Now is the time when we juxtapose!

June 30th:

The cops are brutal, jackbooted, not-to-be-trusted thugs who abuse civil liberties, make up their own laws, conduct mass arrests and random searches without cause and generally stomp all over dissent and democracy.

August 26th:

Mr. Policeman is our Friend who has only our very best interests at heart, therefore everything he says must be True.

Go on vacation and look what happens:  you come back to discover that Mr. Policeman has undergone rehabilitative therapy of such intensive magnitude as to render him virtually unrecognizable!

22 Responses to “Now is the time when we <i>juxtapose</i>!”


  1. 1 Jymn Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Good point. Guilty as charged. Gulp.

  2. 2 Cornelius T. Zen Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Good morrow, all!
    “Get this thing straight once and for all. The policeman isn’t there to create disorder. The policeman is there to preserve disorder. ” – Chicago mayor Richard Daley, Sr.
    Ya know, that explains sooooo much…
    What’s the number for 911? – CTZen

  3. 3 JJ Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Jymn – I don’t really care which side of the issue people are on — but consistency does count for a lot with me 😉

  4. 4 JJ Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    CTZen – One of the most stunning truisms ever spoken wrt law enforcement, eh?

  5. 5 Malcolm+ Thursday, August 26, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    Well said. I wonder if most registry fetishists are aware of the draconian elements of the legislation that allow police to search without warrant. (Provisions which have been struck down in Ontario.)

    But neither facts nor consistency matter. The Liberals and Conservatives have conspired to ensure that there can be no rational discussion of firearms regulation. The Conservative weave delusional tales of imminent confiscation while the Liberals demonize responsible gun owners and (ironically) make the Conservative talking points sound credible.

  6. 6 JJ Friday, August 27, 2010 at 2:51 am

    Malcolm+

    I wonder if most registry fetishists are aware of the draconian elements of the legislation that allow police to search without warrant.

    From what I’ve seen, I seriously doubt they’d care. They routinely point *with pride* to stories about police seizure of registered firearms as proof that the registry “works”. To top it off, such stories usually aren’t about a clear & present danger to public safety by someone about to go postal — more often they involve a police internet search uncovering some dumb kid posing with his guns on youtube, and the subsequent raid and seizure of said guns.

    Although I don’t believe ‘registration leads to confiscation’, I can see why some do. Registry supporters, many of them quite open about the fact that they won’t be happy until private gun ownership is banned, make it easy for the CPC to play the confiscation trope to the hilt. Especially when they defend the registry by pointing out that it facilitates police seizure of legally-owned private property. (Um, that’s a bug, not a feature.)

  7. 7 Peter Friday, August 27, 2010 at 3:12 am

    From Chris Selley:

    “The police know best!”

    “The Toronto Star’s editorialists are theatrically bowled over by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair’s arguments in favour of the long-gun registry: (a) that if we register vehicles, why not guns?; and (b) that axing it would reduce “our capacity to keep our communities safe.” As you will have noticed, (a) is an argument for registering absolutely anything, and (b) both begs the question and is spectacularly rich coming from a guy whose idea of keeping our communities safe is arresting hundreds and hundreds of people for no reason. Honestly, it’s just so pathetic when the Star (or anyone else) does this. If the chiefs of police said the sky was blue, they’d send two reporters to confirm. But on the one issue where they happen to agree, our cops are tops!”

  8. 8 JJ Friday, August 27, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Peter – LOL, nice to know I’m not the only one who noticed.

    Glaring hypocrisy aside 😆 as a dumb argument, Blair’s analogy with registering cars would rank right up there on the Worldwide Index of Inanity if there was such a thing. Because it’s probably worth noting that, duh!, unlike guns, cars travel on public thoroughfares; moreover, I’m pretty sure we don’t have to register cars that don’t get driven (ie., “parts cars” that just get harvested for fenders & cotter pins & tail-light lenses). When a gun actually does get taken “on the road”, ie. to the rifle range, a special A to B permit is required for the trip, plus safe storage, and I have no beef with that. Where the long gun registry fits in, I have no idea.

    I could have more respect for the pro-registry side if it wasn’t so rife with that kind of intellectual inconsistency. If the registry works as well as its supporters claim it does, after all this time it should be fairly easy to prove with empirical data.

  9. 9 Niles Friday, August 27, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Abuse by Authority seems to be the main reason the firearms registry has so many opponents. I’ve heard it in direct conversation with experienced firearms people whose rifle cases I am not worthy to carry.

    But isn’t it two separate topics? If the main line of logic behind NOT registering is NOT informing the State how many weapons you own, so State enforcers can NOT confiscate them at subjective will with a shopping list, then isn’t the real concern here a lack of oversight and clear, consequential standards for the law enforcement community in dealing with firearms not being used in a criminal manner?

    And, while you may not have trouble with getting the permit to transport weapons off private property, JJ, that’s a loud part of the growling I hear.

    It’s about ‘too many levels of bureaucracy’, because a/ it’s not convenient for rurals to go and acquire permits and permits for each individual weapon are required b/ allegedly, the police can subjectively refuse to give out a permit for more than one weapon to be transported, or at all and c/ there are corollary restrictions about *how* to transport said firearms in a vehicle, again at police whim, which could be subjectively exploited during a road stop.

    So, again, anecdotally reported of course, the main problem seems to come down to abuse by LEOs being allowed to define on a subjective basis what ‘rights’ a legal firearms owner has and the subjective ability to confiscate said private property.

    I, personally, think the firearms registry is a database that can be useful. I don’t think it’s any different than registering a vehicle, because a firearm is a tool invented to kill living things at distance very efficiently and has a proven historical record of being used to kill living things, domestically and militarily.

    Very often, they *are* taken off private property for use. Use might be target shooting. It might be to kill living things. Even on private property, they can be used to target and impact things off-property. If they are non-functional, like a wrecked car rusting on private property, no, they shouldn’t need to be registered.

    I disagree with costs incurred to register. Just having a realistic overview of what firearms are in Canadian hands would be invaluable to dissect the realities and myths around the subject. I have low objections against an armed populace, and I would be way happier with lots of proper training in firearm use. The more people know, the less crap goes on.

    But anyway, if the firearms registry is a source of information that is being abused by the State, the remedy appears to be that every effort should be made to halt the abusive power of the law enforcement agencies involved, not disintegrating the registry in the belief this will stop the abuse. The registry is a piece of data infrastructure, like the census.

    If we don’t have strong oversight and security in place on our national information, abuse by the State can affect *any* database in Canada that contains personal information on Canadians. We’ve had stark examples of that the last two decades. Internet usage, religious affiliation, air flight plans, etc.

    If we’re that afraid of the State jackbooting us on firearms, that we need to hide from the State, why aren’t we afraid they’re doing the same to everything else? If we are that afraid for everything else, do we need to destroy all those infrastructure databases containing our gathered intellectual awareness? Or do we need to restrict and toothfully monitor the abilities of those with the power to interrogate, detain and incarcerate?

    I think there are a lot of good LEOs out there. I also think they’re not *all* that’s out there wearing a badge and even the good ones are human and vulnerable to becoming a tribalist that looks inward instead of outward. They’ll rise or fall to the level of what they’re allowed to do as peacekeepers.

  10. 10 JJ Friday, August 27, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Niles – Thanks for such a thoughtful comment.

    The reason I point out the inconsistency isn’t to raise an alarm about potential police abuse of registry information (that’s another topic for another post). It’s more of a philosophical question about when the police earned back our trust to the point where we accept their word on things without question. Or is this just when they’re saying something we agree with, such as, “the registry works”.

    As far as permits and licenses go, that’s also another topic. Contrary to far-left fearmongering, most of the anti-registry sentiment I’ve seen focuses on that particular program, not even the other licensing and safety measures passed with it in Bill C-38. Although for sure there will always be people who think there shouldn’t be any licensing, just like there will always be people on the other side who won’t be happy til private gun ownership is banned. But in general, it’s just the long gun registry that’s got so many backs up.

    I, personally, think the firearms registry is a database that can be useful. I don’t think it’s any different than registering a vehicle, because a firearm is a tool invented to kill living things at distance very efficiently and has a proven historical record of being used to kill living things, domestically and militarily.

    It might well be useful on occasion. It’s certainly been useful in enabling law enforcement to seize legally-owned private property now & then. Unfortunately, it wasn’t sold as “occasionally useful”, it was sold as “saves lives!!!”, which I’ve seen no evidence that it does.

    You know, sometimes I wonder if there’d be less resistance to this thing if it had been sold a little more honestly from the start. But I guess we’ll never know…

    the remedy appears to be that every effort should be made to halt the abusive power of the law enforcement agencies involved, not disintegrating the registry in the belief this will stop the abuse.

    Good point, but good luck with that. Lots of people *like it* when guns get seized, whether it’s deserved or not, whether a warrant is executed or not, etc. There’s a fairly large minority of us who think all guns should be seized, and they don’t consider the civil liberties aspect of things (today the cops are seizing my guns, tomorrow they’re cracking your head at a peaceful protest — it’s all interconnected).

    If we’re that afraid of the State jackbooting us on firearms, that we need to hide from the State, why aren’t we afraid they’re doing the same to everything else?

    The long gun registry gets out of proportion attention and resentment, especially out west, because it’s become symbolic of everything people hate about government pandering, waste and weasels in Ottawa reaching out from thousands of miles away to intrude on our business. And as the hysteria has ramped up on both sides, it’s just gotten worse.

    Of course, it doesn’t help that some registry supporters are quite open about the fact that they want private gun ownership banned: the registry immediately becomes suspect when people like that support it.

  11. 11 Bleatmop Friday, August 27, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Great post JJ. I too have been wondering when all the Law Enforcement agencies that were involved in the G8G20 suddenly became credible. That goes double for Toronto Police Chief Blair who is an admitted liar. He’d support anything that gives him more power over civilians. Indeed, he even makes things up that give him more power over civilians, admits to making said “laws” up, then has no criminal charges against him. This is the champion for the pro-registry side?

  12. 12 JJ Friday, August 27, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Bleatmop – It came to me in the proverbial flash of blinding light last week when that Cheliak guy was removed, supposedly because he was about to deliver a report that supported the registry’s effectiveness. I thought: So what? More information is always better, but really, who’d believe anything from any of these Taser-happy fascists, especially after their performance in June?

    But I was wrong: apparently their credibility flucuates in proportion to how much we agree with what they’re saying.

    EDIT: Something else that seems to have escaped the notice of registry supporters who are so willing to give the cops the last word on this thing:

    Cops will never, ever, ever turn down more information on citizens, regardless of whether it’s useful or not. Thus it has always been. I can’t imagine any cop ever saying “Oh, no thanks, we don’t need any more information”.

  13. 13 Niles Friday, August 27, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    JJ, I just find it interesting that there’s a weird ‘destroy the information’ thing going on in the Conservative ideology while at the same time, they’re all about the lawnorder and police as enforcers of kickcrapouttadissenters to Conservative policies, but when the police actually dissent with the ideology, say, with Insite, or the gun registry, just to start, the police are turned on immediately as well.

    If more broad dissenters, who are having their own problems with the ‘kickcrapouttadissenters’ enforcement are looking at the police now getting *their* dissenting butts handed to them and saying ‘welcome to our world, did you snap under the pressure or what?’ Is that any different than looking to the rightwing corner of the blogosphere that is questioning the policies and maltreatment they have experienced and going, wellwell, what have we here?

    The enemy of my enemy is not a new idea. I don’t think the police are a monolithic homogenous organization across Canada. Is it unreasonable to hope that there are commonalities opening up and a shift is underway? People can be wrong on some things and right on others. I don’t know. Maybe it is just yearning on the part of the progressive current in the country to want to welcome the police opinions that show the LEOs are not consistently obedient to the present government.

    Or, as you’ve proposed, do the police agencies have a more subtle agenda that would gain them greater control of people’s private lives? Is that the alleged split between frontline and supervisory levels in LEO agencies? The frontliners are more concerned with not interfering in people’s lives? The supervisory levels want to interfere? Occam’s Razor leans towards what’s simpler, but what’s simpler here? The more leery of the police or the less?

  14. 14 MgS Saturday, August 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    JJ – Respectfully, I have to argue that you are linking two topics together in a fit of jingoism.

    Yes, the police vastly overstepped their boundaries during the recent G8/G20 events … and in doing so damaged their credibility in many dimensions.

    But to argue that this taken in conjunction with the recently unofficially released report about the Gun Registry represents some kind of inconsistency is to ignore the long standing support of the Gun Registry from senior police force officials across Canada. (except possibly in Alberta … but Alberta’s weird in Canada’s political sphere)

    If you want to get worried about something, we should be much more concerned about the degree of involvement that the PMO had in the G8/G20 security arrangements and the nature of the orders that went through the chain of command. The politicization of our police forces under the HarperCon$ is exceptionally dangerous.

  15. 15 JJ Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 9:50 am

    MgS – Whatever side of this issue you’re on, it’s undeniably hypocritical or at the very least, intellectually inconsistent, to condemn the police as liars and fascists on one hand, and then a month later hold them up — unquestioningly — to be the voice of truth on another issue. The fact that they’ve always supported the registry is meaningless to me — their bad behaviour didn’t start at the G20.

    Apart from the hypocrisy, the sheepish “unquestioning” nature of the pro-registry response to police opinion is disturbing. In light of their past performances, the correct response should be something more along the lines of “Well, here’s a significant voice, but maybe we should wonder if they have their own agenda.”

    And ask yourself this: If the police came out against the registry, would their opinion still be so unconditionally accepted as the last word of truth on the issue? I can just imagine the headlines at Progressive Bloggers: “Fascist thugs who presided over G20 police state come out against registry, providing even further proof that it’s a good thing”

    As a blogger, even a very infrequent and discouraged one as of late, I’ve always felt it was part of my “job” to point out hypocrisy and inconsistency and hold it up for the mockery it deserves. If this post had been about conservatives, the comments would be full of “LOLs” and “Right ons” and “Can’t have it both ways!”, but we’re loathe to see hypocrisy when it’s our own.

    The politicization of our police forces under the HarperCon$ is exceptionally dangerous.

    Can’t say I disagree. One of the more interesting sideplays with this registry “debate” (if one could call the shrill shrieking and screaming from both sides a “debate”), is the fact that the CPC and the police are on opposing sides. The conclusion a deep thinker might draw is that while the CPC might milk the registry issue for votes and temporary divisiveness, they ultimately don’t want an armed citizenry any more than the Liberal gun-grabbers do.

  16. 16 JJ Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Niles

    I just find it interesting that there’s a weird ‘destroy the information’ thing going on in the Conservative ideology while at the same time, they’re all about the lawnorder and police as enforcers of kickcrapouttadissenters to Conservative policies, but when the police actually dissent with the ideology, say, with Insite, or the gun registry, just to start, the police are turned on immediately as well.

    I agree that one of the really interesting sideplays going on in the registry freak-out is the fact that the police position is opposite to the CPC position. That should tell us something about whether the CPC really cares if the registry is ditched (I think not).

    Is it unreasonable to hope that there are commonalities opening up and a shift is underway? People can be wrong on some things and right on others.

    For sure, and that’s a valid point to make (I’m not saying it’s right, in this case, but it’s valid). Unfortunately, most pro-reggies aren’t making that point, they’re just accepting the word of the police like sheep, and screaming that it must be true because… they’re The Police!! Even though they wouldn’t be saying that if the police opinion went the other way. That’s the hypocrisy.

  17. 17 Brian Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    As a blogger, even a very infrequent & discouraged one as of late…

    I had something to say, but then realized that, not knowing specifically why you are discouraged, it might not apply.

    Why have you been discouraged, JJ?

  18. 18 JJ Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Brian – Well, I guess it’s because, even though I’m as liberal as you can get on most issues, there are a few things I lean more conservative on and because of that I’ve been called a teabagger 😯 😦 and even kicked off a couple of blog rolls :shock:. It discourages me to realize that all the nicey-nice rhetoric about “progressive tolerance” is just a crock of shit.

    Gee, now I’m even more discouraged after writing that.

  19. 19 Niles Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    JJ:

    Just keep in mind, there are people hanging around your door, ready for tea, arguing and turkey watching.

    Even if the turkeys are not feathered.

  20. 20 Brian Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    JJ,

    Well that’s kind of what I thought.

    I absolutely sympathize. Watching the news go by, seeing how people act, witnessing their failure to think things through, seeing the appalling hostility that people pour forth over the ’net. It just beats you down after a while. It’s both an affront, and it makes you sad for them.

    I helps me see why this & that special adviser to the chief muckety muck in national capitals work for a few years, then say that they need to spend time with their family, and shuffle off the stage. What we see must be a small sip compared to the fire hose they have to drink from every day.

    I’m sorry it’s taking a toll on you. I, of course (as you would certainly guess), am intimately familiar with the lack of tolerance you mentioned, both in general, and the specific flavor you mention. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Indeed, I wish there were no such behavior taking place for anyone to experience…

    I wish I could say something helpful, but I’m afraid it’s all just sad. So I believe the best I can do is assure you that you are not alone.

  21. 21 JJ Monday, August 30, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Niles – And you’re always welcome to be here! (But don’t believe the rumours, I don’t really drink The Tea-Ade.)

    Good news on the turkey front: there are some young’uns! (Bad news: the cats killed one of them. Hopefully that tragic event won’t make the family relocate.)

  22. 22 JJ Monday, August 30, 2010 at 10:57 am

    Brian – Thanks for expressing your solidarity… you do know that’s a socialist thing, eh? 😉

    But seriously. You seem pretty fearless of offering dissenting POVs on sites that aren’t onside with you ideologically, and I’m sure it means being rewarded with a fair amount of abuse. It’s too bad, because we can learn a lot from dissenting views, but the prospect of abuse means there are precious few who will leave their ideological comfort zones to offer them. (There’s plenty of trolling on both sides, but that doesn’t count.)

    I’ve occasionally had a rational, intelligent conservative offer a perfectly valid but dissenting viewpoint here, only to be instantly attacked and disparaged as a brainless wingnut and his/her point ignored or mocked. They usually don’t come back. But then, I don’t go back to conservative sites where my input is met with a barrage of insults like “LIBTARD! Babykiller!” either.

    The gun registry debate has obviously spun way out of control, with both sides shrieking incoherently at each other and no middle ground. I guess liberals are upset that they will probably lose this one, so view anyone who isn’t onside as The Enemy. Oh well, them’s the breaks.


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,637
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: