Posts
As peaceful crowds watch in wonder, windows are smashed along Yonge Street. Stop the video at the 40 second mark and see about three dozen fully-equipped riot police standing back and letting the carnage occur. Why were they ordered to stand back???
Monday, July 12, 2010
Serve Not Rule
On Saturday I stood in the middle of intersection Queen and Spadina, my arms raised in the air holding a sign that read ‘Serve Not Rule’. Around me a crowd of hundreds chanted ‘take it back, take it back’; the inference was the energetic reclaiming of the place where police surrounded and captured a group of peaceful civilians during the G20 meetings. Thanks to the internet there is no secrecy about these events; hundreds of street reporters now capture pictures and video of everything that occurs.
The march began at Queen’s Park; the gathering for civil liberties was preceded by a gathering to question the powers of the OSPCA. Together the groups merged to walk through the streets of Toronto and proclaim basic compassionate rights for all creatures. Within the group, which numbered around 2000, were numerous messages. Many people carried signs stating their opinions in creative ways. A common theme and chant was simple: What do we want? Public Inquiry. When do we want it? Now! Whose streets? Our streets!
It is important to clarify that the growing dissent is not against the police as individuals. The officers who work in Toronto are dedicated people who spend their careers training to do their job well. We all hope for the availability of police to serve and protect; to guide crowded events; to help us when called upon. In order to deliver these services it is necessary for police to have certain powers; we grant these powers with expectation that they will be used honourably. When police power is abused like we saw during the G20, the public gets pissed off.
In Canada it is against the law to strike a police officer, even in self-defence. I agree with this ideal; police are public servants doing a job that deserves respect. However, when police attack people who are not defending themselves a line has been crossed. Pepper spraying a seated person is not acceptable behaviour; arresting a woman for blowing soap bubbles is just juvenile. The excessive force that was displayed while guarding the G20 is not what we pay the police to do. Serve not rule.
The same concept applies to the government. The power system is headed by the Unholy Trinity, a group consisting of banks, government and police. Together they control the way the world runs today. The G20 meetings set dangerous precedents where kings gather while the rebellious citizens are kept back by the Praetorian guards. It is time to change the way that things work; the government exists to serve the people, not to rule them.
We do have a dilemma. The history of humanity is full of conflicts between ‘us and them’. Ultimately power struggles are won by those with the greatest resources; the Unholy Trinity is in a very powerful position. The dilemma is that the banks, government and police force consist of thousands upon thousands of people. Within these groups are many spiritual people doing what they feel is right, or what is necessary to make a living. We cannot vindicate the people in these institutions; healing comes from merging rather than destroying.
Along the march were numerous bicycle police, who we thank for their service yesterday. At each intersection traffic was stopped or redirected while the crowd passed; at designated turns in the published parade route the bicycles were positioned to guide us in the proper direction. Again this movement is not about demonizing police; it is about changing some key concepts in the way that our civilization operates.
As a marching young woman boldly proclaimed on her sign, ‘We Will Not Shut the fuck up!’
The march began at Queen’s Park; the gathering for civil liberties was preceded by a gathering to question the powers of the OSPCA. Together the groups merged to walk through the streets of Toronto and proclaim basic compassionate rights for all creatures. Within the group, which numbered around 2000, were numerous messages. Many people carried signs stating their opinions in creative ways. A common theme and chant was simple: What do we want? Public Inquiry. When do we want it? Now! Whose streets? Our streets!
It is important to clarify that the growing dissent is not against the police as individuals. The officers who work in Toronto are dedicated people who spend their careers training to do their job well. We all hope for the availability of police to serve and protect; to guide crowded events; to help us when called upon. In order to deliver these services it is necessary for police to have certain powers; we grant these powers with expectation that they will be used honourably. When police power is abused like we saw during the G20, the public gets pissed off.
In Canada it is against the law to strike a police officer, even in self-defence. I agree with this ideal; police are public servants doing a job that deserves respect. However, when police attack people who are not defending themselves a line has been crossed. Pepper spraying a seated person is not acceptable behaviour; arresting a woman for blowing soap bubbles is just juvenile. The excessive force that was displayed while guarding the G20 is not what we pay the police to do. Serve not rule.
The same concept applies to the government. The power system is headed by the Unholy Trinity, a group consisting of banks, government and police. Together they control the way the world runs today. The G20 meetings set dangerous precedents where kings gather while the rebellious citizens are kept back by the Praetorian guards. It is time to change the way that things work; the government exists to serve the people, not to rule them.
We do have a dilemma. The history of humanity is full of conflicts between ‘us and them’. Ultimately power struggles are won by those with the greatest resources; the Unholy Trinity is in a very powerful position. The dilemma is that the banks, government and police force consist of thousands upon thousands of people. Within these groups are many spiritual people doing what they feel is right, or what is necessary to make a living. We cannot vindicate the people in these institutions; healing comes from merging rather than destroying.
Along the march were numerous bicycle police, who we thank for their service yesterday. At each intersection traffic was stopped or redirected while the crowd passed; at designated turns in the published parade route the bicycles were positioned to guide us in the proper direction. Again this movement is not about demonizing police; it is about changing some key concepts in the way that our civilization operates.
As a marching young woman boldly proclaimed on her sign, ‘We Will Not Shut the fuck up!’
Friday, July 9, 2010
Proof that Police were the real G20 thugs!
Here is a video of police surrounding and arresting peaceful citizens.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Looter's Assistant
This video has been seen by over one million people on YouTube; a looter during the G20 meetings is tackled by a bystander. Apparently the tackler was trained in martial arts; he throws the loot back into the store and yells ‘don’t steal’ as the looter gets up and walks away.
Check out the behaviour of the looter throughout the incident. As he walks out of the store, the looter bumps into a passerby and then extends his arm in apology. At that moment his is tackled and quickly immobilized. The tackler almost immediately lets go of the looter, who stands up and starts to walk away. He doesn’t even turn around to look at his tackler; he just leaves as quickly as possible.
At that moment a man with red jacket tied around his waist bumps the looter; they then ignore each other while the looter leaves. Check out the behaviour of the man with the red jacket around his waist. He was obviously entering into the exchange; what were his intentions? Was he coming to help the tackler, or was he coming to help the looter get away? As soon as the looter is free from the tackler, the man with the red coat relaxes and lets him pass. Watch the video again; what was the redcoat doing?
Monday, July 5, 2010
The O Canada Incident
Here is a video that combines three different views of an incident during the G20 meetings. A crowd stands and sings the anthem O Canada while facing down lines of police in riot gear; as the song finishes the police charge the crowd.
The timing of the police charge was really a reaction to the people sitting down in the middle of the street. Since a standing crowd is easier to disperse than a seated crowd, the police are ordered to charge before the sitting group grows. Note that there are no injuries or even attacks in this video; there is simply a show of force by the police that urges the crowd to move back.
This video reveals tactics in how to move a group of people through intimidation and mild force. If they resist the force would get greater (as seen in other videos) but in this scene the crowd scatters easily. The indignation about the video is that the anthem representing our freedom was sung, followed by proof that we don’t really have freedom.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The G20 Conspiracy
During the G20 meetings, events in Toronto were seen around the world. While the police accuse anarchists of conspiracy to create chaos, the true conspiracy involved the government and the police. A public inquiry is necessary to ensure that this use of force does not happen again.
In Toronto we love our police. These fine people put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our public; most do it with integrity and honour. However, we suspect that the people in riot gear were not our police; instead they were imported to impose martial law during the G20 meetings. They were not there to protect the people but to corral them, innocent or not.
The events were staged for public consumption; plans for these activities occurred well in advance. The film studio was converted into a makeshift jail to hold people from anticipated mass arrests; the riot police had weapons and shields and tear gas and pepper spray, all ready to be used on citizens. As the warriors said in the movie Braveheart, ‘we didn’t get dressed up for nothing’.
On Saturday, men in masks identified as Black Bloc were allowed to prepare themselves in public view, then to create chaos as they rampaged through our city. I suspect that many of our police were chomping at the bit to step in; however they were ordered to stand back and not break ranks. Out of 12,000 uniformed officers, a unit of 100 could have easily stopped the carnage but they did not. Why?
I speculate that the photo opportunities created by hooligans were intended to create fear and anger, thus encouraging Torontonians to accept martial law on Sunday. Nice strategy if it works but we are not that stupid. The public will not allow this to continue; the riot gear must become as foreign as the officers who wore the suits. Toronto will not allow these tactics to become commonplace.
The window-smashing and car-burning also distracted from the key points that people were protesting in the first place. Personal freedoms were diminished and Toronto became a city under military rule. Again, we will not accept this. Yes we believe in law and order but we will not be fooled.
The people demand a public inquiry, not to whine about bumps and bruises but to insist on transparency. This is not about blaming Toronto police who acted with great discipline over the weekend; it is about refusing to be forced into complacency. We want to know who gave the orders, who were the hooligans and who wore the riot gear. It is our right to know.
In Toronto we love our police. These fine people put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our public; most do it with integrity and honour. However, we suspect that the people in riot gear were not our police; instead they were imported to impose martial law during the G20 meetings. They were not there to protect the people but to corral them, innocent or not.
The events were staged for public consumption; plans for these activities occurred well in advance. The film studio was converted into a makeshift jail to hold people from anticipated mass arrests; the riot police had weapons and shields and tear gas and pepper spray, all ready to be used on citizens. As the warriors said in the movie Braveheart, ‘we didn’t get dressed up for nothing’.
On Saturday, men in masks identified as Black Bloc were allowed to prepare themselves in public view, then to create chaos as they rampaged through our city. I suspect that many of our police were chomping at the bit to step in; however they were ordered to stand back and not break ranks. Out of 12,000 uniformed officers, a unit of 100 could have easily stopped the carnage but they did not. Why?
I speculate that the photo opportunities created by hooligans were intended to create fear and anger, thus encouraging Torontonians to accept martial law on Sunday. Nice strategy if it works but we are not that stupid. The public will not allow this to continue; the riot gear must become as foreign as the officers who wore the suits. Toronto will not allow these tactics to become commonplace.
The window-smashing and car-burning also distracted from the key points that people were protesting in the first place. Personal freedoms were diminished and Toronto became a city under military rule. Again, we will not accept this. Yes we believe in law and order but we will not be fooled.
The people demand a public inquiry, not to whine about bumps and bruises but to insist on transparency. This is not about blaming Toronto police who acted with great discipline over the weekend; it is about refusing to be forced into complacency. We want to know who gave the orders, who were the hooligans and who wore the riot gear. It is our right to know.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Direct Energy = Vicious Bully
Corporations tend to put a lot of money into goodwill, advertising their services and creating a positive image in the eyes of the public. All this goes for naught when the same company's policies are written to screw their customers.
In 1998, while living in a house in Richmond Hill, I signed an agreement with Direct Energy to supply my natural gas. Every few years they would contact me for renewal of this agreement; I was always offered to opt out for double or triple gas price. Of course I renewed; it didn't really matter to me who supplied gas to my house. Finally, last September I sold my house and moved into an apartment in downtown Toronto.
This week I was served with a collection notice for $727.63. When I contacted the collection agency I was told that they represented Direct Energy and were charging me a fee for breaking my gas contract. Apparently there are 4.5 years left on my current 'renewal'; the fact that I have been a customer for 12 years is irrelevant.
The situation was resolved when I faxed in a copy of my current lease proving that I was no longer paying for gas services. Of course, the fax was at my cost (direct energy, you owe me $6.30). If I did not send in this fax, the bullying would continue; I was warned by the collection agency that they would keep calling until this was resolved.
So the bottom line, Direct Energy uses contract lawyers and collection agencies to setup their customers for intimidation and bullying. So much for goodwill.
In 1998, while living in a house in Richmond Hill, I signed an agreement with Direct Energy to supply my natural gas. Every few years they would contact me for renewal of this agreement; I was always offered to opt out for double or triple gas price. Of course I renewed; it didn't really matter to me who supplied gas to my house. Finally, last September I sold my house and moved into an apartment in downtown Toronto.
This week I was served with a collection notice for $727.63. When I contacted the collection agency I was told that they represented Direct Energy and were charging me a fee for breaking my gas contract. Apparently there are 4.5 years left on my current 'renewal'; the fact that I have been a customer for 12 years is irrelevant.
The situation was resolved when I faxed in a copy of my current lease proving that I was no longer paying for gas services. Of course, the fax was at my cost (direct energy, you owe me $6.30). If I did not send in this fax, the bullying would continue; I was warned by the collection agency that they would keep calling until this was resolved.
So the bottom line, Direct Energy uses contract lawyers and collection agencies to setup their customers for intimidation and bullying. So much for goodwill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)