Thread: Quebec Police Confess to Fake Protestors

Originally Posted by Vortex

And how many anti-war protests have you attended?

Been exposed to two.

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

Im not sure if it's me you wanted the apology from - my ire was directed at roboddon and was about the violence he imagined in that video... I never heard anything about cops undercover until the morning after, and am not really surprised. I'd be very surprised if a guy throwing a rock was, but I dont know... seems kind of counter productive. Why wouldnt the cop's agenda be everyone protests and goes home without breaking the law. What do they have to gain by instigating dressed as protesters?

All they get from a rowdy group is a roudy group that they have to deal with, they have to be filmed handling, and they have to defend in court. I don't see the angle in it for them to stir shit up.

Frankly I'm stunned a few hundred grannies and 6 goons was all that Quebec had to offer George Bush. I was half-expecting the city to burn.

I'd take a day off work and invest in a bellaclava if he graced Vancouver with his presence.

There is some one on this board that called me a liar on a previous post. He said that they were not police, this person went as far to call me paranoid something or another. This person also made it clear that no apology will be given, which blows as I gave him a green a couple of days ago and now I cannot red him. But rest assured, I will take my green back.

Quebec police admit agents posed as protesters
Deny role of undercover officers was to provoke violence at summit of North American leaders
Aug 24, 2007 04:30 AM
Steve Lambert
Sidhartha Banerjee
Canadian Press

MONTREAL–With the proof caught on video, Quebec provincial police were forced to admit yesterday that three undercover agents were playing the part of protesters at this week's international summit in Montebello, Que.
But the Quebec police force denied they were attempting to provoke protesters into violence. Rather, they said the three were planted in the crowd to locate any protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating. Police said the trio's cover was blown when they refused to toss any objects.

"At no time did the Quebec provincial police officers act as agents provocateurs or commit criminal acts. Also, it is not part of the policy of the police force nor is it part of its strategy to act in this manner. At all times, the officers responded to their mandate to maintain law and order," the Sûreté du Québec said in a news release last night.

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.

Earlier, both Quebec police and the RCMP denied any of their officers were involved.

-snip-

TheStar.com - Canada - Quebec police admit agents posed as protesters

This series of posts is a classic case of people without the facts making assumptions that are absolutely incorrect.

1. it is standard operations procedure for ALL police forces to place observers undercover in mass demonstrations-there is no conspiracy-to charge someone with inciting a riot, one needs a witness to evidence who incites the others to engage inviolence-to the police officers are placed in the crowds to conduct surveillance and if need be serve as legal witnesses in court to testify as to who incited others to commit acts of violence;

2-at no time did the police give rocks to anyone, incite anyone to commit a crime or engage in a crime-in fact when they were given rocks by people inciting others, that is when they had to blow their cover-precisely because they could not engage in a crime, i.e., throwing the rocks, or in any way be seen condoning a crime;

3-the undercoevr officers turned themselves in with the rocks;

4-people like some of these posters relying on selected tapes, see only cops with rocks and then made all the remaining false assumptions;

5-not only did the police not give out any rocks or incite anyone to use rocks but they made it clear they would not throw the rocks when asked;

6-the people who handed out the rocks have never denied they handed them out;

7-the original people who claimed the police had rocks and tried to infer they were inciting others when questioned admitted the police did not incite anyone and refused to engage in rock throwing;

8-the only people upset about this incident are people with the preconceived notion that anything the police do is automatically evil and wrong.

The final point is the most obvious-freedom of assembly and speech is not absolute in a democracy and the police have an obligation to monitor large crowds and assure anyone inciting others to commit violence or damage to property are arrested and charged.

Demonstrating peacefully is one thing-handing out rocks and telling your followers to throw them at police to demonstrate is a crime and its absolute bullshit.

Peaceful demonstrators don't engage in rock throwing. Period.

Now you want to try make this non issue an issue that does not exist-be my guest but some of us believe democracy allows people to have tantrums but not where those tantrums engage in violence.

You want to pee in your pants over a political issue be my guest-pull it out and wet others, then you have a problem with society and its called a crime against society.

Originally Posted by roobarb

This series of posts is a classic case of people without the facts making assumptions that are absolutely incorrect.

Watch the video and you will see that it is you that is making assumptions that are not correct.

These officers were there to provoke.

Originally Posted by roobarb

This series of posts is a classic case of people without the facts making assumptions that are absolutely incorrect.

1. it is standard operations procedure for ALL police forces to place observers undercover in mass demonstrations-there is no conspiracy-to charge someone with inciting a riot, one needs a witness to evidence who incites the others to engage inviolence-to the police officers are placed in the crowds to conduct surveillance and if need be serve as legal witnesses in court to testify as to who incited others to commit acts of violence;

2-at no time did the police give rocks to anyone, incite anyone to commit a crime or engage in a crime-in fact when they were given rocks by people inciting others, that is when they had to blow their cover-precisely because they could not engage in a crime, i.e., throwing the rocks, or in any way be seen condoning a crime;

3-the undercoevr officers turned themselves in with the rocks;

4-people like some of these posters relying on selected tapes, see only cops with rocks and then made all the remaining false assumptions;

5-not only did the police not give out any rocks or incite anyone to use rocks but they made it clear they would not throw the rocks when asked;

6-the people who handed out the rocks have never denied they handed them out;

7-the original people who claimed the police had rocks and tried to infer they were inciting others when questioned admitted the police did not incite anyone and refused to engage in rock throwing;

8-the only people upset about this incident are people with the preconceived notion that anything the police do is automatically evil and wrong.

The final point is the most obvious-freedom of assembly and speech is not absolute in a democracy and the police have an obligation to monitor large crowds and assure anyone inciting others to commit violence or damage to property are arrested and charged.

Demonstrating peacefully is one thing-handing out rocks and telling your followers to throw them at police to demonstrate is a crime and its absolute bullshit.

Peaceful demonstrators don't engage in rock throwing. Period.

Now you want to try make this non issue an issue that does not exist-be my guest but some of us believe democracy allows people to have tantrums but not where those tantrums engage in violence.

You want to pee in your pants over a political issue be my guest-pull it out and wet others, then you have a problem with society and its called a crime against society.

Bull, the cops are the ones with rocks in their hand.

Imagine doing that, what type of a disconnect from humanity is required?

There will be law suits, this will come out, then you may wash the egg from your face. Until then, by by.

From what I was able to see, and read, it does indeed look like it was the "undercover" police trying to incite violence among the protesters, and the protesters themselves who were trying to get them to behave.

Maybe I've missed a piece of fact somewhere, but from everything I've seen, this is the case....and its very, very disturbing.

Originally Posted by mpano66

From what I was able to see, and read, it does indeed look like it was the "undercover" police trying to incite violence among the protesters, and the protesters themselves who were trying to get them to behave.

Maybe I've missed a piece of fact somewhere, but from everything I've seen, this is the case....and its very, very disturbing.

Thats exactly what happened. If these peaceful protesters did not stop them, the cops would have opened up on everyone there. They should all be ashamed of their actions, and I hope they have a miserable life.

Disguised Canadian police upset peaceful protesters

A video recently posted on YouTube documents a strange occurrence at a recent protest during the recent Montebello Summit in Québec, Canada, which has activists questioning the motives of police, and suspicious that the orders came down from the Prime Minister's office.

Masked men were spotted near the riot police, who held back despite one man holding a large rock, himself and two others appearing to attempt an incitement to riot. The three were confronted by other attendees and eventually handcuffed and taken away.

During the confrontation, one of the three appears to be talking directly to one of the officers.

Union President Dave Coles at a recent news conference: "The Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada believes that the security force at Montebello were ordered to infiltrate our peaceful assembly and to provoke incidents."

In addition to the video footage, the three suspected plants wore the same brand boots, as evidenced by the soles, as the Sûreté du Québec riot police. Neither the SQ, nor the RCMP, commented; each initially denied planting agents provocateurs.

"Oops. Somebody took a picture," quips Coles.

Former police officer Doug Kirkland, who runs a private security, says that planting undercover police at protests is beneficial when used to root out true troublemakers, but, says Kirkland while viewing the video footage: "That's a very slippery slope."

Continues Kirkland, "I think you're stretching the bounds of proper police intelligence when you're doing that kind of work."

Sûreté du Québec later issued a press release confirming that the three men in question were indeed officers, there to maintain order rather than disrupt the protest, and that no crime was committed.

Long-time lawyer for activists Lawrence Greenspon calls for politicians to act.
"There's a serious issue about proper police conduct here," says attorney Lawrence Greenspon, a longtime defender of protesters.

"I think the people that represent us in the legislature should be looking at some form of legislation that says 'Wait a second. This is not proper use of police resources, and we should be setting guidelines.'"

"This is the face of it," says Dave Coles, "where people can't even ask a question without having to face these kind of goons," referring to riot police, who are said to attempt to incite violence with aims to suppress speech, even when the activity takes place in designated spaces.

"It's time that all the secrecy and backroom deals end."

Minister of Safety Stockwell Day deflects blame from the RCMP, encouraging utilization of the "complaints process" available through the SQ.
The following video clips are from CBC News.