Comment 63899

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted May 23, 2011 at 13:59:18 in reply to Comment 63863

But it was not all rioting - Montrealers arrested while sleeping in as school gymnasium are not "rioters" protesters marching at queen's park where Premier McGuinty asked them to protest are not "rioters" and if people were rioting, the police would have ample evidence to lay charges.

Also, civil disobedience is not a crime.

Your statement that "the lack of widespread charges confirms my belief that the police were being diligent in trying to round up the criminals and letting the rest go" is particularly puzzling since no one was "let go" until a day or two later, and the majority of people ended up being released. If I may, I would suggest that you would see 100 arrests of innocent protesters as acceptable if it resulted in the arrest and prosecution of 1 "rioter"?

Similarly do you think it alright to search 100 random residences "in the area" of a kidnapped child if it means you catch one kidnapper?

You might feel these actions are acceptable, but Charter and the Courts say otherwise. You know, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, right NOT to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

This will be the last I have to say on the matter. I think the two of us clearly understand where our opinions differ, and where there are commonalities, and I think it's equally clear that neither of us will convince the other to change their position.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds