Options

Ashamed to be Canadian....

This is gross, and shameful.....on Veterans day....why?

What a sick city....sick mayor...sick police force.......

Brutal Police Eviction ~ Occupy Nova Scota ~ Day 28 - YouTube
«13456715

Comments

  • lol, you are kidding right? That was police brutality? From that video I thought they used uncommon restraint..

    Good heavens man, the only other option would be anarchy...
  • compuease wrote: »
    lol, you are kidding right? That was police brutality? From that video I thought they used uncommon restraint..

    Good heavens man, the only other option would be anarchy...
    i don't think is extreme violence.....but i think its brutal that they did that....
  • darbday wrote: »
    i don't think is extreme violence.....but i think its brutal that they did that....

    And for this you are "ashamed" to be a Canadian? How would YOU handle it if in position of authority? Just curious....
  • compuease wrote: »
    And for this you are "ashamed" to be a Canadian? How would YOU handle it if in position of authority? Just curious....
    its not the question we should be asking....at all....

    we represent one of the worlds last hopes at a peaceful state of being....

    our officials should be supporting this movement...

    these protests are candles of peace.....

    what is their to handle?

    when protesting corruption of authority itself.....who should be aloud to 'handle' anything?
  • Jeesh man, is this 1969 all over again? Interested in hearing others thoughts on this though. Remember the occupiers ARE breaking the law, should they be allowed to flaunt that fact forever? They do NOT represent the 99%, at least imho..

    I ask again, what would YOU do if in position of authority?
  • Let them have a day of demonstraition anyone still there on day 2 gets locked up.

    The bottom line is these are not regular citizens that have jobs and pay taxes. For the most part these people are already living off the government handouts.
  • LOL at some of the BS on that video . . .

    "That is private property, you have no right to touch it". Sure they do, especially when enforcing a lawful eviction notice enacted by the City. This quote, from the first 2 minutes of the video is indicative of the idiocy of many in the "Occupy" movement. Yes, they have the right to protest. What they do NOT have the right to do is defy the lawful ordfers of government without consequence. They had the opportunity to remove their property themselves, and chose to ignore that instruction. That right there leaves the protestors liable for everything that happens next. these were not cops in riot gear with batons. The police took a measured approach and began removing property from the park. When confronted with protestors attempting to defy the lawful instructions of the Police, they effected arrests, as they should. When assauited by protestors trying to intervene in those arrests, they arrested those protestors as well. As compuease said, I saw no "brutality" on that video, and I got a nice chuckle out of Dr. Protestor self-diagnosing his injuries back in his apartment.

    As for how "brutal" the eviction itself was, we will have to agree to disagree.

    I do find it humourous that the protestors in Toronto, so outraged by Government bailouts to big business, seem willing to accept assistance from one of the beneficiaries of those bailouts, namely the CAW. And for all they claim to be standing up for democracy, I wonder how many Union members got to vote on whether their dues should go to pay for those yurts?

    Sorry, but these folks in Toronto have taken up space on Public property, without permits, have moved in equipment and facilities that the property was not designed for, have damaged the property to an as yet undetermined degree, and have denied the use of that property to their fellow citizens, in at least one instance a party that had contracted for the use of the park well in advance. It is time for them to go . . . and if they will not leave, it is time to evict them.

    Final note: I am constantly amazed at how so many in the protest movement love and adore their Rights, but fail to remember that, incumbent with those Rights, are the responsibilities that go along with them.
  • compuease wrote: »
    Jeesh man, is this 1969 all over again?
    what part of it are you referring to though?
    compuease wrote: »
    Remember the occupiers ARE breaking the law, should they be allowed to flaunt that fact forever?
    i was under the impression protesting is above laws as our human right....
    which is one of the points...

    but even if it is illegal....we are questioning the very laws themselves.....
    compuease wrote: »
    They do NOT represent the 99%, at least imho..
    yes they do..and they rep you......the rep all the people....who don't understand the movement because we were raised in government decide school curriculum...
    compuease wrote: »
    I ask again, what would YOU do if in position of authority?
    the reason i can't give an answer is because we disagree on your preconcieved notion of what the problem is....i think....?
  • Let them have a day of demonstraition anyone still there on day 2 gets locked up.

    The bottom line is these are not regular citizens that have jobs and pay taxes. For the most part these people are already living off the government handouts.
    no these are people complain on behalf of you....for knowing that people like you aren't getting the education they deserve to understand whats going on...
  • compuease wrote: »
    They do NOT represent the 99%, at least imho..

    I ask again, what would YOU do if in position of authority?
    darbday wrote: »
    yes they do..and they rep you......the rep all the people....who don't understand the movement because we were raised in government decide school curriculum...


    the reason i can't give an answer is because we disagree on your preconcieved notion of what the problem is....i think....?

    They do NOT represent me, don't ever try to claim that. They never asked me, I hereby rescind all such thoughts implied or otherwise inferred. :)

    As for you not being able to answer the question as to what you would do if in position of authority, you're copping out. (play on words by design). What would be your solution to the whole issue of most of the wealth and thus power being in the hands of the few? That in a nutshell is what I think is the chief complaint...


    gotta give you credit tho Darb, this one is likely to get pretty long, pitting the so called "establishment" vs the "anti-establishment"
  • darbday wrote: »
    its not the question we should be asking....at all....

    we represent one of the worlds last hopes at a peaceful state of being....

    our officials should be supporting this movement...

    these protests are candles of peace.....

    what is their to handle?

    when protesting corruption of authority itself.....who should be aloud to 'handle' anything?

    It is exactly a question that needs to be asked . . . namely: When does peaceful protest cross the line into something that is no longer acceptable, and who decides? These Occupations are taking place on City owned parcels of land, so it is fair (imo) that the government we elected decides how long to accept an illegal occupation of their property. If I were to go camp out on compuease's lawn to protest his "locking" of a thread on this site, it would be up to him to determine how long I get to stay (and maybe bring me a hot chocolate).

    To a certain extent they already do . . . our banking regs are part of the reason our financial sector did not go off the rails back in '08, and why we are so much better off than the USA. As for anything else, where are the proposals from the Occupy Movement. If you are not prepared to provide atr least some semblance of an alternative, then your shouts and chants are just so much noise and babble.

    What needs to be "handled" is the peaceful functioning of a modern City, and the maintenance of the rule of law. while these protest sites may, for the most part, be peaceful, they are not lawful, and there are some signs of worry starting to creep in.

    We are a Nation of Laws. If there is corruption the government it needs to be rooted out and exposed, as has been done in the press countless times in the past, and will not doubt be done in the future as well. Who appointed the Occupiers as the safeguards of our country? You? comp? Me?

    Nope, Like I said, protest all you like, but recognize that there are consequences to those protests. Thats how King did it, and Gandhi too. these idiots want to have it both ways, and the World does not work like that.
  • darbday wrote: »
    no these are people complain on behalf of you....for knowing that people like you aren't getting the education they deserve to understand whats going on...

    They in no way represent me. I did not ask them to.

    As for what is going on, it's mainly self-entitlement.
  • You know boon, it is hard to discuss issues with you because you come at things from an angle, and with language, that sounds like you are (frankly) stoned out of your gourd. It is all well and good to talk about how things "should be" or you "want them to be". But it would really help to move the conversation if you could answer a direct question with a direct answer. To whit:

    What would you do if you were in charge of the City of Vancouver (King Darb the First) and had to resolve the Occupation?
  • Hobbes wrote: »
    They in no way represent me. I did not ask them to.

    As for what is going on, it's mainly self-indulgence.

    Fixed it for you Hobbes . . . and comp? Out of curiosity, which side am I on? Cause it might not be who you think . . .
  • #Occupy Protests= Accomplishing SFA since 2011
  • Personally, I would have no problem with the Occupy Movement setting up shop, so to speak, in the Financial District or Queen's Park or outside Parliament in Ottawa, or all three. Not a camp site, but an info. kiosk for the distribution of information about the alleged wrongs that the Movement perceives, and their solutions to same. So long as it was of a reasonable size I would allow it to go on indefinitely. What is happening in our Cities (these Occupation sites) is not acceptable to the majority of people who live there, and thus the various governments are correct in taking action.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Fixed it for you Hobbes . . . and comp? Out of curiosity, which side am I on? Cause it might not be who you think . . .

    Side? I didn't know a side was required... I also may not be exactly the perfect establishment type either... lol... I certainly do not think it's healthy nor substainable for the wealth and power to reside with so few for long... However this is not the way to change it..

    and ISWUDT..
  • Milo wrote: »

    "That is private property, you have no right to touch it". Sure they do, especially when enforcing a lawful eviction notice enacted by the City. This quote, from the first 2 minutes of the video is indicative of the idiocy of many in the "Occupy" movement. Yes, they have the right to protest. What they do NOT have the right to do is defy the lawful ordfers of government without consequence. They had the opportunity to remove their property themselves, and chose to ignore that instruction. That right there leaves the protestors liable for everything that happens next.
    i don't know exactly how it went down but i feel like theres a condradiction between saying they can protest and then arresting them for not leaving...

    do we agree that if the general public felt this was a just cause people would be screaming bloody murder when protests like this got shut down?
    Milo wrote: »
    these were not cops in riot gear with batons. The police took a measured approach and began removing property from the park. When confronted with protestors attempting to defy the lawful instructions of the Police, they effected arrests, as they should. When assauited by protestors trying to intervene in those arrests, they arrested those protestors as well. As compuease said, I saw no "brutality" on that video, and I got a nice chuckle out of Dr. Protestor self-diagnosing his injuries back in his apartment.

    As for how "brutal" the eviction itself was, we will have to agree to disagree.
    not sure about the truth but they said they had cops in riot gear cops waiting in a trailer...regardless it serve no purpose on either side of the argument...im more blown away that they did it...not how...

    as for the injuries...coming from a guy how can dislocate pretty much any joint in the body...i can say its better assed by the patient than the doctor...just saying that you'll know if your shoulder goes out...before the doctor does...

    i have no point about them tho...the violence is not the brutal part but its silly people are being physically touched in a stand in...
    Milo wrote: »
    As for how "brutal" the eviction itself was, we will have to agree to disagree.
    the violence wasn't brutal...it was lame....but i believe its brutal it happened...that we disagree on and its ok... but we should be clear on that....but whoever titled the video may have felt different.
    Milo wrote: »
    I do find it humourous that the protestors in Toronto, so outraged by Government bailouts to big business, seem willing to accept assistance from one of the beneficiaries of those bailouts, namely the CAW. And for all they claim to be standing up for democracy, I wonder how many Union members got to vote on whether their dues should go to pay for those yurts?

    i don't know so much about this but we aren't saying the protesters are standing up for democracy are we...because i think at this point...i think they are against the type of democracy given...
    but maybe you weren't refering to them ....

    Milo wrote: »
    Sorry, but these folks in Toronto have taken up space on Public property, without permits, have moved in equipment and facilities that the property was not designed for, have damaged the property to an as yet undetermined degree, and have denied the use of that property to their fellow citizens, in at least one instance a party that had contracted for the use of the park well in advance. It is time for them to go . . . and if they will not leave, it is time to evict them.

    Final note: I am constantly amazed at how so many in the protest movement love and adore their Rights, but fail to remember that, incumbent with those Rights, are the responsibilities that go along with them.

    having a permit to protest means have to ask the government permission...this is a protest against the system that requires us to do that...not saying its a correct message to protest but...i don't think its right to saying they need a permit or they get aressted...i think the city.....which is made up of humans...should give them a permit... and support the movement....as well as the people who asked for the park in advance....this is more important....(im no saint either...ive done nothing liek this for the movement)...



    Milo wrote: »
    It is time for them to go . . . and if they will not leave, it is time to evict them.

    Final note: I am constantly amazed at how so many in the protest movement love and adore their Rights, but fail to remember that, incumbent with those Rights, are the responsibilities that go along with them.
    Milo wrote: »
    i wonder if the world realizes these people will not leave....ever....

    i also wonder if the army of each country is ordered to shoot their civilians will they?
    I know in one facsict regime the army finally refused...i don't think the american army would.....i think they would follow orders....

    i think it will come to that.....
  • darbday wrote: »
    i don't know exactly how it went down but i feel like theres a condradiction between saying they can protest and then arresting them for not leaving...

    When a protest is deemed to cross the line into illegality, the Police have a duty to intervene. A protestor who violates the law cannot say, "I am protesting an outrage, and so am immune to arrest". See my MLK comment . . .

    do we agree that if the general public felt this was a just cause people would be screaming bloody murder when protests like this got shut down?

    If the general population wanted them left alone, there would be protests at the evictions. There have not been any that I have heard of . . .


    not sure about the truth but they said they had cops in riot gear cops waiting in a trailer...regardless it serve no purpose on either side of the argument...im more blown away that they did it...not how...

    as for the injuries...coming from a guy how can dislocate pretty much any joint in the body...i can say its better assed by the patient than the doctor...just saying that you'll know if your shoulder goes out...before the doctor does...

    I have sprained my ankle so badly the doc told me I would have been better off breaking it, in terms of rehab. That dudes wrist did not look sprained, and I would bet a week's pay it was not broken. Otherwise, he would have been at a hospital with a video camera documenting the police brutality for his inevitable lawsuit.

    i have no point about them tho...the violence is not the brutal part but its silly people are being physically touched in a stand in...

    Agreed . . . they should have let the cops do their job.

    the violence wasn't brutal...it was lame....but i believe its brutal it happened...that we disagree on and its ok... but we should be clear on that....but whoever titled the video may have felt different.



    i don't know so much about this but we aren't saying the protesters are standing up for democracy are we...because i think at this point...i think they are against the type of democracy given...
    but maybe you weren't refering to them ....

    The Occupy movement in TO and elsewhere have railed against the corporate bailouts that occured in the US and Canada. The automakers were beneficiaries of one of those bailouts, and thus their employees. Those employees are CAW, and the CAW bought the yurts for the TO Occupiers. By accepting the yurts they give tacit approval to the auto bailout. That is hypocrisy. The protestors are now part of the 1%.


    having a permit to protest means have to ask the government permission...this is a protest against the system that requires us to do that...not saying its a correct message to protest but...i don't think its right to saying they need a permit or they get aressted...i think the city.....which is made up of humans...should give them a permit... and support the movement....as well as the people who asked for the park in advance....this is more important....(im no saint either...ive done nothing liek this for the movement)...

    Getting a permit is usually a requirement to use public space. Like the couple in TO who could not take their wedding pix in St. James park becaue of the protest, even though they had contracted for the space in advance. If a citizen feels strongly enough about an issue that they feel it necessary to violate the law, which this Occupation has done, they should have the courage of their convictions and accept the consequences.


    Milo wrote: »
    i wonder if the world realizes these people will not leave....ever....

    i also wonder if the army of each country is ordered to shoot their civilians will they?
    I know in one facsict regime the army finally refused...i don't think the american army would.....i think they would follow orders....

    i think it will come to that.....

    Please see my bolded comments above. As for the last lines, about the military, these protests are a civilian matter, and therefore the bailiwick of the Police, not the military. It is necessary for the Civilian authority to request assistance of the military before they will deploy. Happened to me years ago when I was in the Reserves. Microburst/tornado touched briefly in the downtown strewing trees and damaging shops. Government wanted a presence downtown to prevent anyone from getting ideas. Boring, but fun day. As for following orders, yes they would . . . with the caveat that those orders were LEGAL. Otherwise, just as at Nuremberg, and My Lai, that defence goes out the window.
  • Milo wrote: »
    It is exactly a question that needs to be asked . . . namely: When does peaceful protest cross the line into something that is no longer acceptable, and who decides? These Occupations are taking place on City owned parcels of land, so it is fair (imo) that the government we elected decides how long to accept an illegal occupation of their property. If I were to go camp out on compuease's lawn to protest his "locking" of a thread on this site, it would be up to him to determine how long I get to stay (and maybe bring me a hot chocolate).
    again this part is beyond my scope but i thought it was occupy a public place to represent the fact that we the people own the land...or better said...nobody owns the earth...

    Milo wrote: »

    What needs to be "handled" is the peaceful functioning of a modern City, and the maintenance of the rule of law. while these protest sites may, for the most part, be peaceful, they are not lawful, and there are some signs of worry starting to creep in.
    saying something is not lawful does not refer to anything about the morals of it.....the signs of worry aren't fear of the protestors...it fear of having to confront the real issues that they won't leave until are confronted....we would rather pry them out than accept they are right i think

    Milo wrote: »
    We are a Nation of Laws. If there is corruption the government it needs to be rooted out and exposed, as has been done in the press countless times in the past, and will not doubt be done in the future as well. Who appointed the Occupiers as the safeguards of our country? You? comp? Me?
    how do you expose a system that taught you how you think.

    as for who appointed them....there are other ways to view the world then who gets apointed to what...but we don't know any...because all we know is the system we raised ourselves by...

    Milo wrote: »

    Nope, Like I said, protest all you like, but recognize that there are consequences to those protests. Thats how King did it, and Gandhi too. these idiots want to have it both ways, and the World does not work like that.
    i think someone like you would be helpful for things like this...more grounded view in some senses maybe...or at least..sensible opposition i think....

    these idiots believe in a better world...i think its a shame that we can't filter out everything and just fully support the movement..maybe we can...i think it would be best....to disagree with anything...but not with the movement itself...
  • Hobbes wrote: »
    They in no way represent me. I did not ask them to.

    As for what is going on, it's mainly self-entitlement.

    what i am saying...is people are mad that the governments allowed people like you...to grow up ignorant to the world....you must admit this...we were all raised this way..

    they know you don't care...thats why they are upset..not at you....at the system that sheltered us...

    about self entitlement....thats the most outrageous thing i have ever heard....

    its about famine of millions...its about world famine....lack of homes...lack of ability to feed oneself or having to pay for water in country that don't have currency....its about the world....its why each city is involved...and gets a complaint...
  • Milo wrote: »
    You know boon, it is hard to discuss issues with you because you come at things from an angle, and with language, that sounds like you are (frankly) stoned out of your gourd.
    if you remember saying this for some time beyond this...i will relate it to something.....but for now....it prob means im conveying what i want to convey...im not tyring to be like a chinese master or something.. being vague...but i do think the answers to the questions we can't solve...will have zero concreteness to them...

    but mj is just coincidence....i have a well thought out understanding of all this i believe...but its verrrry radical and against the accepted thought proccess of most...i appreciate being to bounce it off people is the deal....people who disagree in an intelligent way....
    Milo wrote: »
    It is all well and good to talk about how things "should be" or you "want them to be". But it would really help to move the conversation if you could answer a direct question with a direct answer.
    see this is a huge issue i think....we are skipping the part where we admit how bad it is...we go straight to the part where we have no other solution... and put or defeatist attitudes on..

    we console ourselves with what we have rather than what the world doesn't have...we appreciate what we were born into in order to justify what others aren't..... we never just say its simply wrong and needs to stop....

    Milo wrote: »
    . But it would really help to move the conversation if you could answer a direct question with a direct answer. To whit:

    What would you do if you were in charge of the City of Vancouver (King Darb the First) and had to resolve the Occupation?
    i wasn't clear with this and i know its hard to understand what i mean here...

    in being king....and the people were protesting monarchy....i would have snipers pick off my people...if i wanted to be king....

    if i wanted to settle the protesters....to answer their cries...i would do not one act as 'king'......

    i think that makes sense...but i could prob say it different...
  • darbday wrote: »
    again this part is beyond my scope but i thought it was occupy a public place to represent the fact that we the people own the land...or better said...nobody owns the earth...

    Come set up camp on my front lawn and see how fast you learn who owns this particular piece of the Earth. That is the sort of nonsense that loses these portestors points with the general population . . .

    saying something is not lawful does not refer to anything about the morals of it.....the signs of worry aren't fear of the protestors...it fear of having to confront the real issues that they won't leave until are confronted....we would rather pry them out than accept they are right i think

    When I spoke of worries, I was referring to certain "elements" creeping into the Occupy sites, like the Mohawk Warriors in TO. Sorry, but who gets a bigger bailout than the First Nations? I know, another debate for another day . . . but that was the gist of my comment, not some ephemeral state of mind.

    how do you expose a system that taught you how you think.

    Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised by man, exceot for all the other ones. The above comment is bafflegab

    as for who appointed them....there are other ways to view the world then who gets apointed to what...but we don't know any...because all we know is the system we raised ourselves by...

    There have been a multitude of systems used throughout history to govern/rule a given territory/population. Canadians seem to like the one we use now, and occasionally we tweak it to make improvements. The above comment is bafflegab



    i think someone like you would be helpful for things like this...more grounded view in some senses maybe...or at least..sensible opposition i think....

    these idiots believe in a better world...i think its a shame that we can't filter out everything and just fully support the movement..maybe we can...i think it would be best....to disagree with anything...but not with the movement itself...

    The problem with the movement is that there is NOTHING to support. One guy in the video is shouting about how they are akin to the Veterans that Remembrance Day is meant to salute. He has no clue what he is tyalking about. Other people on the news are talking about "ending Capitalism" while taking videos with their iPhones. There is no coherent, sensible, unified message coming out of the Occupy Movement. Thus, they are perceived as rabble, and dealt with accordingly.
  • Gees darb, you are very hard to follow... I am quite sure your heart is in the right place... a little misguided perhaps but in the right place...

    This whole issue brings up a very important point, we are all part of the problem and could be part of the solution, if only, we would get involved, legally. Heck, half of us don't even vote.... Wonder what % of the occupiers voted in the past few elections, or how many of them got involved in the political process in even a small way..
  • It's a tough spot, but I'd raise here.

    Just kidding.

    Kudos gentlemen on a great debate thread (NO sarcasm intended). Just tiling the bathroom, took a break and found out how this thread had exploded. Good read.
  • It isn't a protest if most people don't quite know WTF you're protesting.

    I have followed with detached interest, and know that they're against people with money or something. But they have no agenda, no suggestions / feedback. They come off as lazy ass hippies and leeches on society.

    They think they're all Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but they act like the entitled whiny bitches that they are. How many iPhones were in that video? I counted 3 at least.

    Mark
  • And if anyone knows about dealing with whiny, entitled, whiny-ass bitches . . .
  • Milo wrote: »
    And if anyone knows about dealing with whiny, entitled, whiny-ass bitches . . .

    It would be me!

    I work with teens.

    Mark
  • The protesters (see homeless, freeloaders) are living in a public park, that is meant for everyone, not an exclusive minority (sound familiar ?) How long should the city let them stay there ? It needs to end sometime.

    It must be nice to not have responsibilities and be able to live in a park for months. Gee, where do you get your money, the 99% you are trying to represent ? That will win a lot of supprt.
  • I meant Mario . . .
Sign In or Register to comment.