G20 case reveals 'largest ever' police spy operation (Canada)

G20 case reveals 'largest ever' police spy operation (Canada)

www.cbc.ca

Police organizations across the country co-operated to spy on community organizations and activists in what the RCMP called one of the largest domestic intelligence operations in Canadian history, documents reveal.

They were part of a much larger so-called joint intelligence group (JIG) operation that the RCMP, in its internal post-summit review, called "likely the largest JIG ever assembled in Canada."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Key points of interest from the article:

The Crown built its case against the 17 around the work of the two officers, Ontario Provincial Police members Bindo Showan and Brenda Carey. It was a massive case: 59 criminal charges in all, more than 70,000 pages of Crown evidence disclosed to the defence, and months of scheduled testimony.

"The 2010 G8 summit in Huntsville ... will likely be subject to actions taken by criminal extremists motivated by a variety of radical ideologies," reads a JIG report from June 2009, before the G20 summit was scheduled, that sets out the intelligence group's mission. "These ideologies may include variants of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, nihilism, socialism and/or communism.

"The important commonality is that these ideologies ... place these individuals and/or organizations at odds with the status quo and the current distribution of power in society."

The same document indicates that the RCMP-led intelligence team made a series of presentations to private-sector corporations, including one to "energy sector stakeholders" in November 2011.

Other corporations that received intelligence from police included Canada’s major banks, telecom firms, airlines, downtown property companies and other businesses seen to be vulnerable to the effects of summit protests.

Wow.

It goes without saying that this operation is small in comparison with what goes on in larger countries, but it doesn't change the facts and goals of the police mission.

It is no big secret that the RCMP has carried out infiltration of "organizations at odd with the status quo" for a very long time (especially during the Cold War under anti-communist directives).

However it is VERY DISTURBING that the RCMP views modern activists and protesters as being the perceived enemy that should be spied on and arrested, ALL THE WHILE presenting their own findings and services to the banking/finance/business elite.

Anybody still deny the Class War now?

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

Disgusting! Is this a Police-State in the making or is Canada already a full-fledged police state?
And what the hell? Why are people accepting this?!


IT--

"The important commonality is that these ideologies ... place these individuals and/or organizations at odds with the status quo and the current distribution of power in society."

Yeah how DARE the sheeple questions the elite stealing everything! I mean, it's not Canadian to do that! A well behaved Canadian just shut up and follow orders while the Conservatives and the Liberals steal everything!

And yes, Canada IS a police state and it's gonna get worse, thanks to all the morons who voted for Harper.

Originally posted by edog11
Disgusting! Is this a Police-State in the making?
I thought Canada wasn't like America...

IT--

With the laws that Dictator Harper is trying to put into play, soon it'll be illegal for me to even call him Dictator Harper.
This country went to # when all of the morons refused to vote NDP.
But what do you expect? It takes a real group of asshats to vote CONSERVATIVES into the goddamned majority government.

Originally posted by edog11
Disgusting! Is this a Police-State in the making?
I thought Canada wasn't like America...

IT--

In Canada, life is all fun and games until you are known by the system- from that point on, you're marked until death.

Originally posted by edog11
Disgusting! Is this a Police-State in the making or is Canada already a full-fledged police state?
And what the hell? Why are people accepting this?!


IT--

edit on 23-11-2011 by edog11 because: Changed the post a little

If you have to ask then you have no idea what a police state is.

The police did not break any laws did they? By laws im referring to whats on the books and not what your personal opinion is.

If it were a police state -
* - there would have been no need to infiltrate the group
* - there would have been no need to collect information
* - there would be no reason to submit the reports / evidence to the Crown Prosecution
* - There would be no reason to file charges
* - there would be no reason to inform those accused what they are accused of and why.

If it were a police state, they simply would have idsappeared in the middle fo the night, never to be seen again.

So how bout we get off the over dramatization of invoking the term police state when people have absolutely no idea what one is?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by edog11
Disgusting! Is this a Police-State in the making or is Canada already a full-fledged police state?
And what the hell? Why are people accepting this?!


IT--

edit on 23-11-2011 by edog11 because: Changed the post a little

If you have to ask then you have no idea what a police state is.

The police did not break any laws did they? By laws im referring to whats on the books and not what your personal opinion is.

What do you think a police state is? It's when anything the police do, and the executive for that matter, is "law" and they justify their actions after the fact when they already have firm control on anyone who can oppose their actions.

And do you know what it is called when a government and corporate power work together? Fascism.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Read my post again. I asked if it was a police-state in the making or already a police state (Not that I would want an answer from you who I know very well). I asked because I am not in Canada to see what's going on there with my own eyes and I don't exactly trust the MSM.


IT--

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Please show me how the police manipulated / violated any laws in order to do their job.

Please explain to us how the police actions determine guilt or innocence in a court of law.

I understand the argument you are making, I just dont agree with it because it assumes actions taken by the police in this case are unlawful with ulterior motives. It assumes the actions are taken to undermine lawful acts when in fact it does not.

Originally posted by edog11
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Read my post again. I asked if it was a police-state in the making or already a police state (Not that I would want an answer from you who I know very well). I asked because I am not in Canada to see what's going on there with my own eyes and I don't exactly trust the MSM.


IT--

So because you assume to know me you dont want me answering. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that response is not along the same lines as what you insinuate towards me?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Please show me how the police manipulated / violated any laws in order to do their job.

Please explain to us how the police actions determine guilt or innocence in a court of law.

I understand the argument you are making, I just dont agree with it because it assumes actions taken by the police in this case are unlawful with ulterior motives. It assumes the actions are taken to undermine lawful acts when in fact it does not.

No actually my argument does not assume that in terms of a police state, actions are "unlawful". My last post outlined exactly the opposite. In a police state, these things are law, law created by the executive to justify more power to the executive against the rights of individual citizens.

My argument is about the ballance of power degenerating into a state where the executive does whatever it wants without reprecussions because they become the law- and usually, as we have seen in fascist countries, the executive in a police state is under the direct influence of private interests (be it corporate/religious/military) that have no place in the political executive, hence why a police state is necessary to prop up this status quo.

In my opinion, a police state is where you can not do anything without permission, where laws are made to make money and protect other laws and promote corruption. where ignorance of the 5000+ laws is not an excuse and there are no second chances so you get fined when you publicly remove a bandaid.

If cops or any type of enforcer kills people because they do have their papers at the time and its legal because the general public didn't get a vote, thats a police state. If they can pepper spray protesters who are sitting down because its legal, thats a police state.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Right and I am asking you to specifically point out any wrong doing / illegal actions on behalf of the executive. I get you guys find it troublesome to have police infiltrating groups. My questions is and remains why? Are they breaking any laws by doing so?

Your explanations about police state and facism are fine, but it doesnt answer the question asked, which is why do you feel the actions of police in this case amount to either - a police state or a facist one? What actions were taken by the police to qualify under your defeintion?

reply to post by XL5


The pepper spray incident people are talking about is being mis-reported not only by the media, but by the protestors as well as the University Preisdent themselves.

The President ordered to the police to clear the protestors. Again people dont seem to understand the difference between private property and public property. UC Davis is not a public university on public property - it is private as just about every single college in the US is.

Secondly the protestors were told and given ample warning by the police their actions were not welcome on campus and were told to vacate their location or pepper spray would be used. That portion is conviently left out by anyone who wants to go after the police.

The police not only gave ample warning to leave, they gave warnings that pepper spray would be used if they failed to comply. Only when it was obvious there would be no compliance was pepper spray used.

Here a tip - Learn the law and how it works before bitching of police brutality...

This not only goes for OWS in the US and Canada, but the G-20 summits in Canada as well.

The groups infiltrated failed to do their job to effectively screen members. Thats not thw fault of the police now is it?

So again, how are these actions illegal? How does one go from police state / fascist state with the information present that does not use ignorance of the law or an opinion based on no law at all?

I'm not saying that the use of pepper spray was illegal. They could even have exchanged pepper spray for a bullet in the foot and it would still be legal. What I am saying is that most people know that using pepper spray like that is immoral, that the cops who we *should* be able to hold to a higher standard acted immoral.

Did hitler and his men break any of their laws is what I am saying.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by edog11
Disgusting! Is this a Police-State in the making or is Canada already a full-fledged police state?
And what the hell? Why are people accepting this?!


IT--

edit on 23-11-2011 by edog11 because: Changed the post a little

If you have to ask then you have no idea what a police state is.

The police did not break any laws did they? By laws im referring to whats on the books and not what your personal opinion is.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." -Martin Luther King Jr.

Your argument that it isn't a police state because the police didn't break the law, not only isn't valid, it doesn't make any sense. Of course in a police state the law supports the police in having power, that's the entire concept of what a police state is.

In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous. -Tacitus

Xcath, way to go off topic, and derail a thread. I expected more from you. haha


Anyways, what they are doing is questionable. Obviously it undermines the whole idea of being a free person.
Now I am not condoning communism or anything, but I think the people have a right to think what they want.

If we are not free to have ideas or beliefs outside the social norm, then we are in grave danger of losing all our freedoms.

I think the famous quote that applies is

"I might not agree with everything you have to say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"
Voltaire

Originally posted by XL5
I'm not saying that the use of pepper spray was illegal. They could even have exchanged pepper spray for a bullet in the foot and it would still be legal. What I am saying is that most people know that using pepper spray like that is immoral, that the cops who we *should* be able to hold to a higher standard acted immoral.

Did hitler and his men break any of their laws is what I am saying.

As opposed to the protestors holding a higher standard?

The use of pepper spray and the actions of the Nazis arent even close. I get people find the actions of law enforcement an issue, whether it be pepper spray or infiltrating groups for G-20 events. My question though is why do people have an issue with something that is not prohibited or illegal?

There is no expectation of privacy in public in the US, and thats essentially the same +/- in Canada.

Im not looking to start a fight or to be obstiant. The thread talks about Police infiltrating groups for the G-20 and people in the thread have issues with that. Since no one is picking up the flip side of the converation I am doing it, ehich is why im asking the questions I am.

reply to post by The_Phantom


Again the invocation of Nazi Germany. You guys can do better than resorting to that tactic.

As stated above, I get people have issues with the police infiltrating G-20 groups. My question is why? Are they not allowed to join the groups? Did those groups vet the members who wanted in?

The tone of the OP imo is to suggest that the police did something wrong by infiltrating the group. My question is why?