gear police only came out for a smaller number of protesters who wanted to vent more directly, with only few of even them getting arrested, those actually responsible for throwing shit at the police and even injuring an officer. 

To make the point further, during the Ottawa portion of SPP protests, it was even more peaceful and even less a need of the riot geared tactical unit with practically no arrest. Next day in Montebello, Surete de Quebec used older tactics of intimidation, nearly all police in riot gear, embedded police officers dress like anarchists with holding a rock, and so on. Result? More clashes, lot more arrests, and more prone to violence.  

It fine to be ready for the worse, protest groups I have been involved with do the same, but to go in full of "controlled" aggression, no matter if your the police or one of the protesters, is asking for problems. 




> I hope and pray that one day if you do get in you get to stare at 60,000 people who are up in your face mouthing off for hours on end,nailing you with rocks, pulling people into the crowd to beat the living piss outta you.
> 
> Welcome to the real world.You would be the first to complain if the guys on the line backed off and the crowd destroyed your place of worship,house etc.



Protests are protests, and riots are riots, they are not the same thing. The perspective of riot control is just one piece of the greater picture, not the only version of the world.   

I suggest everyone to watch Battle of Seattle which provides an idea of what happened in that protest and how it degenerated, showing the perspective of nearly all sides.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd see that being a biased opinion from someone who is out protesting authority. Granted, there are some idiot officers who go way over what should be considered reasonable use of force. How would you like to be on the other side of the riot shield? 50,000 screaming people who really don't care if you get hurt because you're "the man" who's out to get them? I'd be a little antsy to clear up the streets too.



Everyone is bias in some way, but I do not protest the authourity, nor do I partake in rioting which I make a point to avoid. I would not want to join the military if that was the case.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> It fine to be ready for the worse, protest groups I have been involved with do the same, but to go in full of "controlled" aggression, no matter if your the police or one of the protesters, is asking for problems.


How do you guys prepare?
Controlled aggression is just that.Controlled.Check out Escalation of force. When military/police get sent into these situations they are given mandates to follow.Deny protest to area X.Keep two disputed protests apart etc.They will use any means necessary to use the least amount of force.However will use all means to ensure their success.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

Mellian,

It still sounds like you're saying it's the cop's fault protests turn into riots.

While I think it's fair to say a poor police judgment can influence an already bad situation to be worse,  I don't believe for a second that Canadian police will turn a peaceful protest into a violent riot.

To say that the police are responsible for any violence is to suggest that they in some way initiated the violence.  But legally, the police can only react to the crowd - thats the escalation of force X-Mo is talking about.  If the police are acting legally - which in Canada I believe they generally do - then any protest turned violent is the fault of the rioters.  Don't pretend like it's the cops who are the bad guys.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 Oct 2009)

I suspect that when a demonstration turns into a riot the organizers are not displeased.  While a demonstration might not make the 11 o'clock news, a riot will and media coverage is the whole point.  The leaders then get to be on TV and blame the police.  These things all seem to be scripted.

Guy in the red shirt at 3 o'clock - fire.  Maybe snatch teams are better but, hey, I'm old school.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2009)

Some local protests that I recall:

I worked the Rodney King Riot on Yonge St. ( Metro version ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZtRw9II2s&feature=player_embedded#

Here is a rock concert that got out of hand at the ( Toronto ) CNE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scrIUhGUQuo&feature=geosearch

"Operation Soap" protest:
http://www.yorku.ca/jspot/5/stand_together/3/1981_Raids_Headlines/gallery/pages/largest_mass_arrest_since_FLQ.htm
http://www.yorku.ca/jspot/5/stand_together/3/1981_Raids_Headlines/gallery/pages/3000_riot.htm

But, this is the place I remember most. Elevators never seemed to work! :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_College


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Some of you still have a distinction problem on the differences of a protest and a riot.

A riot is bunch of people randomly causing violence and vandalism, destroying windows, attacking the police or whoever, and possibly fighting among themselves if there are opposing groups. Riots can happen without a political reason or message, and not always out of anger either. 

Montreal Canadians won the Stanley Cup! *crowd riots throughout downtown* Montreal Canadians lost the Stanley Cup! *crowd riots* Rock band singer cancels in the last minute *good chunk of people waiting in line riots* An unarmed person got shot by the police which may base on some discrimination *riots against the police*

Protests are specifically organized, not random, and with a political message. Protest groups prepare in case a protest degenerates, usually base around probably reactions of the police, and some cases because of a minority decides to be more direct and attack or provoke the police in some way and then hide among peaceful protesters. Those organizing the protests discourage violence and vandalism, or at least ask those that plan to to do so away from peaceful protests so the police do not confuse the two. 

Protest groups, at least those I been involved with, do what we can to keep the peace during protests and keep people safe, yet have lawyer/legal volunteers on hand to deal with arrests no matter who they are protester or bystander, we have designated medics to take care of injuries, provide water, and supplies to deal with tear gas, marshals and coordinators to help direct large of amount of people away from any violent confrontations, etc. We do what we possibly can, and the rest is up to the police. If police do what they can on their end to hold the peace as well, then we have a generally peaceful protests with  little to no arrests. When the police treat peaceful protesters as rioters and violently punish entire group for the idiocy of a few, then a protest is more prone to degenerate.

No side has all the blame, but all does have to work toward a peaceful protest for it to become and stay peaceful. Since the police are the authourity in these situations, they have a larger responsibility of holding themselves together. If I am ever on that side of the line, I will make that point whenever I can.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I suspect that when a demonstration turns into a riot the organizers are not displeased.  While a demonstration might not make the 11 o'clock news, a riot will and media coverage is the whole point.  The leaders then get to be on TV and blame the police.  These things all seem to be scripted.
> 
> Guy in the red shirt at 3 o'clock - fire.  Maybe snatch teams are better but, hey, I'm old school.



The media are vultures for violence, and they are not happy if there is none and generally ignore the protest. May seem like the protest 'leaders' thrives on it, generally do not. Happy because we are on camera? Sure maybe, but not because of any violence that may happen which we try to discourage.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

large scale riots are not random, there are always either professional or amateur agitators, usually at the back out of harms way, to whip a crowd into a frenzy then stand back to watch the "fun" they've created.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I worked the Rodney King Riot on Yonge St. ( Metro version ):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZtRw9II2s&feature=player_embedded#



Good example of lack of organization, lack of preparations and means by the protest organizers to handle such a large amount of people, and many joined in randomly throughout it just for the sake of rioting than any political message. That and ridiculous 1990s media sensationalism. "It is like a warzone!" Please...  :


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

> Protest groups, at least those I been involved with, do what we can to keep the peace during protests and keep people safe, yet have lawyer/legal volunteers on hand to deal with arrests no matter who they are protester or bystander, we have designated medics to take care of injuries, provide water, and supplies to deal with tear gas, marshals and coordinators to help direct large of amount of people away from any violent confrontations, etc. We do what we possibly can, and the rest is up to the police. If police do what they can on their end to hold the peace as well, then we have a generally peaceful protests with  little to no arrests. When the police treat peaceful protesters as rioters and violently punish entire group for the idiocy of a few, then a protest is more prone to degenerate.



Why would the medics provide supplies to deal with teargas if the intent is not to defy police authority?  Why would the police use teargas in the first place if the protest is peaceful?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> large scale riots are not random, there are always either professional or amateur agitators, usually at the back out of harms way, to whip a crowd into a frenzy then stand back to watch the "fun" they've created.



Are you serious?


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

> Are you serious?



Until you can give a reasonable answer to my question above,  I think Kat makes a valid point.

If the intent is to defy police authority, then to say that the marshals, medics, lawyers, and organizers you mentioned are "professional or amateur agitators" would not be too far off the mark.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Are you serious?



I don't know about "professional" rioters, but I'd be willing to bet there are people who go to protests for the sole purpose of attempting to start a riot, or at least, to take part in one.  I'm not saying these people are part of the "organized" protest group.

Much like all the non-university people who show up at Queen's Homecoming in Kingston.

Isn't there a whole other thread on actual protests, instead of further derailing this one, where I believe the OP asked about the regulations and/or ramifications of protesting while serving?

Maybe this one:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87838.0.html


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

Yes, I'm serious, I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.  Do some reading up on the Brixton Riot of '81, as an example.  A high crime area was put under increased police presence, with very free stop and search policies.  Two police officers were attempting to aid a young man who had been stabbed in an attack. A gang of thugs intervened, assaulted the POs, and the young man eventually died of his injuries.  Word spread that the young man was a victim of police brutality, negligence, racism, and any other thing the authorities could be blamed with, setting off one of the worst riots in British history.  Professional and amateur provocateurs were responsible for the violence, the government is also culpable for creating a tense situation in a depressed area of London.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> large scale riots are not random, there are always either professional or amateur agitators, usually at the back out of harms way, to whip a crowd into a frenzy then stand back to watch the "fun" they've created.




I had the opportunity, several years ago, to observe a _demonstration_ that went, very briefly, “bad” but which was, very quickly, “put right.”

This was in a friendly, democratic but very _foreign_ country. 

The _demonstration_ began _cheerfully_ enough with a march, lots of horns and bells and lots of civilian riot police standing by – blocking access to a few streets. No problems. Then a few masked *agitators*, quite visible, began to throw rocks and do damage to private property. A police _flying squad_ appeared and very quickly, very effectively and very (and very publicly) *brutally* grabbed the _agitators_, but only after some quite _heavy_ and again very visible baton work – heads and bones were broken. The _agitators_ were whisked away and the _demonstration_ returned to “normal.”  Later that day a citizen – our hotel manager, if I recall – explained that while demonstrations were allowed, as a matter of *right*, property damage and dangerous acts, like rock throwing, were *intolerable* to all citizens, not just the police.

So, yes, there are *agitators* who, as a matter of tactics, want to provoke “police brutality” because they believe that most of us believe that property damage and rock throwing (which can endanger people) is some sort of *civil right*.

To the extent that some of us do think rock throwing and property damage are part and parcel of _lawful assembly_ and _free speech_ then, to that exact same extent, we they are fools.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Why would the medics provide supplies to deal with teargas if the intent is not to defy police authority?  Why would the police use teargas in the first place if the protest is peaceful?



Because the police has been known to use tear gas against or near peaceful protests. Case in point, Quebec City and Seattle. Police use teargas in attempt to disperse a protest, regardless if it is peaceful or just because of a few out among a thousand being troublemakers.

Police prepares for the worse, and so does organized protesters.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

From here...   http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Riots


"In some places, rioters have become semi-professionals, travelling to the sites of likely riots. These rioters are known as firms. This is particularly noted in sports-related riots in Europe. For example, France, Poland and England commonly have riots related to football (soccer) matches. Rioters have become quite sophisticated at understanding and withstanding the tactics used by police in such situations. Manuals for successful rioting are available on the Internet. These manuals also encourage rioters to get the press involved, as there is more safety with the cameras rolling. There is also more attention. Citizens with video cameras may also have an effect on both rioters and police."


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, yes, there are *agitators* who, as a matter of tactics, want to provoke “police brutality” because they believe that most of us believe that property damage and rock throwing (which can endanger people) is some sort of *civil right*.
> 
> To the extent that some of us do think rock throwing and property damage are part and parcel of _lawful assembly_ and _free speech_ then, to that exact same extent, we they are fools.



Exactly. In the protest groups I was part of and in many others that I know of, we discouraged such acts and do not support such individuals. Part of the reason of keeping things as organized as possible is to avoid having large protest degenerate into some kind of riot, either because of these few individuals and those who would like to riot/protest for the sake of riot/protest, or by due to aggressive tactics police may employ for whatever reason. Protests are a way of expressing political disapproval about something or someone, not to start a riot.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> From here...   http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Riots



The problem is that you still equate protests as riots.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

> Because the police has been known to use tear gas against or near peaceful protests. Case in point, Quebec City and Seattle. Police use teargas in attempt to disperse a protest, regardless if it is peaceful or just because of a few out among a thousand being troublemakers.



So you're saying that gas masks are used by innocent protesters to protect themselves from the illegal actions of the police?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

My problem is that I think most, nearly all Canadian protest organizers are either wilfully blind or hopelessly and *dishonestly* naive: they must know that their demonstration *will* be infiltrated by the (maybe professional) agitators and that the agitators *will* commit criminal acts – rock throwing and property damage but they, the _peaceful_, well intentioned organizers, carry on without accepting their *responsibility* to control what they set in motion. Most demonstration organizers are, therefore, wilful children and so are those who join them. They really belong back home with Mommy and Daddy, learning how to be _grownups_, not on the streets screaming about things they do not understand.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Oct 2009)

mellian, I don't think anyone here is intending to say that protests and riots are the same thing.  I think the general feeling is that protests have the _potential_ to become violent.

I also don't think that all protest groups (such as the ones you have been involved with) have the _intention_ of holding a violent protest, but you'd have to be quite naive to believe that a protest (any protest, no matter how nonviolent they say they are) holds an _attraction_ to those who hope it involves rioting/looting, etc.

In line with the original post here, I think people were trying to say, yes, it's okay to protest, however, when the feces hit the fan, take into consideration, you may be arrested for something else and the CF will most certainly not be happy about your involvement, no matter how _peaceful_ you claim your protest to be.

Sometimes, being in the wrong place at the wrong time _is_ avoidable.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> That and ridiculous 1990s media sensationalism. "It is like a warzone!" Please...  :



Do you mean Metro couldn't handle a little stress back in the 1990's?  ;D 
I hope you know that I am just kidding with you.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmR7qkDcrlA
I think that's the only time they called in the Army.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> The problem is that you still equate protests as riots.



I'm doing no such thing, I am quite aware of the difference, but thanks for telling me what I'm thinking, I've missed that since my divorce.   A lot of riots start out as peaceful, non violent, kumbaya love-ins, but a certain demographic will try to infiltrate and instigate confrontation and violence.  To think otherwise is naive.


----------



## brihard (12 Oct 2009)

On the subject, I'll be curious to see what LFCA comes out with in terms of prep for the G8/G20 summit in Huntsville. Hopefully it doesn't get too out of hand.

http://www.g8isu.ca/secur-eng.htm


----------



## Jungle (12 Oct 2009)

Tried discussing this with Mellian a while ago in another thread...  :

She is among those who think that the authorities, and their subordinate organisations (Police, Military etc...) are invariably wrong, and the protesters are all "good, decent citizens" out to change society for the better.
She refuses to acknowledge that the majority of riots begin with a "peaceful" protest.

As I mentionned in that earlier discussion, Mellian will find adapting to the Military a difficult, if not impossible, task.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2009)

Mellian, one thing I think you need to understand about the people you meet on this site.  These are generally speaking aggressive individuals, much like the black balaclava brigade that shows up to your protests.  However, they are also very highly disciplined people and while they look forward to the opportunity to get to grips with the other side they (generally) only do so under lawful authority and within strictly defined limits.....and they quit when told to.  Unlike aggressive anarchists that respect no authority and are not self-disciplined.

As to why the Army attracts/recruits aggressive individuals?  It is easier to teach an aggressive individual to accept authority and discipline themselves than it is to teach someone prone to cowering to break cover and attack.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 Oct 2009)

Jungle said:
			
		

> As I mentionned in that earlier discussion, Mellian will find adapting to the Military a difficult, if not impossible, task.



Do you mean to say that the military doesn't highly value free thinking non-conformists?  The next thing you're going to say is that the military is a team with everyone playing on the same side. (attempt at ironic humour)


----------



## Loachman (12 Oct 2009)

Mellian and Marlborough: What precisely do you (want to) protest against, anyway?


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Do you mean to say that the military doesn't highly value free thinking non-conformists?  The next thing you're going to say is that the military is a team with everyone playing on the same side. (attempt at ironic humour)



The military does in fact value free thinking non-conformists.  It's a requirement for having soldiers who are mentally agile tactical thinkers.  There are only ever issues when that free-thinking isn't tempered with military discipline.

The perfect army would be a legion of self-disciplined individuals working towards a common goal.


----------



## Nauticus (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Because the police has been known to use tear gas against or near peaceful protests. Case in point, Quebec City and Seattle. Police use teargas in attempt to disperse a protest, regardless if it is peaceful or just because of a few out among a thousand being troublemakers.
> 
> Police prepares for the worse, and so does organized protesters.


I'd be very interested if you could elaborate a little bit on what alternatives the police have in a situation like that? There may be a "few" troublemakers, but in a crowd of thousands that are already emotionally riled up, that is a recipe for disaster.

What are the police to do? They obviously cannot go INTO the crowd and get rid of the few troublemakers. The troublemakers are often LOOKING for police brutality to show off to the rest of the crowd, and the REST of the crowd aren't helping matters by letting the troublemakers behave poorly in the group.

Teargas, in an example that you brought up, is a very legitimate, and good, response to your scenario.


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Oct 2009)

Mellian:

Do not mistake my previous post in favour of *lawful* protest as support in any way for your position regarding "the authorities".  I WAS one of "the authorities" for most of my adult life - and what others here have said regarding escalation, minimal use of force, and "instigators" certainly rings true with me.

Although I support the exercise of legal protest as a legitimate means to voice one's opinion - and I remain of the opinion that members of the CF should not be nervous about participating in such lawful assemblies - I do not think protest is very often an effective way to effect change.  It is, usually, a "lark" for many of those participating, none of whom are willing to actually roll up their sleeves and DO something to effect the change they want.

There are exceptions - and I have nothing against "larks" - hell, I've had a few myself.  But, _USUALLY_, a protest, whilst legal, is ineffective.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So you're saying that gas masks are used by innocent protesters to protect themselves from the illegal actions of the police?



No, I am saying when facing the possibility that a protest may get tear gassed for whatever reason, medics carry first aid and prevention supplies to handle with complications from tear gas. This includes water, vinegar, napkins and such to soak up the vinegar, some clothes, and disposable medical filter masks. These are distributed to all those that seem unprepared, whether they are a protester or bystander. If anyone wearing gas masks, then they brought it themselves.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> mellian, I don't think anyone here is intending to say that protests and riots are the same thing.  I think the general feeling is that protests have the _potential_ to become violent.
> 
> I also don't think that all protest groups (such as the ones you have been involved with) have the _intention_ of holding a violent protest, but you'd have to be quite naive to believe that a protest (any protest, no matter how nonviolent they say they are) holds an _attraction_ to those who hope it involves rioting/looting, etc.



You'd be quite naive to believe that most protest organizers are not aware of that, and have not tried to minimize that from happening. That is the point I am trying to make. 

Lets take the protest group I was involved with. We have a set core of people of 10-15 people that started organizing for a protest a month or more in advance to a less of a week or even a less of a day of. We are volunteers and we all agree of the goal of having a safe and non-violent protest, and we proceed to organize to achieve that as much possible despite knowing there will be those who prefer more direct action or simply agitators, there for the fun of it. 

Most we can do about them is contact relevant group we know locally and tell them of our plans, and ask them to keep them more direct methods separately. They have just as much right at protesting and being there, so we cannot stop them, we just can be ready for it and inform as many people as possible, including the police, of our peaceful plans. Then there is all the unknowns within the city and those from other cities or even countries we have no way to account for. Most we can is organize a rest area for food, and one large group meeting nights before and during the protest for those interested in the organized plan of a peaceful protest. We have no authourity over all the people that will be attending and participating the protests, we can just influence them. If they do not listen and go against us, not much we can do about it. 

Despite planning a peaceful and non-violent protest, we are not naive that shit will not hit the fan despite what we do to discourage it from happening. So we setup legal clinics for anyone that gets arrested in relation to the protest, and their job to keep track of those arrested, get their names, and do whatever we can to get them out of jail. Then we have medics carry first aid supplies plus extra to handle 'non-lethal' methods of the police as well injuries due to idiocy of people throwing rocks and other stuff. Then we have marshals to enact the plans and help coordinate large amount of people into marches and demonstrations on set, as well do what we can to keep them safe. If people go out of line, causing trouble within or near the march/demonstration, most we can shout them that is not the plan and keep the rest together, as we have no authourity over them nor part of our core group and usually we do not know them anyway.

Last thing we need is have large crowd fracture and fight among themselves, losing all influence and all cohesion, resulting in chaos and huge mess that may lead to a riot with a lot of people getting hurt. Needs of the peaceful many outweighs the needs of a few agitators. Usually they stop and get back with the main group seeing no one is supporting them in their actions, but that is not always the case and again, not much we can do about it.

We have at least one person or more designated as police liaisons, and we let the police aware of that, so we can maintain some kind of communication. Many of us know from experience that the police are prone to be more agitated and aggressive without someone to speak to. Also why we tell them of our plans day or so or more before the protest, usually some time after we acquire some information as to where their barriers and no-go areas will be. We sometimes have designated back up liaisons in case the police decide to arrest our first one or two for whatever reason. 

Then we have to prepare for what the police may or may not do, and the affects of their presence upon the protest. This includes, as much as we can, be prepared for intimidation tactics, snatch teams, isolation tactics, tear gas, dogs, etc. It would be irresponsible of us to ignore this possibility, no matter our goals of a peaceful protest. 

I can't say much about elsewhere, but in Ottawa, doing what we can to keep the peace has prevented from protests degenerating into riots, no matter the obstacles and challenges. This also influence the police in how they handle a protest despite their own bias, as some of them realize how benefit it is to have an organized group with aims of peaceful protest, and them focusing more on groups they consider problematic. 

Can't lead a large crowd like an hierarchical unit, can only influence. Organizers and marshals are only human and minority in comparison to the rest, and doing this without any particular training. To call them naive for supposedly being unaware of reality, to call themselves agitators for simply being prepared or not have some CO like authourity and accountability over a large amount of people only makes one naive themselves.   




> In line with the original post here, I think people were trying to say, yes, it's okay to protest, however, when the feces hit the fan, take into consideration, you may be arrested for something else and the CF will most certainly not be happy about your involvement, no matter how _peaceful_ you claim your protest to be.
> 
> Sometimes, being in the wrong place at the wrong time _is_ avoidable.



I know, but people are also showing their contempt, joyful fantasies of bashing protesters' heads, and equating protests to riots. I am simply speaking out of my own past experiences in response in attempt to educate. I am presently not involved with these groups for couple of years now since moving, and I do not plan to be involved again there or anywhere else, especially if I am going to be in the CF...as I mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...
> Most we can do about them is contact relevant group we know locally and tell them of our plans, and ask them to keep them more direct methods separately. They have just as much right at protesting and being there, so we cannot stop them, we just can be ready for it and inform as many people as possible, including the police, of our peaceful plans. Then there is all the unknowns within the city and those from other cities or even countries we have no way to account for. Most we can is organize a rest area for food, and one large group meeting nights before and during the protest for those interested in the organized plan of a peaceful protest. We have no authourity over all the people that will be attending and participating the protests, we can just influence them. If they do not listen and go against us, not much we can do about it.
> ...




Of course there is something you can do: you can *refuse* to be complicit in lawlessness and violence. You can either:

1. Turn on the *criminals* - because that is what they are, not one whit less - and beat the crap out of them or, better, detain them for the police; or

2. Cancel the useless, probably ill-informed _protest_ before the *criminals* can exploit the opportunity YOU created.

The *responsibility* for the violence that accompanies most protests rests, almost always, with the  immature and irresponsible protest organizers. They aid and abet criminals in criminal acts and ought to be held fully accountable for their irresponsibility.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Of course there is something you can do: you can *refuse* to be complicit in lawlessness and violence. You can either:
> 
> 1. Turn on the *criminals* - because that is what they are, not one whit less - and beat the crap out of them or, better, detain them for the police; or
> 
> ...



Have you even read the entire post? 

Protests happen no matter what with or without marshals and organizers, because there is simply to many people who disapprove of whatever the protest is about.  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.


----------



## Nauticus (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Have you even read the entire post?
> 
> Protests happen no matter what with or without marshals and organizers, because there is simply to many people who disapprove of whatever the protest is about.  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.



So then you would agree that using tear gas to disperse a crowd would be necessary to deal with the "bad apples"?


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> > So you're saying that gas masks are used by innocent protesters to protect themselves from the illegal actions of the police?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying when facing the possibility that a protest may get tear gassed for whatever reason, medics carry first aid and prevention supplies to handle with complications from tear gas. This includes water, vinegar, napkins and such to soak up the vinegar, some clothes, and disposable medical filter masks. These are distributed to all those that seem unprepared, whether they are a protester or bystander. If anyone wearing gas masks, then they brought it themselves.



So you agree then that the cops are acting legally?

And if the cops are using teargas in a legal way then why would medics undermine the effectiveness of it?  Isn't that contrary to your commitment of maintaining law and order?



> Despite planning a peaceful and non-violent protest, we are not naive that crap will not hit the fan despite what we do to discourage it from happening. So we setup legal clinics for anyone that gets arrested in relation to the protest, and their job to keep track of those arrested, get their names, and do whatever we can to get them out of jail.



How can you say that on the one hand that you are discouraging criminal behavior, but on the other hand do whatever you can to get those arrested out of jail?  

If your true concern is that the protest is carried out in a peacefully and you agree that the cops are arresting people and using teargas in a legal way, then why would the organizers go out to support those committing criminal acts?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Have you even read the entire post?
> 
> Protests happen no matter what with or without marshals and organizers, because there is simply to many people who disapprove of whatever the protest is about.  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.




Of course I read the entire post. You are trying, but failing, to excuse irresponsible conduct.

In a life span that approaches 70 years I have seen and heard many protests. Most were a complete waste of everyone's time and effort. Nearly all in Canada, and most throughout North America and Western Europe since around 1960, involved self absorbed children acting out their (misunderstood) _rage_ against Mommy and Daddy.

In recent years almost all protest involved unnecessary violence, the responsibility for which lies, nearly exclusively, with the children who "organized" them and then *failed*, miserably, to control what they _organized_ because I suspect they are too immature to organize or control much of anything.

Either manage your protest - *make* it peaceful - or go home and play with your dolls.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.



So what you are saying is that you dont want the agitators there and dont invite them but that if they show up and cause trouble, you are content not doing anything about it.

Brilliant.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mellian and Marlborough: What precisely do you (want to) protest against, anyway?



G20 protest, I was more of educational curiousity and wanting to understand why such a protest happens, and the reasons behind it. Later protests, my motivations is to help keep the protests and those in it safe, especially after the mess I saw at G20 and read about in regards to Seattle and Quebec City. Gradually, stop my involvement from combination of realizing my views are not completely compatible, other things and issues rather focus on, life, maturity, and realize I am there more for the protest than the why. Now I am not involved for a couple of years now since I moved, apart from showing once in the while to a local demonstration marches. As I mentioned already, I have no plans presently of getting involved, especially if I am going to be in the CF.


----------



## Nauticus (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> G20 protest, I was more of educational curiousity and wanting to understand why such a protest happens, and the reasons behind it. Later protests, my motivations is to help keep the protests and those in it safe, especially after the mess I saw at G20 and read about in regards to Seattle and Quebec City. Gradually, stop my involvement from combination of realizing my views are not completely compatible, other things and issues rather focus on, life, maturity, and realize I am there more for the protest than the why. Now I am not involved for a couple of years now since I moved, apart from showing once in the while to a local demonstration marches. As I mentioned already, I have no plans presently of getting involved, especially if I am going to be in the CF.


I encourage you to respond to the last 3 or 4 posts. I am curious as to your answers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> G20 protest, I was more of educational curiousity and wanting to understand why such a protest happens, and the reasons behind it. Later protests, my motivations is to help keep the protests and those in it safe, especially after the mess I saw at G20 and read about in regards to Seattle and Quebec City. Gradually, stop my involvement from combination of realizing my views are not completely compatible, other things and issues rather focus on, life, maturity, and realize I am there more for the protest than the why. Now I am not involved for a couple of years now since I moved, apart from showing once in the while to a local demonstration marches. As I mentioned already, I have no plans presently of getting involved, especially if I am going to be in the CF.




You were in London and Pittsburgh for the G20 meetings? Why protest? What's the G20 doing wrong? It *brings* BRIC and LDCs into the conversation; what's wrong with that?

The G20 didn't meet in Seattle; that was the WTO - not even loosely related. Quite different issues.

And Québec? That was the Summit of the Americas, NAFTA, etc.

You understand the issues and problems, right?

Or were you just there because so many _cool kids_ were breaking windows and harassing the police?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is that you dont want the agitators there and dont invite them but that if they show up and cause trouble, you are content not doing anything about it.
> 
> Brilliant.



What do you suggest civilians organizing and coordinating a protest do that won't ruin the peaceful cohesion of the larger group and their need to peacefully state their message?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> What do you suggest civilians organizing and coordinating a protest do that won't ruin the peaceful cohesion of the larger group and their need to peacefully state their message?




Simple: If you can't *manage*, if you are not capable of controlling the event, then don't start it, stay home. Write letters. See? Simple.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

A sternly worded letter to The Times is very unlikely to get you a face full of snot gas or a chunk of hickory jammed into your kidney.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I encourage you to respond to the last 3 or 4 posts. I am curious as to your answers.



Me too.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> What do you suggest civilians organizing and coordinating a protest do that won't ruin the peaceful cohesion of the larger group and their need to peacefully state their message?



Last week, i took away my 14 year old daughter's internet away. She had freinds over on a friday night and they made a mess of the house. She is upset because she did not leave any of these things laying around, its all her freinds that did it. She shouldnt be paying the price for allowing it to happen and not getting them to clean up.

Are you my daughter ? You certainly sound like her.

You organize a protest, police it yourself. You want it to be peaceful, devote some of you efforts to keeping it that way. If you actively counter agitators, maybe the police wont have to teargas your sorry ass.

But then again, its all the police's fault in the first place right ?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> So then you would agree that using tear gas to disperse a crowd would be necessary to deal with the "bad apples"?



If the crowd are violent and if it becomes a riot, they have a purpose. To tear gas crowd of people whom the majority are non-violent just because of a few people, I disagree. 

Then there is concerns of collateral effects of tear gas. So much was used in Quebec City tear gas fog spread into residential areas and affected people not even part of the protest. So much was used that brings up the question as to why the police need to repeatably use it on the same crowd?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Either manage your protest - *make* it peaceful - or go home and play with your dolls.



Large crowd of people numbering the hundred to thousands operating out of crowd mentality does not make an disciplined hierarchical unit one can order around. If that was so easy, protests and riots would be practically non existent.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> In a world populated by people with the brains the gods gave to green peppers  protests and riots would be practically non existent.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Large crowd of people numbering the hundred to thousands operating out of crowd mentality does not make an disciplined hierarchical unit one can order around.



So why continue to organize things you dont have the ability to control, knowing full well the high potential for problems.

You cant have your cake and eat it.......


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

mellian, I think the point is that if you decide to organise a peaceful protest, but it turns out to be violent, don't be surprised to be teargased/arrested.  As an organiser, it is YOUR responsability to make sure it STAYS peaceful.  Because you didn't PLAN it that way doesn't mean you are NOT responsible for what happened.

Edit to add:

On the other hand, if you are just part of the "peaceful protest" and it turns out to become violent, it is YOUR responsability to get the hell out of there, otherwise, you are taking part in a violent protest and you shouldn't be surprised to be teargased/arrested.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You were in London and Pittsburgh for the G20 meetings?



G20 in Ottawa, November 2001.


----------



## Nauticus (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> If the crowd are violent and if it becomes a riot, they have a purpose. *To tear gas crowd of people whom the majority are non-violent just because of a few people, I disagree.*


Then I ask for a second time, what is the alternative? The "few people" cannot be allowed to continue to act violently or aggressively toward property, so what is the alternative? If you do not agree with teargassing, then I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> G20 in Ottawa, November 2001.




Oh, yes. I remember them: the protests that were *totally* unrelated to the meeting. It was little nothing more than an excuse for a *mob* of juvenile delinquents to commit offences. And guys like these were involved because the "organizers" couldn't or wouldn't be responsible. If the _peaceful_ folks had been even a little, tiny bit *responsible* then the police would have cleaned up the streets in no time at all. Instead the irresponsible children got in the way, shielded the criminals from the police and aided and abetted crimes.


----------



## MARS (12 Oct 2009)

To qualify:

I was in Seattle in 99 and in QC in 2001 - up close and personal - and no, it did not go down like that Battle in Seattle movie that was mentioned earlier in this thread.  

It was chaos, from the very beginning.  Neither "event" began peacefully, transpired peacefully or ended peacefully.  There was no peaceful protest.  That is not to say that there weren't people there who wanted to protest peacefully - there were, one or two, for sure - however, they never had a chance to.  They were grossly outnumbered by those who wanted to do things in a more violent manner.  That is where any semblance of "peaceful protest" ended - at the very beginning, on hour 1 of day 1 - and "rioting" began.

The problem is that not enough of the supposedly law abiding, peaceful protesters went home when the peace ended -again, at the very start.  They should have, but they didn't.  I guess curiosity, anger, bewilderment - whatever - took over.  At that moment, their mere presence contributed to the problem faced by the outnumbered, and in some cases, closely matched (in terms of weapons) security services.  If you weren't there, you cannot truly appreciate the restraint exercised by the security forces.

For Christ's sake, the rioters in QC - because I refuse to call them protesters - brought a god-damned Trebuchet.  Yep, just exercising my right to peaceful protest and assembly officer...with my catapult.

What are the organizers to do?  Leave - immediately and with everyone one you came with.  That is all you can do, but it is what you must do.  If you are truly responsible organizers, then you must have some control over those other peaceful members of your group. If you have no plans, ability or will to control your group, then you have shirked your sense of responsibility. You order them to leave, compel them to leave - or you admit that they do not have and never had any interest in peaceful protest and what appeared to be a large group of like minded "friends"  on your protest facebook page was simply a vehicle for rioters to use you to organize themselves.

If they don't leave with you, then you leave - everyone who is left on the scene once the tear gas starts flying, the fence line is taken down and the riot police are lined up mere feet away from you is a rioter - and acting illegally and on their own.  There is no need for lawyers, or kleenex - not if you leave. Just go home, do an after action assessment, figure out how you are better going to control your particular group better next time and watch the criminals get arrested on TV.

Or better yet, do what the shopkeeper at the end of this video suggests

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FlUzktT1Lk&feature=related

I don't see peaceful anywhere in that montage...

_edited for grammar_


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> mellian, I think the point is that if you decide to organise a peaceful protest, but it turns out to be violent, don't be surprised to be teargased/arrested.  As an organiser, it is YOUR responsability to make sure it STAYS peaceful.  Because you didn't PLAN it that way doesn't mean you are NOT responsible for what happened.



How do you take responsibility and become accountable for hundreds to thousands of people, especially if they disagree or not part of the plan organization and coordination or part of other groups?



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You organize a protest, police it yourself. You want it to be peaceful, devote some of you efforts to keeping it that way. If you actively counter agitators, maybe the police wont have to teargas your sorry ***.




As I mention in previous posts, we have devoted efforts of keeping it peaceful as much as possible within the realm of keeping it peaceful. Actively countering agitators results in things no being peaceful. 

The police would rather we do not police ourselves, as it becomes to close to becoming vigilantism. 




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Simple: If you can't *manage*, if you are not capable of controlling the event, then don't start it, stay home. Write letters. See? Simple.



Meanwhile, the protest still happens.




			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Me too.



The problem with your questions is that you attempt to twist what I say.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> The problem with your questions is that you attempt to twist what I say.



No.

The problem is that you beleive that once you organize an event ( that it would happen anyhow is irrelevant.), you are absolved from being responsible for the aftermath.

Just like most teanagers who want to play adult.


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> How do you take responsibility and become accountable for hundreds to thousands of people, especially if they disagree or not part of the plan organization and coordination or part of other groups?
> 
> 
> ...
> ...



No - the problem with your ANSWERS is that you refuse to see what others are saying.

"How do you take responsibility and become accountable for hundreds to thousands of people"  - funny that, Generals have been doing that with Armies for a LONG, LONG, LONG time.  It is not a skill which cannot be learned.

It IS a skill which is singularly lacking amongst most protest "organizers".

The VERY skill you wish to have is present in those who you would blame for all the violence in the protests.  Think about that.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2009)

Mellian,

When you say that the protests "would happen anyways", what you are saying is "CDN Aviator, you are an idiot".

I have visited many websites of various organizations who protest this or that. Their publicity for protests they are organizing are very directive. In many cases it goes as far as suggesting slogans for signs and actions participants should do to get the message across.

To say that you are organizing something that would happen anyways is very naiive. You are telling people to be at a certain place, at a certain time to protest something specific. You are responsible for those peope who respond to this...


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Then I ask for a second time, what is the alternative? The "few people" cannot be allowed to continue to act violently or aggressively toward property, so what is the alternative? If you do not agree with teargassing, then I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.



If there is only few, do what the police does anyway, go after the few and arrest them. If the few hides among peaceful protesters, you wait them out. In Ottawa, in every major protest, police had officers on roof tops and other good vantage points filming everything and taking pictures of individuals.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> If the few hides among peaceful protesters,



They not only hide amongst ,but are usualy protected by, those "peaceful" protesters. Aiding criminals is illegal in this country right ?


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> How do you take responsibility and become accountable for hundreds to thousands of people, especially if they disagree or not part of the plan organization and coordination or part of other groups?



If you don't want to take responsibility for the violence after your protest started, you get your people out before it's too late..  Otherwise, you are in fact part of a violent protest.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Mellian,
> 
> When you say that the protests "would happen anyways", what you are saying is "CDN Aviator, you are an idiot".
> 
> To say that you are organizing something that would happen anyways is very naiive. You are telling people to be at a certain place, at a certain time to protest something specific. You are responsible for those peope who respond to this...



What I am saying is, when you have some like G20 or G8 or SPP or any other submit large amount of people disagree with, they will still come to wherever it is and participate in a protest no matter if there is any advertising for a protest or not.

The group I was involved with, rather have a peaceful protest and we took the advantage of living in the city to organize it, and do what we can to make it peaceful. Once the plan events of the group organizes and coordinates, we pull out and most people leave until the next peacefully organized march or demonstration. Anything that happens outside of these planned and coordinated events, nothing we can really do about, and there is usually other things organized by other groups that are either locals or from elsewhere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mellian and Marlborough: What precisely do you (want to) protest against, anyway?




Modern (post _circa_ 1965) protests are a bad joke. They are, broadly, aimless and violent; they are media events, only. Policy makers and political leaders are 100% shielded and equally (100%) disinterested; but they, politicians, do, every now and again, exploit protesters by co-opting them for a brief, insincere, chat and a photo op.

I understand that one group of international _officials_ has devised a bit of a joke equation that measures something like the population of the city where the meeting is being held divided by the number of protestors (police estimates, only) factored against the value of the property damage (measured in _constant_ US dollars) to arrive at a _national silliness quotient_. The US, I’m told, is always the silliest country because everyone inflates their property damage claims and that skews the results, but the US officials revel in their _success_ and fight hard to defend the _honour_.

Protests, mainly in the USA, in the 1950s and '60s for free speech, for fundamental civil rights, for basic human equality were, in part, fuelled by rage against conservative, religiously based values and against overtly, officially sanctioned racism. But in the mid ‘60s, as the _boomers_ came of age they had nothing against which to rage. In North America, Barney Rosset _et al_ had won the freedom of speech battles and the civil rights battles _belonged_ to American Blacks. Those Blacks were, quickly, divided, by age. Older Black Americans, under Martin Luther King, preached and practiced non-violence; younger Blacks under people like Stokey Carmichael and others demanded a more confrontational, even violent response to institutionalized racism. The middle class white kids from the suburbs were excited by the civil rights violence but they needed a target: enter Viet Nam and Lyndon Johnson.

The rest, as they say, is history. The kids got their _cause_ and their violence; they keep at it today, even, especially when, as with the _G8_ and WTO and _Summit of the Americas_ and the G20, they are abysmally ignorant of the issues at hand. Protests, in 21st century North America, including Ottawa in 2001, are *nothing* more than an excuse for self indulged children to riot. They – the children - don’t *know* why they’re screaming but screaming, rock throwing and window smashing attract cameras (more self indulgence) and it’s _Revolution For The Hell Of It_.







That’s it: that’s why they want to demonstrate. They are really _protesting_ their own boring, pointless, idle lives.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They not only hide amongst ,but are usualy protected by, those "peaceful" protesters. Aiding criminals is illegal in this country right ?



So you suggest arresting hundreds or even thousands of people just because a few that committed some violent acts that hide among a crowd?



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If you don't want to take responsibility for the violence after your protest started, you get your people out before it's too late..  Otherwise, you are in fact part of a violent protest.



So a few commits violence, and hides the among a crowd of people, and wham, everyone is automatically considered violent, hence giving enough pretense to tear gas everyone?

Then people wonder why there are anti-police sentiment.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

If you don't want to get gased, get out when people start becoming violent.  Or better, sort the violent crowd amongst yourself and bring them out to the proper authorities.  But don't let them hide within you.  Or you WILL get gased.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> So you suggest arresting hundreds or even thousands of people just because a few that committed some violent acts that hide among a crowd?
> 
> So a few commits violence, and hides the among a crowd of people, and wham, everyone is automatically considered violent, hence giving enough pretense to tear gas everyone?



You do know that "aiding and abetting" a criminal is against the Law?  It is a criminal act in itself to aid a criminal in any way.  It is also a criminal act to interfer with the course of a criminal investigation or the Law.  You do realize this?  

"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse."


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Tried discussing this with Mellian a while ago in another thread...  :
> 
> She is among those who think that the authorities, and their subordinate organisations (Police, Military etc...) are invariably wrong, and the protesters are all "good, decent citizens" out to change society for the better.
> She refuses to acknowledge that the majority of riots begin with a "peaceful" protest.
> ...



Assuming I fit into that archetype you created of me.


----------



## MARS (12 Oct 2009)

> So a few commits violence, and hides the among a crowd of people, and wham, everyone is automatically considered violent, hence giving enough pretense to tear gas everyone?



Yes, exactly.  Tear gas is inherently indiscriminate.  So you LEAVE, so as not to be part of the problem.  That is all you can do, but it is what you MUST do.  Peaceful protest is over as soon as that first canister is fired and you have already admitted that it is near impossible to exercise control on these things start to disintegrate.  Time to leave.  What can you possibly hope to accomplish after that?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do know that "aiding and abetting" a criminal is against the Law?  It is a criminal act in itself to aid a criminal in any way.  It is also a criminal act to interfer with the course of a criminal investigation or the Law.  You do realize this?
> 
> "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse."



I do, and I also know how hard it is to arrest, investigate, and prosecute people at protests can be very resource and time extensive, including difficult to prove in court. How would  aiding and abetting a criminal by being part of a crowd that some few masked individuals that committed some violent acts hid in fly with the judge and jury? Then there is also more protests at the police station and court...

There only so much the police themselves can do given the circumstances. If they can't or do not arrest the culprits, are they also aiding and abetting or responsible for the violence in protests?


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> I do, and I also know how hard it is to arrest, investigate, and prosecute people at protests can be very resource and time extensive, including difficult to prove in court. How would  aiding and abetting a criminal by being part of a crowd that some few masked individuals that committed some violent acts hid in fly with the judge and jury? Then there is also more protests at the police station and court...
> 
> There only so much the police themselves can do given the circumstances. If they can't or do not arrest the culprits, are they also aiding and abetting or responsible for the violence in protests?



So if I go stealing something but I can't be proven guity for whatever reason, it makes it right? 

Very strong moral fiber you are showing.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Oct 2009)

Aboriginal protests watched by CSIS

TORONTO - Canadian security officials kept a close watch on aboriginal rights protests across the country last summer, fearing violence and disruption, according to newly declassified government documents.

By National Post



TORONTO - Canadian security officials kept a close watch on aboriginal rights protests across the country last summer, fearing violence and disruption, according to newly declassified government documents.

Intelligence reports obtained by National Post reveal for the first time how the Canadian government tracked "ongoing and planned protests" by First Nations and their supporters from British Columbia to the Maritimes.

The Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, based at CSIS headquarters and made up of representatives of CSIS, the RCMP, Canadian Forces and other departments, circulated lists of protestors' plans in a series of intelligence reports.

The Government Operations Centre was also involved. It coordinates the national response to terrorist attacks, natural disasters and anything else that threatens the safety and security of Canadians or the integrity of Canada's critical infrastructure.

"A number of ongoing aboriginal protests and planned actions [are] set to take place over the summer of 2007," ITAC says in a report marked "secret," one of several released to the Post under the Access to Information Act.

"While the intention of these actions is to highlight grievances through peaceful protest, past protests have demonstrated that acts of violence or disruptions of critical infrastructure are possible."

The close government scrutiny of the events suggests that, following fatal stand-offs at Oka and Ipperwash, federal security agencies remained concerned about the potential for violence.

The intelligence reports show officials were particularly concerned about the National Day of Action held last June 29 to pressure Ottawa to address the grievances of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Some chiefs had called for road and rail blockades on that day.

Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said he was "disappointed but not surprised" to learn the federal government was monitoring the National Day of Action, and he wondered how much the surveillance and policing had cost.

"Whatever the cost, our view is that money would have been far better spent on providing the more than 100 First Nations communities with boil-water advisories with clean drinking water, alleviating poverty and settling our legitimate land claims," Chief Fontaine said. "Perhaps if that was the case, then there wouldn't be a need to hold a National Day of Action in the first place."

According to the documents, security officials were concerned "a small minority" of demonstrators could escalate the protests "as a means of attracting attention to their cause." Sympathetic environmentalists, "social issues extremists" and criminal groups could also exploit the protests, the reports say.

The reports identify planned protests in Toronto by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, in Montreal by No One is Illegal and Block the Empire, and by anti-Olympic activists in Vancouver.

"In addition to these, there are also non-aboriginals who may oppose the aspirations of the aboriginals (local residents, cottagers, fishermen, etc. and also white supremacists and other extremists)," it adds. "These factors may cause instability and drive an individual protest in unpredictable ways."

ITAC began producing weekly threat assessments on the demonstrations last May. It began distributing daily intelligence updates the week of the National Day of Action. In total, 22 reports were produced.

In addition to the events tied to the day of action, the threat

assessment reports tracked four on-going aboriginal land protests in Caledonia, Deseronto, Grassy Narrows, and Cross Lake, Man.

"There are also a series of other potential causes for aboriginal protests over the summer of 2007. These include fishing and logging disputes, especially in the Maritimes; various development projects affecting aboriginal communities; and the preparations for the 2010 Winter Olympics."

The reports say the right to protest "is a cornerstone of Canada's democratic society. ITAC is concerned only where there is a threat of politically motivated violence, or where protests threaten the functioning of critical infrastructure."

Something for you to mull over.No one is going to change your mind on protesting.However I'll throw out this warning.If you are part of a peaceful protest that turn's sour,keep in mind you have already associated yourself with a certain protest group in past posts as your group.Suddenly you just assioated your self belonging to a protest group.And when as I highlighted CRIMINALS turn the protest into a riot and you find yourself biting dirt and being arrested,don't think you'll just be released from jail and that's it.When you get out you'll be dealing with your RSM for the charges against you.It will be noted on your file.See the military isnt going to care if your just a "innocent bystander".The fact is they will take 100% side of the LEO,and don't expect to get backed by the military 'casue you think you were right.fact is when you join no one gives a rats ass about your beliefs.Telling the RSM "the police were wrong,or about police brutality" isnt going to happen as most of those conversations will be one way anyway.

Im getting sick of your anti police sentiment.Can you please not join ARMD?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

MARS said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly.  Tear gas is inherently indiscriminate.  So you LEAVE, so as not to be part of the problem.  That is all you can do, but it is what you MUST do.  Peaceful protest is over as soon as that first canister is fired and you have already admitted that it is near impossible to exercise control on these things start to disintegrate.  Time to leave.  What can you possibly hope to accomplish after that?



Observe, damage control, take care of any injuries, make sure people are safe, legal clinics continue in keeping track who gets arrested, maintain rest and food area, etc. When things calm down or the groups are done with the direct or violent actions, the plans for peaceful protest continues if there is anything else. Bit hard to simply pack up and leave even if you are not in the area of the violence and tear gassing anymore.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> I do, and I also know how hard it is to arrest, investigate, and prosecute people at protests can be very resource and time extensive, including difficult to prove in court. How would  aiding and abetting a criminal by being part of a crowd that some few masked individuals that committed some violent acts hid in fly with the judge and jury? Then there is also more protests at the police station and court...
> 
> There only so much the police themselves can do given the circumstances. If they can't or do not arrest the culprits, are they also aiding and abetting or responsible for the violence in protests?




All these pages and you still haven't caught on to what everyone is saying.  YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.  As an organizer and a participant in a protest, you are responsible to keep it orderly and peaceful.  You are also responsible to assist the Police in keeping it so.  That would include you and your fellow protesters turning in any "criminals" who may be agitating or promoting violence and property distruction.  You have to have the same frame of mind as that found in a "Neighbourhood Watch".  You are responsible to police yourself.

RESPOSIBILITY.  Take it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Assuming I fit into that archetype you created of me.




It isn’t an _archetype_, ours or yours, that matters, Mellian, it is how you will adapt yourself and your worldview to “our” requirements.

You see, young lady, you are in for a long, long period of training and _formation_ before you are a useful member of *our* team. Perhaps, while you are being _formed_, Jungle will be your company sergeant major or MARS will be your CO – you would be damned lucky in either case, I know because I know both of them. During that _formation_ I expect that you, like many of us, will *learn* about responsibility. (Most of us had to learn that in the CF; we were immature and irresponsible when we joined – I was, anyway.) I expect that you will change your mind about the *responsibilities* that come with authority as soon as the latter is _awarded_ to you – that happened to me, too.

In short, Mellian, while I _fear_ that Jungle is right and that you _may_ have a bit more trouble than most in “our” world I hope you give it a good try, and I hope you succeed. But the key thing is it’s not “your” world, it’s not the easy, comfortable, irresponsible civilian world to which you are accustomed. It is a highly, even *deadly responsible* world where real _grownups_, some just in their very early 20s, make life and death decisions in a split second – and live, responsibly, with all the consequences of all their actions and inactions. Welcome.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> The problem with your questions is that you attempt to twist what I say.



No. If that were the case you'd clarify your position and correct me.  What's actually happened is that you've argued yourself against a wall and now you're attempting to sidestep valid points brought against you:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89668/post-882527.html#msg882527

To be honest, up until now I never gave much thought about the development and mechanics of protests and riots.  After considering what you've written in this thread though, I'm being drawn to the following conclusion:

Protest groups set out to riot by proxy.

1)  Protest groups create the conditions for riots by providing the organization required to mobilize and guide crowds to the target events.

2)  Protest groups encourage rioters to attend these events by providing legal advice and medical care for them.

3)  Protest groups gain publicity by using their "peaceful" image to create propaganda by filming police response to rioters.

But this is the genius part:

4)  Protest groups avoid criminal charges themselves by utilizing anonymous rioters as proxy fighters.  They put in place all the conditions necessary for a riot to happen, but then when it does happen they distance themselves from the rioters by claiming that they cannot be responsible for the actions of individuals.  

These techniques afford the Command and Control wing of a protest organization sufficient political distance from the Propaganda and the Militant wings so that the three parts can all work different angles towards the common goal:  undermining democracy through the illegal promotion of a minority agenda.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> How do you take responsibility and become accountable for hundreds to thousands of people, especially if they disagree or not part of the plan organization and coordination or part of other groups?



Melllian, as an "organizer" you are voluntarily assuming a leadership role.  You are contributing to the protest by inviting people to that protest.  Implicitly you are responsible for the conduct of all those you invite.   Presumably you personally did not invite all the hundreds and thousands that did show up but those you did invite..... did you vet those people to check their character, to determine if they would follow your lead, if they shared your agenda........ or did you just invite every refugee from the Kingston Penitentiary and then declare yourself not responsible for their actions?

 Nobody expects you to be responsible for the actions of all people attending a mass event - they do expect you to be responsible for those you bring to the event - they do expect that you will continue to obey the laws of the land and lawful authority during the event.

PS - congratulations on standing up so well against the onslaught - I disagree with you but I have to admire your tenacity.

Cheers


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

First, I am not part of any protest groups right now, and have not been for the last two years, nor any plans of being in the near future at least and especially if I get accepted in the CF.

Second, I am not anti-police or anti-authourity, and protesting does not make one so. 

To continue assuming otherwise does not help the discussion. 

A lot of what I say is from pass experience and hindsight, and also mainly limited to protests in Ottawa has been pretty tame in comparison to protests of other cities.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> First, I am not part of any protest groups right now, and have not been for the last two years, nor any plans of being in the near future at least and especially if I get accepted in the CF.
> 
> Second, I am not anti-police or anti-authourity, and protesting does not make one so.
> 
> ...


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80540/post-788460.html#msg788460
"There was also the whole thing of being involved in anti-war, anti-globalization, feminist, and such groups, helping organize, marshal, and participate protests and marches. Overtime, I tone it down and limited to events I care about, as well to focus on other things in life. Even with the other interests and groups which I am still involved in, just seem huge contrast to even consider military. At one point I even considered applying for Ottawa Police, whom I have interesting relations  with (go against officers during a protest one day, and then work with the police the next day about something else)."


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> First, I am not part of any protest groups right now, and have not been for the last two years, nor any plans of being in the near future at least and especially if I get accepted in the CF.
> 
> Second, I am not anti-police or anti-authourity, and protesting does not make one so.
> 
> To continue assuming otherwise does not help the discussion.



No one is accusing you of that.  Everyone is pointing out the errors in your logic.  Obviously, it is all passing well over your head.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Second, I am not anti-police or anti-authourity, and protesting does not make one so.



Then come join us. It's an adrenalin rush! I can promise you that much.
I like the way the Colonel explained it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMEViYvojtY


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All these pages and you still haven't caught on to what everyone is saying.  YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.  As an organizer and a participant in a protest, you are responsible to keep it orderly and peaceful.  You are also responsible to assist the Police in keeping it so.  That would include you and your fellow protesters turning in any "criminals" who may be agitating or promoting violence and property distruction.  You have to have the same frame of mind as that found in a "Neighbourhood Watch".  You are responsible to police yourself.
> 
> RESPOSIBILITY.  Take it.



Reminds me in one occasion during the G20 protest in 2001 where I was tagging along mainly as an observer, staying on the side or front of marches and demonstrations. When the marches when down Wellington street by the Parliament, I walked a long the other side of the stone fence. 

Realized quickly how a bad idea that was, as police positioned near the west entrance and they spotted. Knowing climbing over the fence and getting back with the march while couple riot officers came towards me would be a bad idea, so continued to approach them, told them the truth why I was there, and led back off Parliament property towards the front of the march.  

Once in the front side of the march, I then get confronted by few different individuals asking/accusing me being a police officer or working for them or spying. They continued to keep an eye on me for a bit and eventually lost interest. 

What would have happened if I was, or even went to the police to tell them about some of them? Not trusted and some kind of encouragement to exile me...or maybe lectured too.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Once in the front side of the march, I then get confronted by few different individuals asking/accusing me being a police officer or working for them or spying. They continued to keep an eye on me for a bit and eventually lost interest.



My question is what do these "peaceful protesters" have against the police?  If they are truely there for a peaceful demonstration, then they should have no problem with anyone involved talking to the police.  If they were "violent" demonstrators, then they should well be put away...


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80540/post-788460.html#msg788460
> 
> Even with the other interests and groups which I am still involved in, just seem huge contrast to even consider military.



Not all 'groups' and organizations I am involved with are protest related.


----------



## MARS (12 Oct 2009)

> When things calm down or the groups are done with the direct or violent actions, the plans for peaceful protest continues if there is anything else.



I think that is the crux of the problem here - and a whole lot of wishful thinking.  It is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. It is not going to happen.

The DA in Seattle and QC never stopped.  Day after day it simply got worse.  There was nothing positive to come from any of it, nothing peaceful to be continued, by noon on 30 November - trust me.  A State of Emergency was declared - people were _directed_ to stay out of the city or in our case, in our hotel.  These are the authorities issuing these directives - why didn't people listen?  Because that is no fun.  Anyone and everyone that entered the downtown core after 1100 on 30 November was part of the problem - regardless of their motives -  and all it did was limit the options available to the security services.  They all deserved to be tear gassed.  And they should have gone home as soon as it hit.



> A lot of what I say is from pass experience and hindsight, and also mainly limited to protests in Ottawa has been pretty tame in comparison to protests of other cities



You are correct - they were "tame" to the point of being a joke compared to Seattle and QC.  I guess we speak from different experiences.  My point is that people didn't want to leave.  Even the ones who didn't want to see things get so bad.  They wanted to be part of it, or at least near it - the chaos and destruction - just to tell their friends that "they were there, man". That makes life considerably more difficult for those who were trying to maintain control - law and order as it were.  Too many people - organizers - who had the responsibility to do something to encourage people to go home - didn't.  People like Jaggi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Singh

I have met him and spoken with him at some length.  Now there is a true "organizer" - someone who does and can exercise control though his words and actions.  Unfortunate that he stands on the other side of the fence from me, and, as I have said, is part of the problem.  But, he is acutely aware of the span of his control - and the limits of it and how to use it effectively.  He is no dummy, just wrong in my opinion.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Not all 'groups' and organizations I am involved with are protest related.



And they are not part of this discussion.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Oct 2009)

"anti-war, anti-globalization, feminist, and such groups, helping organize, marshal, and participate protests and marches. Overtime, I tone it down and limited to events I care about, as well to focus on other things in life. Even with the other interests and groups which I am still involved in, just seem huge contrast to even consider military. At one point I even considered applying for Ottawa Police, whom I have interesting relations  with (go against officers during a protest one day, and then work with the police the next day about something else)."

So you stopped being involved in anti-war anti-globalization groups and no longer "go against offciers during a protest?"


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My question is what do these "peaceful protesters" have against the police?  If they are truely there for a peaceful demonstration, then they should have no problem with anyone involved talking to the police.  If they were "violent" demonstrators, then they should well be put away...



Distrust, paranoia, us versus them mentality, fear, police brutality, and such. One does not need to be a violent protester to feel that way, nor a protester in general even.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Distrust, paranoia, us versus them mentality, fear, police brutality, and such. One does not need to be a violent protester to feel that way, nor a protester in general even.



If they are peaceful they should have no problem understanding that the police is not out to get them, but the "violent" ones.

If they are not able to understand that, are they even able to understand why they protest?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If they are peaceful they should have no problem understanding that the police is not out to get them, but the "violent" ones.
> 
> If they are not able to understand that, are they even able to understand why they protest?



Many fear of getting arrested simply for protesting, despite being guaranteed by the charter.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Oct 2009)

> Many fear of getting arrested simply for protesting, despite being guaranteed by the charter.



They fear the police making illegal arrests?


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

So there is a paranoid, belligerent attitude toward the security forces before the marching even starts? I can see now where the escalation is the police's fault, completely.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So you stopped being involved in anti-war anti-globalization groups and no longer "go against offciers during a protest?"



Yes, stopped being involved in groups specifically and mandated as being against war and globalization.

As for "go against offciers during a protest?", that depends on how one considers a protest and going up against a police officer, but in my opinion, no.


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> They fear the police making illegal arrests?



Yes, just getting arrested in general, for various reasons. A lot of people are and do get intimidated by police officers. I am no exception sometimes, and fear can lead to anger. 



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So there is a paranoid, belligerent attitude toward the security forces before the marching even starts? I can see now where the escalation is the police's fault, completely.



All in riot gear, some have dogs, toting guns (rubber/plastic/bean bag/etc), and then have entire rows of them, ready to act at any moment, and then use intimidation and isolation tactics. You are bound to make the fear worse, and for a lot of people, fear can become anger. Also makes it to easy for some charismatic few to take advantage of.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

Perhaps, if one is afraid of the police before the protest even begins, one should, oh I dunno, avoid being in front of those fascist pig dogs in the first place, neh?


----------



## mellian (12 Oct 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Perhaps, if one is afraid of the police before the protest even begins, one should, oh I dunno, avoid being in front of those fascist pig dogs in the first place, neh?



Yet in society, we promote confronting our fears.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Oct 2009)

If confronting your fears means becoming angry and violent, then this is not what society promotes, don't your think?


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Oct 2009)

Then one shouldn't be surprised if you step out of line that your fear sticks his baton up your jacksie.  I can do this all night if you like.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2009)

The "correct" response is not fear, it is prudence: a sensible avoidance of acts which might require the police to use their power and force.


----------



## bdave (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Yet in society, we promote confronting our fears.


Quite the contrary.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Oct 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Yes, just getting arrested in general, for various reasons. A lot of people are and do get intimidated by police officers. I am no exception sometimes, and fear can lead to anger.
> 
> All in riot gear, some have dogs, toting guns (rubber/plastic/bean bag/etc), and then have entire rows of them, ready to act at any moment, and then use intimidation and isolation tactics. You are bound to make the fear worse, and for a lot of people, fear can become anger. Also makes it to easy for some charismatic few to take advantage of.



Well if you don't like intimidation tactics why would you bother joining Armd?you do realize to complete missions we have to use up to deadly force on people right?You realize that means looking into a site and saying firing now and turning people (yes real live people)into a pile of body parts.Do you realize that as a armd soldier I have done Riot control at protests in Bosnia right?You realize that if your sitting at a VCP you can't be nice to everyone right?You realize  having a professional stance (sometimes which involves being suspicious of people and not friendly...as you cant trust anyone).How would you feel about firing warning shots at people who's only crime is driving fast at your VCP?The military isnt a feel good peace loving place.It's real.You will have people hauled out of vehicles and using "positive control" handle them,there will be no place for feelings or debates if there are good or bad.If there is people can get injured or die.Like the police on the streets that allow peaceful protests you'll be involved,you will be under a mandate to do something.And as a soldier you do what is legally within your ROE to control the scene.If thats shooting someone,beating a resistant person until you can detain them you do it.

I will welcome the day that you as a trooper tell your Warrant that your not grabbing a person because you didnt see them doing something.Or questioning a fire order from your C/C who just saw a guy fire a RPG at your vehicle..but you didnt see it.

Welcome to the real world of being in the military.I think you may what to re evaluate going Armd.If you have any questions about the trade feel free to PM me.However from what I have seen you post here,I think you may have issues about some of the stuff we do.



I know this step's out of the boundary of riot's and protest.However I really think you should have a look at the trades you are getting into first.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2009)

I've read through all nine pages of this drivel. You'll all have to agree to disagree.

What I see are a bunch of people, experienced in the art of riot\ protest control with tons of real world experiance trying to convince a young person of no worldly knowledge arguing black is white because she can't accept any reasoning except her own narrow view of things.

Everything that needed saying was said dozens of times. It's just circling the drain now.

We're not having any more of it.

Everyone go have a turkey sandwich and relax.

Locked

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

