Aaaaa the classic debate between the right wing reactionary "give'em the stick" and the left wing freedom of expression argument.
From the first video, to the whole thing Ali put up (cheers bro) it is clear the first one is cut for a certain cause, and the "moments later" discredits the validity of the footage.
The full one however perfectly shows the relation between state police and the superpowers of the G20. Yes there was violence in the main area of Toronto between anti-G20 activists, and the police. But what incurred after by the more peaceful, albeit slightly irritating protest by some didnt warrant kettling and such aggression.
As that lawyer stated, even if her bias was shown in some ways, her FACTS on what peoples rights entail show the breaches of law by the LAW ENFORCES, which is evident, but not shocking, as that happens everywhere. The police there show political motive, as those protesters (agree with them or not) where not running around smashing the street up, and the later element of protesters to the police reactions where citizens of the area, not black clad anarchists or whatever, that is clear to see.
The main point that should be illustrated here is that people love to generalise and group people together, this thread is a perfect example, from reading it it shows people think that this girl and the protesters are dirty, jobless, hippies etc etc and then brands them with the trouble makers in the main city. Therefore they should get the beat down they deserve, despite being within their rights to protest. If the police had reacted in such a manner to football hooligans, or a more violent demonstration then i would say that is a normal reaction by police.
Now, from this the actions of the police are applauded by some, and thought to be right. HOWEVER, what of the consideration of peoples basic rights, freedom or expression, freedom of assembly? The generalisation by people perpetuated through the media makes people look around and nod thinking "yer get those bloody hippies" which is a shame, as ignorance once again prevails, people may not agree with those protesters but still, they still have the same right of expression as those people. The system we live in allows us very little participation when concerning political and economic influence, so if you dont like the idea of a hegemony of power such as the G20, what do you do? you have no vote on the matter, you can go rave about it on the net? or you can organise a protest against it, its peoples reactions to the circumstances around them.
Those people may have been conducting some agitation towards the police, because they represent the system, the face of the G20 etc The agitation itself was didnt seem to warrant arrests, kettling etc some chanting and bubble blowing, The mere presence of a large armed police force in the streets itself is cause for agitation, the evidence for that is everywhere. But to those people watching from the outside, these dirty hippes and squatters were causing trouble.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
From all the regimes and tyrants throughout history, even in the UK people have fought and died for the rights we take for granted today, trade unionists fought tooth and nail in Britain for better living and working conditions, and their right to assembly was taken away at first, but they persisted and won the rights we have today, people in the middle east are fighting for their rights against hugely oppressive governments as we speak. So when people voice there opinions in this way even if it is "blowing bubbles" there right to do so should be protected , people see the harsh realities of whats going on around the world, but never think it happens in there own country by their own government.
Food for thought.
On a more silly note, the officer claimed if the detergent got in either of their eyes that was assault, but didnt hey both habe glasses on?
From the first video, to the whole thing Ali put up (cheers bro) it is clear the first one is cut for a certain cause, and the "moments later" discredits the validity of the footage.
The full one however perfectly shows the relation between state police and the superpowers of the G20. Yes there was violence in the main area of Toronto between anti-G20 activists, and the police. But what incurred after by the more peaceful, albeit slightly irritating protest by some didnt warrant kettling and such aggression.
As that lawyer stated, even if her bias was shown in some ways, her FACTS on what peoples rights entail show the breaches of law by the LAW ENFORCES, which is evident, but not shocking, as that happens everywhere. The police there show political motive, as those protesters (agree with them or not) where not running around smashing the street up, and the later element of protesters to the police reactions where citizens of the area, not black clad anarchists or whatever, that is clear to see.
The main point that should be illustrated here is that people love to generalise and group people together, this thread is a perfect example, from reading it it shows people think that this girl and the protesters are dirty, jobless, hippies etc etc and then brands them with the trouble makers in the main city. Therefore they should get the beat down they deserve, despite being within their rights to protest. If the police had reacted in such a manner to football hooligans, or a more violent demonstration then i would say that is a normal reaction by police.
Now, from this the actions of the police are applauded by some, and thought to be right. HOWEVER, what of the consideration of peoples basic rights, freedom or expression, freedom of assembly? The generalisation by people perpetuated through the media makes people look around and nod thinking "yer get those bloody hippies" which is a shame, as ignorance once again prevails, people may not agree with those protesters but still, they still have the same right of expression as those people. The system we live in allows us very little participation when concerning political and economic influence, so if you dont like the idea of a hegemony of power such as the G20, what do you do? you have no vote on the matter, you can go rave about it on the net? or you can organise a protest against it, its peoples reactions to the circumstances around them.
Those people may have been conducting some agitation towards the police, because they represent the system, the face of the G20 etc The agitation itself was didnt seem to warrant arrests, kettling etc some chanting and bubble blowing, The mere presence of a large armed police force in the streets itself is cause for agitation, the evidence for that is everywhere. But to those people watching from the outside, these dirty hippes and squatters were causing trouble.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
From all the regimes and tyrants throughout history, even in the UK people have fought and died for the rights we take for granted today, trade unionists fought tooth and nail in Britain for better living and working conditions, and their right to assembly was taken away at first, but they persisted and won the rights we have today, people in the middle east are fighting for their rights against hugely oppressive governments as we speak. So when people voice there opinions in this way even if it is "blowing bubbles" there right to do so should be protected , people see the harsh realities of whats going on around the world, but never think it happens in there own country by their own government.
Food for thought.
On a more silly note, the officer claimed if the detergent got in either of their eyes that was assault, but didnt hey both habe glasses on?
