Police undecover agents try to start violent protest

[Ancalagon]

Ugh

This kind of stuff has NO place in a democracy! I would be quick to discount this if I didn't know that the RCMP hadn't already tried similar tactics in the past...

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/248608


Police accused of using provocateurs at summit

Aug 21, 2007 09:14 PM
Canadian Press

OTTAWA – Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que.

Such accusations have been made before after similar demonstrations but this time the alleged "agents provocateurs" have been caught on camera.

A video, posted on YouTube, shows three young men, their faces masked by bandannas, mingling Monday with protesters in front of a line of police in riot gear. At least one of the masked men is holding a rock in his hand.

The three are confronted by protest organizer Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Coles makes it clear the masked men are not welcome among his group of protesters, whom he describes as mainly grandparents. He urges them to leave and find their own protest location.

Coles also demands that they put down their rocks. Other protesters begin to chime in that the three are really police agents. Several try to snatch the bandanas from their faces.

Rather than leave, the three actually start edging closer to the police line, where they appear to engage in discussions. They eventually push their way past an officer, whereupon other police shove them to the ground and handcuff them.

Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot.

Kevin Skerrett, a protester with the group Nowar-Paix, said the photos and video together present powerful evidence that the men were actually undercover police officers.

"I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful," he said.

The three do not appear to have been arrested or charged with any offence.

Police confirm that only four protesters were arrested during the summit – two men and two women. All have been charged with obstruction and resisting arrest.

Veteran protester Jaggi Singh, who is helping to circulate the video as widely as possible, said all four of those arrested are known to organizers and are genuine protesters.

"But we see very clearly in that video three (other) men being arrested . . . How do (police) account for these three people being taken in, being arrested? Where did they go?" Singh said.

"I have no hesitation in saying they were police agents . . . and they were caught red-handed."

Singh, a member of the Montreal-based No One is Illegal, believes the agents were meant to provoke a confrontation and give the police an excuse to use some of their "toys," such as tear gas and rubber bullets.

"To a certain extent it's self-fulfilling logic. You provide police with this kind of equipment and they end up using it and one way to justify it is to plant some people that toss a rock or two."

Neither the RCMP nor the Surete du Quebec would comment on the video or even discuss generally whether they ever use the tactic of employing agents provocateurs.

"I cannot answer your question because I don't have the information," said Const. Kane Kramer, a spokesman for the RCMP at the summit.

[Northcott]

I become very disturbed when I read this kind of shit.

When I was doing research on gangs for a story I'm working on, I ended up stumbling across the national police association's newsletter; the older editions have copies in the national archives on the government website. One of the newsletters mentioned an officer being in trouble with his fellows because he'd accidentally ratted them out to a reporter; that there were several high-level officers across the nation who were deliberately presenting the gang problem to the media as worse than it really is, with the goal of spooking the public into pressuring politicians to allocate more funding.

It wasn't crooks making a harebrained claim. And the newsletter's brief article didn't try to claim that it wasn't the case. That freaked me out more than a little.

I was very anti-authoritarian in my youth, and came to buy into the pleasant illusion of our social structure over a period of years. I really dislike signs that my younger self may have been more right than I'm comfortable with.

[Pigs in Space]

Oooooh.

Government Toppling scandal?

Bring on the youtube.

[Freedom Canadian]

Okay, I have been quite out of touch, what with me being at Gen Con and everything, so I know nothing about what happened in Montebello. I have also not seen the video in question. However, working in the quartermaster division of one of the police organizations involved, let me dispel some misconceptions right now.


Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot.

That is hardly evidence. Police use commonly available boots. They like to use the most popular (and most comfy) models of work boots, in fact.



Kevin Skerrett, a protester with the group Nowar-Paix, said the photos and video together present powerful evidence that the men were actually undercover police officers.

I bet they were. So what ? Of course police organizations try to infiltrate protesters. I mean duh.

And they might even stand there with a rock to attract potentially violent protestors.

And then when their covers are threatened because they fumbled their infiltration attempt, they might even get arrested on purpose so that it will look good when they try to make friends with a real troublemaker later on.

And sometimes they will do all that in a stupid way and fail miserably.

I'm just speculating, mind you.


The three do not appear to have been arrested or charged with any offence.

Fact: Most people detained during a manifestation are released without being charged.



"I have no hesitation in saying they were police agents . . . and they were caught red-handed."

Red-handed ? Because it's wrong to infiltrate protesters now ? Pshaw !


Singh, a member of the Montreal-based No One is Illegal, believes the agents were meant to provoke a confrontation and give the police an excuse to use some of their "toys," such as tear gas and rubber bullets.

Now that is just ridiculous. All these large anti-globalization protests attract violent protesters. That's a fact. Tear gas will have to be used at some point. No need to go actively causing trouble.

Besides, did these guys actually throw their rocks ?



"To a certain extent it's self-fulfilling logic. You provide police with this kind of equipment and they end up using it and one way to justify it is to plant some people that toss a rock or two."

Oh yeah, "policemen are psychopaths". I've never heard that one before. :rolleyes:

Not to mention the sheer amount of collusion needed to plan something like this. You are talking about the people in charge of the riot squad wanting to test their toys (which they do 50 times a year already) and asking the people in charge of security intelligence (another department altogether) to purposefully start trouble. You'd need to get a lot of people to keep that secret.

Not to mention also that success for these kinds of operations is measured in how little violence happens, so this would be kinda counterproductive to the officers in charge's commendations and career plans.

Not to mention finally that I know the people in charge of riot stuff at the Sûreté and they would be appalled at something like this.

Fuck you for making me defend cops online Anc. And on my vacation time, no less. :mad:


I become very disturbed when I read this kind of shit.

That's only because you're gullible. :p

When I was doing research on gangs for a story I'm working on, I ended up stumbling across the national police association's newsletter; the older editions have copies in the national archives on the government website. One of the newsletters mentioned an officer being in trouble with his fellows because he'd accidentally ratted them out to a reporter; that there were several high-level officers across the nation who were deliberately presenting the gang problem to the media as worse than it really is, with the goal of spooking the public into pressuring politicians to allocate more funding.

Now this I have no trouble believing. Thanks for restoring my faith in cop-bashing, Northcott. :)

[Harry]

Cops have been doing this ever since, well, ever. And hey, it's not like every cop gets the cool gig...

[Northcott]

Now this I have no trouble believing. Thanks for restoring my faith in cop-bashing, Northcott. :)

I serve to aim. Or something like that.

I always hate running across that kind of shit. Our society strikes a tenuous balance between freedom and safety as it is -- forces that try to push it one way or the other make me uncomfortable. Particularly when it's that minority of cops who justify the prototypical excuse of crooks: "Cops are just crooks with badges, man. The only difference is public opinion."

Whenever the cops do something to undermine public trust in them, it makes me twitch. Why lie when the truth is bad enough as it is? That big drug bust against the Hell's Angels in Thunder Bay a year or two back? They claimed that they'd nailed 16 members of the gang.

One of those so-called members was a 60 year old man who had nothing to do with the gang. I can't remember if he was satisfied with the apology (he was only a neighbour who'd been seen talking to an HA member at unlucky times), or if he's suing. One of the HA members who was busted was Andre... crap. I can't remember his last name, now. He's big with the boys around here. He was busted here in the Tri-city area -- he sold a motorcycle to an undercover cop, and something in the deal allowed them to nail him under tax laws. Charges were fought and dropped, as they were shakey to begin with.

Still, based on charges from the taxation laws, he was flown out to Thunder Bay so that they could count him among the number of Hell's Angels caught in this drug bust. Last I heard, he was suing for defamation of character. It doesn't help that, in spite of his gang ties, the guy hosts charity dinners for the underprivledged, and is widely known in his community for not only being a family man, but for supporting various charities.

It's having dug up this kind of shit that leaves me shaking my head whenever I see reports of the latest big police busts. I often wonder how many good officers are risking their necks on the front lines, making raids into dangerous terrain, just so that some bureaucratic bigwig behind a desk can play their petty little wanna-be Machiavellian games.

[Freedom Canadian]

It doesn't help that, in spite of his gang ties, the guy hosts charity dinners for the underprivledged, and is widely known in his community for not only being a family man, but for supporting various charities.

To be fair, this describes actual Hell's Angels too. :)

It's having dug up this kind of shit that leaves me shaking my head whenever I see reports of the latest big police busts. I often wonder how many good officers are risking their necks on the front lines, making raids into dangerous terrain, just so that some bureaucratic bigwig behind a desk can play their petty little wanna-be Machiavellian games.

Yeah, like everyone, they want to maximize their "score". And the number of arrests is a score that is easy to measure (and boost, I guess). I hate scores.

[Northcott]

To be fair, this describes actual Hell's Angels too. :)

I'm tired, so I probably wasn't clear. The 60 year old dude and Andre... Dupuis? No, that's not it. It's a French name. Anyway, the old dude and Andre are two different people. The old guy was busted by accident, and Andre, who is a local HA (and some say chapter leader) was flown in to pump the numbers.

Andre's son died in a freak accident a few years ago. He was playing out on the wooded hill behind their house, stumbled, took a bad fall at the wrong angle, and broke his neck while tumbling down. I felt for the guy. He looked utterly destroyed by the death of his kid. The resulting funeral, where HA members from all over converged on the area, was a zoo -- HA patches everywhere, and cops nearly tripping over each other to photograph and take notes on who was showing up.

Having read Sonny Barger's autobiography, he makes the HA sound like Libertarianism taken to the Nth degree.


Yeah, like everyone, they want to maximize their "score". And the number of arrests is a score that is easy to measure (and boost, I guess). I hate scores.

Me too. It's a bullshit line to sell the public. The real problems are bad enough without exaggerating what exists.

[Ancalagon]

More details!

A photo comparing the boots. If this hasn't been doctored, I think it shows that the protesters and the police are wearing the same boots.

http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=montebello20aot050highlcv4.png

A video of the confontration between these suspicious "protesters" and others protesters.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

I'm going to note at this point that I have seen these "protesters" shove legitimate protesters more than once during this video, which is technically assault.

I bet they were. So what ? Of course police organizations try to infiltrate protesters. I mean duh.

And they might even stand there with a rock to attract potentially violent protestors.

I'm sorry Heavy G but that's BS - that is NOT ok. Those other "potentially violent" demonstrators might not have done anything - but hey, 3 big tough guys with rocks in front, I guess it's on!. It's inciting others to commit crime, and it's WRONG.

Furthermore, if this is so "ok" to do, why is the police denying it?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/248866

[Freedom Canadian]

I'm sorry Heavy G but that's BS - that is NOT ok. Those other "potentially violent" demonstrators might not have done anything - but hey, 3 big tough guys with rocks in front, I guess it's on!. It's inciting others to commit crime, and it's WRONG.

How are they inciting others to commit crimes ? :confused:



Furthermore, if this is so "ok" to do, why is the police denying it?

Not being a mind reader, I wouldn't know. Possibilities include:

1) They didn't do it. (I've already explained why the boot thing means jack squat, though I admit the rest of it sounds very fishy and these guys were likely cops. I mean, masked violent protesters are usually stupid kid types, not paunchy men in their 40s. Stupid cops. :lol:)

2) They know that while it's all perfectly legal and legitimate, the public will freak out due to not understanding law enforcement (like people complaining that policemen shot a violent guy with a knife due to their not understanding the use of force model), so they feel that the best PR move is to lie.

3) While the infiltration thing was legitimate, the shoving thing went too far and they are trying to protect the policemen involved.

or more likely

4) They are denying trying to incite violence but not infiltrating protestors.

[Ancalagon]

How are they inciting others to commit crimes ? :confused:


it's mob mentality. People in large group can easily get violent - yet you usually need an instigator for that to happen. The infiltrators, by their violent *appearance* (big, masked, near the police, weapons in hand) are giving "moral support" to others who otherwise would have hesitated to start a fight. It's the same if they had been standing in the back and chanting "fight! fight! fight! fight!". That too could have started a riot. But instead of using words, they used non-verbal language.

Of course, we'll never know what would have happened, since that union leader was quite energetic in shouting them down.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

They're cops. What are the odds that three troublemakers would be wearing the same make of boot, which is the same make of boot that cops wear? Common type of boot or not, I'm hard-pressed to match any of my footwear to somebody elses, because there are many diffrent manufacturers and models of footwear. It's like three guys having the exact same model of car- it almost won't happen unless the cars are issued by a company.

[Ancalagon]

They're cops. What are the odds that three troublemakers would be wearing the same make of boot, which is the same make of boot that cops wear? Common type of boot or not, I'm hard-pressed to match any of my footwear to somebody elses, because there are many diffrent manufacturers and models of footwear. It's like three guys having the exact same model of car- it almost won't happen unless the cars are issued by a company.

Ok that nails that part - I mean, one guy having the same boots as the cops, could happen, but three?!?

So now not only do we have cops committing reprehensible acts, we have *incompetent* cops. Sheesh!

Ancalagon

P.S. A friend of mind said it far better than I could:

This is, to say the least, disturbing. The police seem to be increasingly defending the status quo, seeing anyone who criticizes it as a threat. In order to nullify that perceived threat, they appear to be willing to undermine the vital political discourse of protest and demonstration and deceive citizens in order to build a case for putting people away.

It wouldn't be the first time the police profile protesters as likely offenders and attempt preemptive measures designed to trigger illegal activity in a "controlled" situation. Because they are an arm of the government, however, they are structurally unable to do this in a politically neutral way. As a result, movements for political change are unjustly suppressed and stifled, and the status quo is preserved beyond its viability. Because real public opinion remains invisible, changes are delayed until they are liable to be explosive, with the attendant disruption and possible violence.

If police currently use undercover provocateurs at political demonstrations and protests, they must stop doing so. The short-term gains they might achieve in maintaining "law and order" are too likely to be greatly outweighed by the resulting long-term loss of respect for the law and the police, and by the violent eruption of voices too long silenced.

[Janos]

Ok that nails that part - I mean, one guy having the same boots as the cops, could happen, but three?!?

At the same time, how stupid would cops have to be to wear their work boots to a protestor's rally while incognito? They aren't amateurs, and that is an extremely amateur mistake.

[Northcott]

At the same time, how stupid would cops have to be to wear their work boots to a protestor's rally while incognito? They aren't amateurs, and that is an extremely amateur mistake.

They're not amateur cops, but they may well be amateurs at breaking the law. ;) I can buy into the idea that it was poorly planned thuggery. I can also believe coincidence to an extent.

Either way, a big enough stink is being made about this that the information will likely come out in the wash. I'm curious to see what comes of it.

[Freedom Canadian]

it's mob mentality. People in large group can easily get violent - yet you usually need an instigator for that to happen. The infiltrators, by their violent *appearance* (big, masked, near the police, weapons in hand) are giving "moral support" to others who otherwise would have hesitated to start a fight. It's the same if they had been standing in the back and chanting "fight! fight! fight! fight!". That too could have started a riot. But instead of using words, they used non-verbal language.

Here is my snarky response: "Yeah, the fact that they were not throwing rocks was inciting people to throw rocks."

Here is my actual response: "I know where you are coming from, but it still doesn't mean that infiltrating violent sub-groups in large protests is not necessary and legitimate. Now I will grant you that if these guys were cops (more likely than not), then they were doing a half assed job of it, standing in a place with mostly peaceful-type protesters."




Of course, we'll never know what would have happened, since that union leader was quite energetic in shouting them down.

And rightfully so, IMO.

They're cops. What are the odds that three troublemakers would be wearing the same make of boot, which is the same make of boot that cops wear?

Common type of boot or not, I'm hard-pressed to match any of my footwear to somebody elses, because there are many diffrent manufacturers and models of footwear. It's like three guys having the exact same model of car- it almost won't happen unless the cars are issued by a company.

Actually, it's more like three guys having cars made by the same american car company.

That yellow thing is a maker's brand (I forget which one), not a model-specific mark. It's like a Ford logo, not like a Ford Taurus logo.

And there are only a handful of companies that make these types of boots in Canada. Of course, protesters could use any kind of footwear, not being limited to canadian-made soft-toed work boots like riot squad troopers are.


Ok that nails that part - I mean, one guy having the same boots as the cops, could happen, but three?!?

Two, actually. We don't see the third one's boots. And the photo only shows one cop's boots (no, they don't all wear the same brand).



So now not only do we have cops committing reprehensible acts, we have *incompetent* cops. Sheesh!

Well, if you think cops are evil, then you should be happy that they are incompetent. :p



P.S. A friend of mind said it far better than I could

LOL, right. :rolleyes: Typical anarchist ramblings from someone who doesn't know how things are done. The thing is, I realize that this is exactly what it looks like from the outside. In fact, I used to think like this before I started working for The Man.

Here's the flaw in that whole argument: The police never prevent protesters from protesting anything. In fact, according to the protesters here, only 4 people were arrested in the whole protest. All other protesters were allowed to protest to their heart's content.

The truth is that cops don't care about people's political views. The reason they crack down on anti-establishment protests is that people very rarely do pro-establishment protests. :rolleyes: And in fact, in over 90% of all protests, the police don't have to intervene at all. Or I guess in your mind, they fail to achieve their goal of suppressing dissenting opinions more than 90% of the time. We are back to incompetent evil cops.

Now there is a real tendency towards stifling discourse, but it's more about keeping protesters hidden far from the medias by drawing huge security perimeters and using "free speech zones" ( :mad: ) and such.



At the same time, how stupid would cops have to be to wear their work boots to a protestor's rally while incognito? They aren't amateurs, and that is an extremely amateur mistake.

Mmh, if we were talking about actual infiltrators, then they would be pros and nobody would ever know anything about it. They are, after all, guys who make their living infiltrating organized crime and risking their lives if they are caught, so infiltrating some protesters would be nothing. These guys are ninja-scary.

But if it was just like "hey, we want to know if those black bloc guys plan on making trouble this afternoon, so you three, dress up in civies and go check it out", then they would probably not have other shoes and just figure that people won't check the underside of their boots. And really, the fact that they got caught at all means that if they were cops, this was a botched and probably improvised thing.

I don't know, I can see it happening, but only if it's an unplanned thing.

[Freedom Canadian]

Either way, a big enough stink is being made about this that the information will likely come out in the wash. I'm curious to see what comes of it.

Yeah, hopefully.

[Northcott]

Mmh, if we were talking about actual infiltrators, then they would be pros and nobody would ever know anything about it. They are, after all, guys who make their living infiltrating organized crime and risking their lives if they are caught, so infiltrating some protesters would be nothing. These guys are ninja-scary.

But if it was just like "hey, we want to know if those black bloc guys plan on making trouble this afternoon, so you three, dress up in civies and go check it out", then they would probably not have other shoes and just figure that people won't check the underside of their boots. And really, the fact that they got caught at all means that if they were cops, this was a botched and probably improvised thing.

I don't know, I can see it happening, but only if it's an unplanned thing.


Excellent point. And I can see somebody's balls being in a sling over that last minute decision if the media starts up enough of a frenzy.

[Trainz]

Come on FC... these agents are placed in groups of protestors (which is a legal act, freedom of speech and expression) not to detect trouble makers but to voluntarilly turn the protest into a violent event, thus allowing cops to end the protest, therefore removing freedom of speech.

That's not Ok. Not at all bud. This has a totalitarian edge that as a democratic citizen you should rise against.

[Freedom Canadian]

Come on FC... these agents are placed in groups of protestors (which is a legal act, freedom of speech and expression) not to detect trouble makers but to voluntarilly turn the protest into a violent event, thus allowing cops to end the protest, therefore removing freedom of speech.

I'm sorry, Trainz, but I'll take my "knowing how police operations are planned and what objectives they go after and knowing the people involved (the guy in charge of half the riot cops in the province was my immediate superior up until two months ago, for one)" over your "leet mind reading conspiracy theorist skills". No offense. :)

But that's sophism, right. Appeal to knowing what the fuck he's talking about or something like that ? ;) So let's use logic instead.

Your rationale could work if we were talking about a small protest. In these cases, if people get rowdy and the riot squad intervenes in force, they break down the protest completely.

But this is a large protest we're talking about. Even if the police intervene in one place, only a few protesters get arrested and the rest scatter and are free to go protest a few hundred meters down the line. There is no way to stop a protest this large through police intervention, thus trying to stir shit up intentionally does nothing but give you more work and increase the chances a cop will get hurt.


That's not Ok. Not at all bud. This has a totalitarian edge that as a democratic citizen you should rise against.

Yeah, if an independent inquiry (which it sounds like we'll be getting if the politicians have their ways) reveals that stirring stuff up was indeed these guys' motivation and not trying to infiltrate violent protesters to stop trouble before it starts, then I'll be right up there with you raging against the machine, man.

[Trainz]

Yeah, if an independent inquiry (which it sounds like we'll be getting if the politicians have their ways) reveals that stirring stuff up was indeed these guys' motivation and not trying to infiltrate violent protesters to stop trouble before it starts, then I'll be right up there with you raging against the machine, man.

I have a pitchfork, you bring the torches.

[Freedom Canadian]

I have a pitchfork, you bring the torches.

Deal !

[doc]

Well if y'all want to come South, Arkansas is good about accepting and helping rufugee's.

[Freedom Canadian]

Oh yeah, because american cops are better than canadian cops. :)

Anecdote: When I was working in strategic planning, I had to attend a meeting of SQ bigwigs because I had a minor point to bring up late in the meeting. At the time, the canadian equivalent to the patriot act had just been passed (bill C24 maybe ? Can't remember...) and they were discussing how we could go about making sure these increased powers would not be (ab)used to help regular criminal investigations but only to thwart terrorism. :)

[Varaj]

Not a cop, have no cop relatives, etc.
I got to agree with bucktooth on this one. Hell just on motivation alone the conspiracy theory is really weak. Most anti-establishment conspiracies fall in the same place that no moon landings do.

[there_is_no_bob]

Reading the original article (I'm not going to watch the video, on account of being a lazy fucker), there's no indication that they actually tried to incite anything. They stood around and looked like thugs. Then they were asked to leave and they got themselves "arrested".


I'd say they may have been cops, and it was a dumbassed move if they were, but they didn't actually try to cause any problems.

[Bagpuss]

Devil's advocate

If you had a crowd of angry protesters accusing you of being cops wouldn't you want to get protection. The old folks weren't the only protesters there there were a group of other masked figures behind.

[Ancalagon]

The police has admited it was them:

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

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

That's a "creative" way to look at it! :mad:

[Lisa Nadazdy]

The police has admited it was them:

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



That's a "creative" way to look at it! :mad:

Genius! :gnasher:

So, it looks like they were there to try and start a riot and break the protest, or at least make the protestors look bad. I can't think of any other reason that these fakes would be picking up rocks. :mad:

[Freedom Canadian]

So, it looks like they were there to try and start a riot and break the protest, or at least make the protestors look bad. I can't think of any other reason that these fakes would be picking up rocks. :mad:

Then you haven't read the full thread or the article linked to. I've already explained that it's the radical elements they would have wanted to infiltrate, not the mom and pop protesters and thus they would need to look like radicals.


That's a "creative" way to look at it! :mad:

Indeed. :rotfl:

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Then you haven't read the full thread or the article linked to. I've already explained that it's the radical elements they would have wanted to infiltrate, not the mom and pop protesters and thus they would need to look like radicals.


It looks like they did a shitty job, didn't they? Considering that the crowd spotted them right off, and they were intent on keeping the protest peaceful, it makes the cops look like instigators, not to mention just plain incompetent.

[Northcott]

It looks like they did a shitty job, didn't they? Considering that the crowd spotted them right off, and they were intent on keeping the protest peaceful, it makes the cops look like instigators, not to mention just plain incompetent.


Whether through malice or good intent, the raw fact is that they bungled it in rather spectacular fashion. I actually feel kind of sorry for the shmoes. Can you imagine the flak they're going to catch from superiors, the heat on them from the press, and the endless ribbing they're going to get about this from their comrades over the coming years?

[Freedom Canadian]

Whether through malice or good intent, the raw fact is that they bungled it in rather spectacular fashion.

Yup.

In this thread, I was denying bad intentions, not bad execution. :D

[Northcott]

Yup.

In this thread, I was denying bad intentions, not bad execution. :D


Truth! The problem is that one is usually confused with being the other. This'll be a black eye unless they clear it up, and quick.

[Ancalagon]

it seems that the Surete du Quebec is going to revise its practices. I've highlighted in bold some sailant points (IMO).

If some of the allegations are true, it is looking *very* bad for the police forces.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070825.YOUTUBE25/TPStory/National



MONTEBELLO SUMMIT
Sûreté du Québec to review practices
Police say undercover officers were not at protest to incite violence; union leader to file charges


CAMPBELL CLARK , INGRID PERITZ and IAN BAILEY

August 25, 2007

OTTAWA, MONTREAL, VANCOUVER -- The red-faced Sûreté du Québec promised to review their practices after three of their officers were caught posing as protesters trying to confront a line of officers at this week's Montebello summit.

Both the provincial police and federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day defended the police infiltration of protests as legitimate work, however, and insisted that the officers were trying to prevent violence, not incite it.

At the same time, the union leader who confronted the undercover officers, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada president David Coles, said he intends to file charges against the provincial police officers. He and opposition politicians have demanded an inquiry, insisting the police tried to discredit protests by sparking violence.

Videotaped footage of the incident shows the three disguised Sûreté du Québec officers wearing masks and holdings rocks in their hands, walking near a phalanx of officers in riot gear, while Mr. Coles tries to shoo them away, demanding they put down their rocks.

The officers refuse, and one swears and shoves Mr. Coles, and the union leader begins to accuse them of being police officers.

Chanting youths from the so-called Black Bloc told Mr. Coles that the three had been trying to get them to act more aggressively against the police.

Yesterday, a senior Quebec Provincial Police officer, Inspector Marcel Savard, said the clip shows only a portion of the events.

Earlier, the undercover officers had infiltrated a separate group of "extremists" and one of them handed an officer a rock, he said. The officers left the group and ended up in a crowd of peaceful demonstrators.

"He had a choice, a very quick choice to make," Insp. Savard said. He held onto the rock because "he was still hoping that his cover was good ... he never had the intention of using that rock."

He added that undercover work is a legitimate, and standard, form of police work. "If there are methods or procedures that need to be changed or adjusted, you can be reassured, that will be done," he said.

The force had initially denied that their officers were disguised as protesters, but admitted it after the footage circulated widely on YouTube.

Neither Insp. Savard nor Mr. Day would say yesterday whether the RCMP, which was in charge of security for the summit, gave the Quebec force permission to deploy undercover officers. Mr. Day said that information was "operational details that I don't get into."

After a news conference in Vancouver, Mr. Day said he would not deter police from using such tactics

"You can't start getting politicians making the calls, saying, 'It's okay for you to use undercover agents in this drug operation over here, but you can't use them in that over there,' " he said.

He said he got assurances that the RCMP does not instigate violence.

[b]Mr. Day also said that the three officers were identified because they were not throwing rocks like other protesters - although reporters at the scene said they did not see extensive rock-throwing until long after the incident with the undercover officers.

Critics did not buy Quebec Provincial Police's explanation and said Ottawa has to give the public a more detailed accounting.

"Does this mean the next time there is a demonstration against the war in Iraq or to preserve health care, we may be in a situation where there will be police officers holding rocks?" asked NDP MP Peter Julian. Mr. Coles said he believes the police acted on political orders to discredit protesters, and that an inquiry would find that politicians gave the police orders, just as they did at the 1997 APEC protests in Vancouver,

"They were sent in to agitate, to try to create trouble," Mr. Coles said. "I say the politicians are in this up to their eyeballs. They were at APEC and they are in this one."

Martin Courcy, an expert in conflict management who has advised several police forces in Quebec, including the SQ, says the mere fact an officer was holding a rock was an act of provocation.

"They could serve as models to others, and in that sense there's provocation," he said. Police infiltration is meant to defuse conflicts. "In this case, they didn't defuse conflict, they provoked conflict."

[Northcott]

Oh yeah. Somebody's going to be walking a beat again.

[Freedom Canadian]

it seems that the Surete du Quebec is going to revise its practices.

You know, I could have told you they would say this. If there's a more standard way for that organization to say "we're sorry this happened but we don't acknowledge any wrongdoing on our part", I don't know it. :D



Chanting youths from the so-called Black Bloc told Mr. Coles that the three had been trying to get them to act more aggressively against the police.

Pfff, yeah, like those guys are credible. If not for them, there wouldn't need to be heavy security at these summits. The union leader's accusations are much more credible.




"Does this mean the next time there is a demonstration against the war in Iraq or to preserve health care, we may be in a situation where there will be police officers holding rocks?" asked NDP MP Peter Julian. Mr. Coles said he believes the police acted on political orders to discredit protesters, and that an inquiry would find that politicians gave the police orders, just as they did at the 1997 APEC protests in Vancouver,

That would be highly surprising. If RCMP officers had done this, okay, but the Sûreté du Québec answers to the provincial government, not the federal government. And the Québec government has no incentive to discredit protesters attacking the federal government. And we don't have a good enough relationship with the feds to accept such an illegal order from RCMP officers.

[Prorpger]

"I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful," he said.


Best line from the article from the OP.