Quebecois Protests; Police State & "Maple Spring", Split from News Thread

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/1...ent-protest-law
Everyone who represents anything related to social causes, unions, students, human rights and legal areas are up in arms; the situation is clearly the gravest since the October Crisis. It also seems that this crisis was engineered. It's blatantly anticonstitutional and pretty much violates every human rights charter and declaration ever written.
Let me point out a few things that this wonderful law enables:

- Violates separation of power; gives Government power to change interpretation or writing of any law
- Requires protests over 50 people to submit path, transportation methods to police 8hrs prior
- Repeals presumption of innocence
- Judges teenagers as adults
- Bans spontaneous protests and demonstrations
- Police reserve the right to change path of protests at will
- Very vague wording wich allows wide interpretations, said interpretations left to Police
- To encourange, counsel, advise, participate or facilitate breaking these new laws
- Set to expire before it can be taken to Supreme Court, and after elections
- Police will monitor social media for transgressions

All hail the Most Benevolent Supreme Premier Jean Charest!

What is the issue with these points? Besides the fact they are common sense..


You live in a land of laws and protocols.
I'm surprised you haven't had to provide police with your planned protest route till now, regardless of how many people are involved.

Teenagers being treated as adults?
Well if they want to go hang around adults, protesting along side them, then what's the issue? If they break the law, along side adults, then that's too bad for them. Maybe they should have taken up a sport instead?

What is wrong with Police changing your planned protest route?
If there is a reason to change it, as in perhaps a rival protest group is heading in the same direction and the two will meet head on, maybe it's a good idea for Police to be able to do that?
Maybe keeping a volatile protest away from an important event is a good idea to prevent it turning violent?
Are you able to see into the future? No? Neither are the police.

It sort of breaks the UN Deceleration of human rights, namely the right to protest and freedom of expression.

Those four points that I singled out, do not prevent people from protesting nor spreading whatever message they want(provided it's not hate speech or inciting violence etc) during their protest.

What those points do is help ensure that a protest does not turn into a riot or a violent confrontation.


And the fourth point which I forgot to comment on because I was eating breakfast, well, same as I said above. Monitoring social media is actually a smart thing to do by law enforcement, and it already happens anyway.
The Internet is a communication tool. It is used by protest movements and rioters alike to organize and spread the word about their planned actions.

It's like saying that the police should not send in sniffer dogs to night clubs to detect drugs and those dealing them, when it's a known fact that drug dealers use night clubs to peddle their gear.

Actually, TheOne, sending drug dogs into a night club because it is "common knowledge there are drug dealers there" is a violation of presumption of innocence and laws protecting against unreasonable searches.

It's the same principle where the Norwegian Police showing up at schools unannounced to conduct sniff tests of entire classes because the school was known to have a drug problem was considered unconstitutional under the Norwegian Equivalent of the 4th Amendment and illegal under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles 11 and 12 that deal with presumption of innocence and privacy.

So no, it is nothing like that.

[Note: Everything following here is a rant against recent pushes towards surveillance by the states of the Western World and is completely off topic]

On the other hand, I have no problem with police accessing publicly accessible information on the internet. I do have a problem with police accessing private information, such as twitter accounts and Facebook private messages, especially without allowing notification of the subject of such a search. This is why my internet traffic is encrypted before it even hits my closest switch, and then tunneled to Germany (Which has the strongest privacy laws in Europe) before hitting the internet.

A general trend in recent years (See: Patriot Act, Data Retention Directive) is that Governments are horny for surveillance. The reasons cited are generally "Terrorism" or "Cybercrime", or in some cases where the charades aren't even bothered with "copyright infringement". Not only does research show that these schemes are completely and utterly ineffective at capturing criminals (In fact, the rate of solved crimes in Germany dropped by like 0.2% after the introduction of the DRD), as those with something to hide will do like me, and use insanely easy countermeasures, and all it does is surveillance the general population, and as such violate every privacy law written.

Tor would be more effective, internet tunnels aren't really secure unless you own the servers on both ends.

On the issue of Quebec, Both local and federal officials are looking to pass laws banning people from hiding their faces in a protest. Cause really if your hiding your face your trying to hide it for a reason, and it aint so your mother doesn't know your there.

Well, personally, to that i would reply CBRN. I am not going anywhere gas is being fired whitout my trusty Israeli gasmask. I'd love a C3, those fancy ones the Sureté du Québec have, but i heard they cost alot and that they are in hot demand these days...

And TheOne; aaah.. I am dissapoint. But it IS true that Australia houses most of the world's surveillance networks. Democracy is about people being free to do what they want; within the limit of reason; whitout fear of surveillance. Surveillance can help; sure, but it's addictive. Surveillance is the "Easy Button". Each time the easy button is pressed; a step is taken toward authoritarism. East Germany and North Korea sure have/had low crime rates! But at what price?

There is a quote that has become a slogan; i think you will recognize it all. "Those who prefer surrendering freedom for security deserve neither and end up losing both." It's a quote by Benjamin Franklin.

Overall this conflict, i beleive, has been deliberately engineered to this conclusion. Charest did not bungle anything, i beleive everything went exactly as he planned.

So, to resume the situation; there has been at average 4 protests every day for 100 days and there is a night protest every night. Yesterday molotov cocktails where thrown at cops when the police got extremely aggressive; tonight there are burning barricades being erected. Frankly, i'm dumbstruck. I can't do anything else but try and keep up with the news and assess what's going on. Personally; i think that is the police kill somebody, even accidentally; things will go way downhill.

Here is a College Student TV that does livestream; i swear they are Quebec's rising Al-Jazeera for all the amazing footage they have captured. http://www.livestream.com/cutvmontreal

The hashtags to follow on Twitter are #ggi for student strike; #loi78 for bill 78 and #manifencours for protests in progress. The MTL police send out updates by twitter.

A good video of some of the worst clashes with funky music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HCribaXkR0&feature=relmfu Amazing footage.

All that surveillance is not targeted at law abiding citizens.
It is targeted at criminals and their associates.

So I'm free to live my life however I want, until I break the law in a way which requires surveillance from the police.


Declarations of Human Rights and whatever else does not give anyone the right to go around selling drugs and guns, let alone rioting and destroying property and injuring people.

You might as well argue that people should be allowed to say what they want even if it incites hate crimes.

No, they do not give you the right to sell drugs.
But they do give you the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. Surveillance of any kind, that is not preceded by some sort of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are in fact dealing drugs, that is approved by a court of law, is a violation of that right to be presumed innocent.

I have no problem with police grabbing trouble makers at otherwise peaceful protests (See: Moscow), but when they pass laws that severely limit the right and chances for actual peaceful protests in order to curtail that violence, it reaks of incompetence on the part of the police force and the legislators and as Sunfir said, they press the easy button.

And actually, yes. I do support the right to free speech covering hate speech as well. I would defend someone's right to say "Fuck the jews" and "Fuck the socialist bastards of Norway" to the bitter end. There is a difference between saying that, and actually taking action against the people you hate/dislike.

Also, Sun, I have to correct you. Australia does not even come close to the UK in terms of surveillance.

Police sniffer dogs going into a club, is not an assumption that everyone in there is a drug dealer.

Those points that I singled out, do not severely limit the right or chance of a peaceful protest.

And yes the UK takes the cake for surveillance of it's own people.
Australian governments prefer to tax their people into soup kitchen lines instead.

Split from news thread.

No, but it is an assumption that someone in there is dealing drugs, based on, as you put it "common knowledge" which does not exist in law. And as such, that violates the presumption of innocence simply by assuming, without any evidence (For example a credible source claiming that a specific drug dealer is in there, or photos showing someone dealing drugs in there) to support that they are in fact guilty. This is why the police needs a search warrant to come into your home with sniffer dogs, just like they would/should in a night club.

The point I am trying to make is that it shouldn't be easy for the police to convict criminals. It should be insanely hard to convict criminals. Why? So that the one person the police suspects, but is infact innocent, is not convicted, even if it is at the cost of 10 guilty people walking.

I don't like the ban of wearing masks, Although many people wear masks to hide their identity to commit crimes they have legal uses.

For example protesters outside Scientology offices during Operation Chanology claimed they needed them to avoid repercussions from the so called "church".

Currently the UK isn't monitoring my internet and hopefully Scotland will be independent before Westminster tries it.

They are introducing a filter making you opt in to porn websites. The worrying thing about this is that the proxies people will use to avoid opting in to it will also give them access to illegal content

Nice; a thread all by itself. This is important enough to warrant it IMHO. Last night, this happened
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politic...ing-bar-patrons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGGVPZN9Jjw

Yeah. Police firing gas grenades and tear gas in crowded bars

Police Brutality, something that shouldn't happen in democracy.

"My waitress said, 'we have to call 911.' And then she said, 'But wait, it's the police that are doing this.' That's when you realize there's a total loss of security." - The owner of the bar.

The cops are out of control. Not that anyone should be surprised.

It's currently an isolated incident, I wouldn't be too quick to say the police are out of control.

What happened to my last post in reply to Skyes last post?

I was just referring to the one incident. It wouldn't surprise me if more was going on that wasn't being reported, though. IIRC it was the same during G20, where we only got slim details of what was actually happening at the time.

It's currently an isolated incident, I wouldn't be too quick to say the police are out of control.

Beleive me they are... They have gotten pay raises that the entire state didin't get; have the strongest union imaginable, have gotten 100 days with very little sleep and extreme stress, now they are being given discretionnary powers that would have usually been left to cours. Last night i saw pretty young girls in skirts; 110 pounds light; those poor things getting pulled by their hear, thrown on the ground and cuffed with zipcuffs (Made In USA, like most of our riot gear) by animals in armor. What they are doing is unbecoming of an officer, gentlemen, representative of the law and citizen of a democratic country.

Basically there is a G20 happening every night. Also let me all remind you that when 50,000 people protest in Quebec; proportionally; it's as if 1.9 million people protested in the US.

This video covers several scenes over many days of this 100-day crisis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvsy4eLAwk&feature=youtu.be

Buckets of shit and into an industrial fan update: Police are attacking and hitting journalists; arresting them, as well as anyone else, with bullshit charges.

Website that is translating relevent information relating to the Maple Spring
http://translatingtheprintempserable.tumblr.com/

The Maple Spring. Honestly; would anyone have accepted this under realism rules if i had done that in RP?

If I were being honest, the answer is no. Haha.

Lol when i wouldn't hold it against you because i would never have imagined something as crazy myself

A meme that describes the situation pretty well. Above Text is "Before Special Law" (Law 78); Below is "After Special Law"


English news reports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTsglObNihA&feature=share
http://www.rt.com/news/montreal-student-pr...ts-arrests-837/

And Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests

As in Tunisia and other Arab Springs; TV media is almost silent and the News chopper is conscpicuously absent. The only reliable live newslike video coverage and archiving of videos is the CUTV channel. http://cutvmontreal.ca/live

Yesterday; the largest and most radical student association has announced that it would not comply to law 78 and encourages civil disobedience. They have launched http://www.arretezmoiquelquun.com/ (somebodyarrestme.com); where people can publicly (and still illegally, remember! it's now an offense to even encourage or emit a favorable opinion to the strike/protests!) state that they will not comply to law 78 either. There are already 2700 pictures Here is a pic of that conference.

Anarchopanda ist krieg. https://www.facebook.com/Anarchopanda Anarchopanda is the quasi-official protest Mascot; alto a Banana named 'Bananarchy' does make soapbox speeches against Quebec becoming a 'banana republic'. Yeah.

there is simply so much information constantly being generated (im talking gigabytes per hour; and at night it's per minutes!) that i would need to spend all my time researching this. But it IS starting to be "translated" and covered by foreign media; we know BBC had a crew here last night, wich saw the police acting VERY cautiously.

250,000 people march in Montreal with the CLASSE, FEUQ and FECQ student associations; all disobeying Law 78 and committing a great, valiant collective act of civil disobedience. The Police can do nothing but stand back and everything is going smoothly with no incidents. That's the general rule for these protests; police stay far and let the protest go it's way; it's peaceful, it's festive, people dance and chant and smoke weed and are just generally normal everyday quebecois. The problems start when police move in.

http://live.montrealgazette.com/Event/Prot...tudent_conflict

Yeah, 250 thousand, i said? I just had a number of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND. And it was pouring rain. There are few examples of such massive protests (in proportion to population); there is the Russian Revolution. This is Equivalent to twenty million people protesting in the US.

Also; THIS FEELS LIKE I'M FREAKING ROLEPLAYING IT. Except i'm not making up anything.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_05_22/75532138/