# "Agents Provocateurs"



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

YouTube - Stop SPP Protest - Union Leader stops provocateurs

You be the judge, just for fun.

I find the behaviour of the guys in question to be suspicious. Very suspicious. At the same time, would police be so dumb as to do that with such a small true protest group, such poor play-actors and, apparently, no sensible exit strategy? At that point, I'm not sure which would be more worrying, the tactic or the incompetence.



CNW Group

I would like to hear more about this news conference. I guess I could have just walked over there. :baby: 


There's also some stuff about matching soles on the boots of the police and "protestors". I'm not sure how much that means, and I hope that's not the "proof" referred to in the link above.

A picture:
montebello20aot050highlcv4.png (image)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

LOL. Thanks for the links. I needed a good laugh.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Beej said:


> There's also some stuff about matching soles on the boots of the police and "protestors". I'm not sure how much that means, and I hope that's not the "proof" referred to in the link above.
> 
> A picture:
> montebello20aot050highlcv4.png (image)


I believe that's the Vibram company's logo on the bottom of the shoe/boot. I have it too on the bottom of my Rockports. :lmao: 

http://www.vibram.us/images/insidepages/vibram_logo.jpg


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It turns out that it was part of the proof, although the tread pattern is also the same unless there has been a lot of photo editting. That's weak and not "proof" -- it is also particularly stupid of the police if the accusations are true.

Still, that video is just odd. The suspects (of something) move closer to the police, one of them chats a little, and they push a little and get hauled off. The old guy was a little scary with the screaming, but scarier than cops in riot gear? The whole thing was theatric. Too strange but not evidence of anything. Maybe just a slow day on the protest circuit, maybe something else.

So I wait...

For more pre-judging by ehmacers! It is usually quite easy to get quick judgements based on little evidence. Maybe my mistake was in asking for the judgements.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can't see anything in any of those links to convince me that anything happened to be upset about.

Seems to me if protesters mask themselves they should be dispatched from the scene. 

They remind me of anonymous phone callers who dislike my columns. I ask them once for their name and phone number before I will listen to their comments. When they refuse, I simply hang up on them, no courage of conviction and all.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I find it odd that in spite of the fact that one of the hooligans was holding a chunk of rock, the police did nothing even though he was standing right in front of them. I guess it's okay so as long as you don't do anything.

The fact that the boots are all the same makes it even more suspicious. But what can you say? Sometimes police send undercover officers to scope out troublemakers in the crowd. I never thought they'd be the ones causing the trouble.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

When the 'leaders' met in Quebec City, police followed peaceful demonstrators until out of sight until the press, and beat them. Couples out walking, who had nothing to do with the demos, were assaulted if they ran into the police. Forget about due process.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I disagree with you Beej.
The government has tried to paint the protesters has radicals and Harper has bizarrely called them "sad". Image if the provateurs had started a riot, what would the media be reporting?
If you look at the pictures these are a cross-section of the population - heck they look like older people for the most part - the media would not be saying that grandma rampaged....

So how does one feel about the establishment playing such a role? Tying to discredit people in a democracy by there transparent tactics. Yes they were "outted"this time, but what about the next? And does it make you trust them more now? Were did the order come for such a move.


Now the boot angle seems to be one that some are latching onto to dismiss the claims.
Odd how the "protesters" have the same (as in exact) soles as police boots (Vibram 134AR).

While much of this is circumstantial, did you actually think that there would be more proof? Yes the stupidity is endemic in the police force but such tactics would not be disclosed publicly. 











Looking at the video there is something "odd" about the whole police/"provacteurs" behaviour. They "provateurs" instead of running away from the police seem to want to run into their arms. Can't wait to hear the official lies... uhmm I mean spin...

It's lovely to have democratic rights undermined....


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Would any of us be really surprised if this were all true? 

Of course they're stupid enough. Have you ever asked a few wannabe cops why they want to be cops? They want to use guns and kick some ass. 

There are some legit heroes in there, but few and far between. I like the good ones. 

This is not beyond our leader's powers, morals and abilities. And he can't be much worse than many of the other politicians.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of radical political groups in the U.S., such as the Black Panthers, Ku Klux Klan, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The activities of agents provocateurs against dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Yevno Azef is an example of agent provocateur.
> New York Police officers have been accused of acting as agents provocateurs during protests against the Republican National Convention in New York City


Agent provocateur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I disagree with you Beej.
> ...........
> While much of this is circumstantial, did you actually think that there would be more proof?


With what part?
...........
There will need to be more "proof" than the same soles and the odd behaviour in the video. Or do we just whip out a rope and find a tree now, AS?  I do appreciate the judgement though; I was asking for it after all. 

More seriously, another reason for independent oversight/ombudsmen roles. Who investigates the provincial police in QC?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Yawn.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Right Beej.
Cops usually arrest people with huge rocks at protests then let them go no charges. I don't think so. Notice that ex cops have now spoken out and said these are cops. Liberals and NDPers have also. Notice the guy talking to the cops before they "arrest" them. This tactic is not new in Canada and failed miserably in this case. 
I find this very disturbing and if you don't, you deserve the police state that this kind of action is a precursor to.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Right Beej.
> Cops usually arrest people with huge rocks at protests then let them go no charges. I don't think so. Notice that ex cops have now spoken out and said these are cops. Liberals and NDPers have also. Notice the guy talking to the cops before they "arrest" them. This tactic is not new in Canada and failed miserably in this case.
> I find this very disturbing and if you don't, you deserve the police state that this kind of action is a precursor to.


Calm down mm. 

I have, from the start, called the whole thing suspicious. Very suspicious. 

I just would like evidence. You may also note that in other crime threads, I'm not one to jump around demanding that we hang em' high. Investigate, evidence, prove etc. Those silly things that some (note: some) seem to value on occasions coincident with their underlying politics.

Ideally we would get an independent investigation but, often, police forces investigate each other. This is a problem I have with how we try to keep our law enforcement accountable. Bloggers have come up with some interesting ideas, including having the loud old guy present charges for assault (he was, technically, assualted) to get some names. Good stuff but, longer term, oversight and investigation needs to be improved.

As for your "value" judgement about what I must find very disturbing, lest I deserve a police state and your standard over-the-top prognostications of things to come, thanks. For as long as I can remember, people have been screaming about Canada becoming a "police state". It also occurred before I was born. It's turning into the, "Kids these days" silliness from social conseratives. 

Anyone can choose their definitions but please try not to delude yourself into thinking that your take on how this is "very disturbing" somehow means that others must feel the same lest *insert mm's objective logical conclusions*. 

Thanks for the input though. If you find a good source of analysis outside of the standard Canadian bloggers, post it. I've tapped out on useful sources.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader


CBC website said:


> Retired police officer believes masked men were cops
> 
> Meanwhile, a retired Ottawa police officer who was formerly in charge of overseeing demonstrations for the force said he questions who the masked men really are, after viewing the video.
> 
> ...


You can take offense if you want to. I stand by my words. If people don't express outrage at this kind of action we will be sure to see more of it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader
> 
> 
> You can take offense if you want to. I stand by my words. If people don't express outrage at this kind of action we will be sure to see more of it.


What action?

You do not have enough evidence to make a conclusion. There is only circumstantial evidence. Looking into somebody's eyes is not evidence. Vibram soles on shoes is only circumstantial. If you look closely you will also notice that all three of them are also wearing shirts and pants. Coincidence?  

Let's see how the police respond. Maybe they have evidence to show who these three people were.

So far, there is nothing to be outraged at the police about.

I am outraged that a group of 20 professional protesters gets so much media coverage. Maybe if a 1000 people showed up it should be covered, but 20? Give me a break. Harper is right.... sad.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> You can take offense if you want to. I stand by my words. If people don't express outrage at this kind of action we will be sure to see more of it.


Seeing more of it is a little different than your logic of deserving some sort of inevitable police state in the same way that more of things like the CBC is different than deserving some sort of inevitable communist empire. Get it?

As for outrage it needs to be measured but forceful to draw in the public. Not yelling and screaming with the standard police state and/or nazi references etc. That gets ignored. 

Pin these guys down by getting the police forces to answer a question that would force them to lie and keep pressuring for a public inquiry. This is a valuable occurence with footage and a peaceful protest; it should not be left to fall into the vague mound of "accusations" and such that always swirl around. 

This event can offer a clean break from the hooligan "activists" that turn the public off because it offers the potential for clear proof (ie. not just boots and funny behaviour). From there, if an inquiry can be initiated and the outcome is clear, a follow-up can be done for previous protest events. 

All this stuff takes time but letting it end up, if it is what it seems, as a reprimand and a couple sorries would be a missed opportunity. This could be the lever to get the public interested enough to get the ball rolling. 

APEC, if I recall correctly, was about police violence (correction anyone?), not implementing a strategy to incite violence. That's a big fish to fry and, as I've said, a real solution is not a one-off outrage-fest but actually changing everyday police oversight and investigation.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Or do we just whip out a rope and find a tree now, AS?


More proof will be needed or course.

Beej, I do think there should be an investigation but by whom?

The reason is that they are just too many coincidences and odd behavioiur by the "protesters" in question.
Talk about a coincidence: Police and protesters wearing the same boots
Talk about a coincidence: Protesters arrested but no record of it
Talk about a coincidence: Protesters mask stays on during arrest. Even Lasagna could not do that...
Talk about a coincidence: Walking into a police line with no rough housing.

The whole episode is sleazy.

And of course the lying and back-peddling from the Police.


> *Officers never posed as protesters: Quebec police*
> The RCMP and Quebec police force have denied allegations their officers posed as protesters to try to provoke peaceful demonstrators at the recent Montebello summit.


Contrast with today


> *Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest*
> Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html


Of course in this climate of where some would like to deny the obvious (I'm pointing you out VD), what do you expect...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> More proof will be needed or course.
> 
> Beej, I do think there should be an investigation but by whom?


That's the problem. Maybe you know the QC system but, as an anecdote from Edmonton, one or more problems were investigated by "independent" officers from the Calgary police department. Does that sounds sensible? 

As such, the priority is not really a given event, but getting the public -- who have many things on their mind, from health care to work to savings etc. -- to care. 

The unfortunately standard approach seems to be to scream extremes and then act aghast at the "brainwashed" masses (ie. those that dare not share the 'passion'). Maybe their priorities are just different (not maybe: they are) than the screamers'. A clear and taped (plus follow-up evidence) event of this having nothing to do with the arse'ole hooligans is valuable if only for the possibilities. 

In the end, the public is constantly being asked to consider 1000 different things "very very" important. Making it into the top 10 (in a specific sense, not just general concepts) would be a major achievement.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I know the QC system (in details I would prefer not to) and while they are some good officers, it would take a lot of outside political pressure to get to the truth. 

The protesters have already been tainted (seems the sad label is sticking). To me this is not about sharing the passion but of the tactics used in a democracy. I'd like to trust the authority to act in a neutral way not like some goons in a police state.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Beej said:


> Calm down
> 
> Thanks for the input though. If you find a good source of analysis outside of the standard Canadian bloggers, post it. I've tapped out on useful sources.


Just in from the Home Office in Upthewazoo Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'd like to trust the authority to act in a neutral way not like some goons in a police state.


For the most part? Sure. For important details, no. The job results in a natural cohesion (as people distinctly separated from average 'Joes and Janes') and the institutional structure enforces this. Truly independent oversight (not unusual, to my knowledge) and investigative powers (far less common) are needed.

At the same time, I do not expect to have the right to toss rocks at city hall and and batter officers over a political disagreement (property taxes, trade, regulations, lawn darts etc).

That's why the separation of hooligan from provocateur (on video, if true) is so vital to raising the issue's importance in the public water-cooler talk.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

I really think this needs more plugging:

Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest
*Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest*

"Police said the undercover officers were only at the protest to locate and identify non-peaceful protesters in order to prevent any incidents."

Really.

"At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts," the police force said in French in a news release. "It is not in the police force's policies, nor in its strategies, to act in that manner."


"At all times, they responded within their mandate to keep order and security."



It doesn't matter if they're within their strategies or policies, who commands them?



"Keep order and security" sounds so "homeland security-ish".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

BigDL said:


> Just in from the Home Office in Upthewazoo Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest


kinda hard to deny when that pic posted by AS showed ALL the police, undercover and otherwise, were wearing the same jackboots


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

darkscot said:


> I really think this needs more plugging:
> 
> Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest
> *Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest*
> ...


after 9/11 "pre-emption" is the new game in town


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Going undercover is not the problem but that knowledge can help, within the context of a proper investigation, with knowing who to question first.

The notion of taking away the ability to operate undercover would be nonsensical, but inciting mobs is different.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Going undercover is not the problem but that knowledge can help, within the context of a proper investigation, with knowing who to question first.
> 
> The notion of taking away the ability to operate undercover would be nonsensical, but inciting mobs is different.


Did these 3 guys incite a mob? I don't think so.

Why haven't the police said if their people were the ones with masks?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Did these 3 guys incite a mob? I don't think so.


 No but they tried.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Did these 3 guys incite a mob? I don't think so.
> 
> Why haven't the police said if their people were the ones with masks?


TheStar.com - News - Quebec police admit agents posed as protestors


> Earlier, the police force had denied altogether any of their officers were involved.
> 
> The police said after viewing a video clip from YouTube and video shot by police officers, they were able to confirm the three were Quebec provincial police officers.


That is admitting that the masked men were cops with the SQ. If you took the time to watch the video you would see one of the cops with a big rock in his hand. I suppose he was planing to do something legal with it?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

martman said:


> TheStar.com - News - Quebec police admit agents posed as protestors
> 
> That is admitting that the masked men were cops with the SQ. If you took the time to watch the video you would see one of the cops with a big rock in his hand. I suppose he was planing to do something legal with it?


oh I'm sure he was just trying to blend in


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I still think that there should be an investigation.

Given the seemingly provateurs could have been politically motivated. If this was done to try and discredit the protesters there should be an inquiry.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Why haven't the police said if their people were the ones with masks?


...uh.... _would you_ admit to it? Admit to masquerading the "protect and serve" folk as armed anarchist thugs?

Vandave, no disrespect intended, but reading your posts makes me wonder what planet you're on. Why this apparently blanket (and blind) support/defence of the police? 

Heck, my family includes a father (retired / deceased) and son (active duty) in the RCMP, and the red serge is -usually- something for which I have great respect. But I also recognize the reality that security forces at the state / provincial / municipal level are not always serving the interests of the people, and too often are agents of repression. The use of "agents provocateurs", if proven, is a major black eye and will diminish the respect of the people for those who are supposed to guarantee our freedoms, not guarantee a head-bashing trip to Gitmo.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> The use of "agents provocateurs", if proven, is a major black eye and will diminish the respect of the people for those who are supposed to guarantee our freedoms, not guarantee a head-bashing trip to Gitmo.


Well now that the SQ has admitted to having 3 officers there.

Bizzarely, they say that the agent provocateurs in the YouTube video are SQ agents but did nothing illegal. 
So I guess next time I'm at a protest, I'll be able to be masked, carry a rock and walk around in my Doc's...

I'd like to see who authorized this farce. 
What does our public safety minister say?


> With the proof caught on video, Quebec provincial police were forced to admit Thursday that three undercover agents were playing the part of protestors at this week’s international summit in Montebello, Que.
> Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day rejected opposition calls Thursday for an inquiry into agents role in trying to provoke protesters into violence at this week’s North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.
> “I’ve made the inquiries and there was no RCMP that were involved as far as those three individuals go,” Day told reporters after making a crime-prevention announcement in Winnipeg.
> “If people have concerns ... there is a complaints process for the RCMP. There is also one for the Surete du Quebec. This incident happened in Quebec, so I imagine people could also file under that complaints process.”


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/249291

This incident erodes public trust in the police. As NWA once stated **** the Police.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So, who are the agents provocateurs on ehMac?

Everybody, check those boots!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> What action?
> 
> You do not have enough evidence to make a conclusion. There is only circumstantial evidence. Looking into somebody's eyes is not evidence. Vibram soles on shoes is only circumstantial. If you look closely you will also notice that all three of them are also wearing shirts and pants. Coincidence?
> 
> ...


How's the Corneille, VD?


PS. Does that count as "provocation" ?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Here is the full story according to the star. 
TheStar.com - Canada - Quebec police admit using provocateurs


> Quebec police admit using provocateurs
> 
> Aug 23, 2007 09:33 PM
> Steve Lambert
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> ...uh.... _would you_ admit to it? Admit to masquerading the "protect and serve" folk as armed anarchist thugs?


Why? Because sometimes it is better to come clean right away rather than have people find out later. Martman's link confirms that they did admit the three in the video were indeed the ones in the YouTube video. The CBC article was not specific to answer the question. 



CubaMark said:


> Vandave, no disrespect intended, but reading your posts makes me wonder what planet you're on. Why this apparently blanket (and blind) support/defence of the police?


Heard of innocent until proven guilty? I think the police deserve a little latitude and time to respond before we all go off the handle and start pointing fingers. If you read my earlier post you will see that I said let's wait to see what the police say. 

It doesn't look good on them that they didn't come out with the truth right away. 

I agree with AS that an inquiry is warranted.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The protesters have already been tainted (seems the sad label is sticking). To me this is not about sharing the passion but of the tactics used in a democracy. I'd like to trust the authority to act in a neutral way not like some goons in a police state.


I think the protesters come out looking good. At first I didn't believe the police would do this, but I respected the union guy for confronting people who were dressed like they wanted to create violence (and holding a rock). I hope more people do this in the future.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Vandave said:


> At first I didn't believe the police would do this,


Why not?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I agree with AS that an inquiry is warranted.


And if Stockwell is stonewalling one, what will you say?

Now that the partial truth is out I wonder how far this will be pursued.

The police statement is full of lies. They insist that they did not want to provoke yet the police are the ones refusing to put down the rock. They are the ones pushing the legitimate protesters. Seems the only one wanting violence were the provocateurs. 
This is Canada, not some third world police state where they do this kind of thing.

So the SQ is working on their alibi (hope they get it straight soon), Stockwell is saying the RCMP is not involved (maybe not, but I'm sure all police forces worked hand in hand). 

Incidents like this lead to people distrusting authority. I'm just glad that there was no violence - now time to investigate further.


----------



## Monkeyman eh? (Jul 26, 2005)

> Police said the trio’s cover was blown when they refused to toss any objects.


I was glad that they had responded to the criticism, but this is just a blatant lie. It's obvious that they were being told to put the rock down, and that it was a peaceful protest. I really hope they don't get away with it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

darkscot said:


> Why not?


It doesn't surprise me the police would have observers. The part I find surprising is that they would dress up like anarchists and carry rocks around. I don't see the purpose in doing that, aside from the conclusion others will make about their real intent (i.e. provocation). As before, I will reserve judgment until evidence shows otherwise.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And if Stockwell is stonewalling one, what will you say?


I can't predict what I will say until the story develops because all the facts are not yet available.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It doesn't surprise me the police would have observers. The part I find surprising is that they would dress up like anarchists and carry rocks around. I don't see the purpose in doing that, aside from the conclusion others will make about their real intent (i.e. provocation). As before, I will reserve judgment until evidence shows otherwise.


Credulous aren't we?
So why did the cops have rocks in hand? (Wonder if these were police issue).
This is rather bizarre but one can easily see how they may have wanted to incite violence. Luckily nothing happened, but this is not a small incident.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I still think that there should be an investigation.
> 
> Given the seemingly provateurs could have been politically motivated. If this was done to try and discredit the protesters there should be an inquiry.


Yep, definitely. For now I think this just involves the QC police but one step at a time. 

"The police said after viewing a video clip from YouTube.com and video shot by police officers, they were able to confirm the three were Quebec provincial police officers."

Up until that point they had no clue? Right. They were able to confirm that they were caught.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Next steps: The politicians will likely try to slip around this, but you never know. Maybe somebody gets fired, maybe not. 

Given that, if ehmacers notice a (credible) fund being put together to either pursue legal action or just generally lobby for a full public inquiry, please post about it here. I'll start setting aside a little beer money just in case.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Credulous aren't we?
> So why did the cops have rocks in hand? (Wonder if these were police issue).
> This is rather bizarre but one can easily see how they may have wanted to incite violence. Luckily nothing happened, but this is not a small incident.


Uhhh.... I am not the one making conclusions with little evidence. I am saying that we should first see the evidence before jumping to conspiracy conclusions. That is the opposite of credulous.

It is bizarre because they could have just dressed normally, rather than like anarchists. We need to know why.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

My guess is that they had a plan that involved a larger crowd and, bizarrely, did not abort even though it was obvious that they were too many trying to fit in with too few, not to mention too big and too old for the way they were dressed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> My guess is that they had a plan that involved a larger crowd and, bizarrely, did not abort even though it was obvious that they were too many trying to fit in with too few, not to mention too big and too old for the way they were dressed.


They should just come clean on the whole matter. I imagine they would have had a briefing session with quite a number of people present. If there were negative intentions, I think it will come out. 

Personally, I doubt there was a conspiracy to incite violence. I think they were expecting a repeat of previous events with anarchist types creating violence. The police may have thought that dressing up like them would enable better intelligence collection.

But it is strange that they wouldn't abort their assignment when hardly anybody showed up and when the crowd was clearly peaceful.

I bet they felt stupid when the union guy called them out. :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

They certainly acted stupid. It reminds me of a Moore episode of Awful Truth (or possibly one of his films) where he finds out that in at least one place the police test has a maximum score cutoff as well as the usual minimum. I think the explanation was that really bright go-getters would tend to be dissatisfied with the job and leave (thus costing the loss of much in training expenses). That was worrying/understandable. Worrystandable?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> They should just come clean on the whole matter. I imagine they would have had a briefing session with quite a number of people present. If there were negative intentions, I think it will come out.
> 
> Personally, I doubt there was a conspiracy to incite violence. I think they were expecting a repeat of previous events with anarchist types creating violence. The police may have thought that dressing up like them would enable better intelligence collection.
> 
> ...


and what purpose did the rock in the hand of a QC undercover police officer serve?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> They should just come clean on the whole matter.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I doubt there was a conspiracy to incite violence.


That's why they were carrying large rocks and refused to put them down when asked then demanded to. I don't trust their motives in this for one second.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

darkscot said:


> I really think this needs more plugging:
> 
> Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest
> *Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest*
> ...


Of course that's only because they were caught before they could pull it off. 

Time to remind the man he is there to protect you and me, not to protect the professional criminals aka PMs, Prezs etc from the consequences of their own stupidity.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Of course that's only because they were caught before they could pull it off.
> 
> Time to remind the man he is there to protect you and me, not to protect the professional criminals aka PMs, Prezs etc from the consequences of their own stupidity.


the answer to all erosions of the public good and rights; "9/11"


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

In the annals of all the stories of North American police dealing with demonstrators, this may be the only time that people carrying large rocks approaching the police were not shot by the police, without question because the police knew them to be police.

The "conspiracy" goes way beyond a handful of rock-handlers.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> They certainly acted stupid. It reminds me of a Moore episode of Awful Truth (or possibly one of his films) where he finds out that in at least one place the police test has a maximum score cutoff as well as the usual minimum. I think the explanation was that really bright go-getters would tend to be dissatisfied with the job and leave (thus costing the loss of much in training expenses). That was worrying/understandable. Worrystandable?


Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.... the Judean People's Front did not want the People's Front of Judea to attend their protest... I wonder how many shekels the police had to pay for that rock.... how many protesters were there looking for Chater recognition for the right of men to have babies?...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

While we are on a security humour kick


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> While we are on a security humour kick


Even funnier, we are those terrorists they were fighting! :lmao:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

> In 986, Bjarni Herjolfsson, experimented navigator and adventurer, left Norway to reach Iceland close to the winter. He found that his father had left in a fleet led by Erik the Red to colonize a huge land situated to the west and attractively named "Greenland".


Native Canadians had security issues long before...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Somebody had, "dibs"?

Interesting notion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Native Canadians had security issues long before...


no guns tho


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

martman said:


> That's why they were carrying large rocks and refused to put them down when asked then demanded to. I don't trust their motives in this for one second.


I loved the explanation that the undercover police were handed the rocks by "extremists." What, were they wearing nametags? "Hi, my name is Fred and I'll be your extremist for this demonstration"?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ComputerIdiot said:


> I loved the explanation that the undercover police were handed the rocks by "extremists." What, were they wearing nametags? "Hi, my name is Fred and I'll be your extremist for this demonstration"?


:clap:  :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ComputerIdiot said:


> I loved the explanation that the undercover police were handed the rocks by "extremists." What, were they wearing nametags? "Hi, my name is Fred and I'll be your extremist for this demonstration"?


Well it seems that this whole incident will be labelled under "police incompetence" instead of addressing the more disturbing questions.

Who stood to gain from a peaceful protest turning ugly?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well it seems that this whole incident will be labelled under "police incompetence" instead of addressing the more disturbing questions.
> 
> Who stood to gain from a peaceful protest turning ugly?


They just updated the international standard graphical English dictionary with a picture of you beside the word 'naive.'


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Here However this is for you:


> "The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence," Day said.
> "They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That's the irony of this."


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/08/24/ot-montebello-sq-070824.html?ref=rss

So let's recap.
You send infiltrators to a demonstration.
They stand out so bizarrely that they are outed as undercover.
A video shows up on YouTube where you can clearly the marchers asking these undercover morons to drop their rocks.
The undercover goons get "arrested".
By the magic of photography, you see that they "arresty" have the same exact soles as the fascist squad.
Those pointing out that out get called moonbats.
SQ denies having any agent provateurs
Recant their story under mounting public pressure admit to 3 (wonder how many more).

There is no rationale for the way the police acted. Given that this was a summit where all police forces collaborated, it would be nice to have some kind of inquiry. 

If you agree that our government should be undermining democracy and trying to instigate violence then yes place that Harper picture besides "naive".

Hey Stock, the police were video taping that day (and that incident), maybe you could release the tape from the police angle? I'd like to see the SQ and Stock back up their claims. Only seems fairs, right?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> They just updated the international standard graphical English dictionary with a picture of you beside the word 'naive.'


and yet Stockwell "Doris" Day believes man walked with dinosaurs

perhaps God told him to install those infiltrators into that peaceful demonstration?

what would Jesus have done?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Such tired over used lines Michael. You really need to update your material.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Such tired over used lines Michael. You really need to update your material.


Alberta needs to update its decades old gov't
PC = natural ruling party in AB

and Doris needs to update his history
oh, and before I forget, did Doris ever pay back the money his big mouth cost the tax payers of Alberta when he was successfully sued?

yeah, when pigs fly and when cons don't try to setup peaceful demonstrators as "violent"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yeah, when pigs fly and when cons don't try to setup peaceful demonstrators as "violent"


Geez, what a stretch. Cons on the Quebec police force? Spare me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Alberta needs to update its decades old gov't
> PC = natural ruling party in AB
> 
> and Doris needs to update his history
> ...


Don't you know MS, the police did nothing wrong because they did not use the rocks. While that is so, I think that the way things played out is mostly the reason...

Makes you wonder about why Stock arrested those Toronto "terrorists" - they never blew up the CN tower or parliament*.

* please note that I think our so-called intelligence services encouraged the TO terrorists...


----------

