digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest.

cbc.ca — Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protests at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que. The police came under fire Wednesday when protesters accused the force of planting undercover officers in the demonstration to provoke violence.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • SilverBack101, on 10/10/2007, -6/+135Keep the pressure on the news media so that they won't let this story disappear! We need more investigative journalism!
    • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -18/+22Yeah, my wife is on the phone with Matt Lauer right now. I'll have her pass along your concern before she hangs up.

      It's kinda tough for mobs of people who get their news off user-generated content websites (and use ABP to boot) to put any sort of pressure on any sort of news media (other than the Diggs and Reddits). Commence burying, but you know it's true.
      • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33Nixon, all I can say to you is that your type of cynicism is what got us so complacent in the first place. Have you ever actually called a news agency? They want to hear from you and get a story. It is NOT true that when an injustice and infringement of civil liberties has taken place that all we can do is sit by and say "That's life and I have no power". Seriously, that is what any power authority wants you to do. There is nothing wrong, (should be celebrated) to standing up and making your voice heard against tactics that are clearly unconstitutional.
        • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Haven't you heard? Apathy is in.
          • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Someone tried to tell me that, but i didn't bother listening
    • mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37Let's all dress up in black with bandannas over our faces and rocks in our hands and stand outside the police department. "We're not here to instigate... promise!" I love the officer with the crooked hat. Straight up Gangsta!!
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Great analogy!
        • kutateli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
      • LeeJunFan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That's exactly what people there need to do.
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Wow, Canadian journalists actually have balls?
      • dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8WTF? Who are you to say they have no balls? Based on what? A Canadian journalist and his cameraman embedded in a military convoy in mission were injured two days ago in Afghanistan by a bomb/mine; two military men died in that incident. The cameraman lost his leg. Now, I challenge you to show more "balls" than this. Douche.
      • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Nope sorry, they don't. They did a horrible job investigating and reporting this issue.
        "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."
        *****! If you watch the video, they were clearly called out when they refused to remove their identify themselves by removing their bandanas. They are trying to cover this up!
      • aristotle0dude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Only the female ones do.
    • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16So, where are all the people that called everyone who could tell these were police tin hat wearing fools? Hello? Any of you out there?
      They seem to have run away.
      • nost4lgic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4There IS investigative journalism...it's just all centered and or concentrated on why Nicole Richie is shopping at Baby Gap, and thus the problem with the modern world.
      • digichris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6They all re-mounted their high-horses, and rode away into the sunset.
    • digichris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I submitted the story to WSVN 7, which covers South Florida. Hopefully they will broadcast something about it, or at least put it up on their website. I would suggest everyone else do the same, try to at least get this story on local news stations.
    • WikiYourRights, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The SPP is a way to further the agenda of creating a global corporate/police state!

      http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/3232/A_Laboratory_for_Latin_America_s_New_Militarism

      That link will give you great insight into what can happen when police go unchecked. Seriously, READ THIS ARTICLE and BOOKMARK it, MAIL TO EVERYONE!!! People MUST know!

      Also... Bush's Paraguay Land Grab
      http://www.counterpunch.org/cp10202006.html
  • awch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+50The google translated media release from the Sûreté du Québec:

    http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.suretequebec.gouv.qc.ca%2Faccueil%2Fcommuniques%2F2007%2F20070823_02.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

    Keep in mind that yesterday they denied that the protesters were from their force.
    • artdwpmt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+52OK, so we were lying yesterday when we said there were no undercover officers there. But we're telling the truth today when we say there were, but that they did nothing. Honest.
    • Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -29/+2Since when has any information ever gained immediatly after the fact been accurate. Takes a while for stuff to filter up to the top people and then filter back down to the media people on how to handle it and until then common practice is always to deny.

      Anyways infiltrating protesters to keep an eye on people causing problems is common practice and since these officers didn't start a single thing that's where the story ends unless people want to indulge in more ungrounded conspiracy theories.
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36Then why were they the only ones with a rock in hand?
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Conspiracy theory? They were cought - red...errrr... ROCK handed!!! How can you defend this crap?

        Please tell me you are not a Canuck.
      • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Yaz, C'mon! These wankers had rocks and refused to put it down. Look at that video again and tell me with all honesty that if you can trust this tactic? Is this not the same as planting cocaine on an innocent man or doctoring a crime scene to suit your version of the story? These guys were just caught before they could do something like that. You must likely trust your police force and I guess that is a generally a good thing, but you need to trust your Constitution and Charter more.
      • AbortRetry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11They were caught with a rock, a beer bottle, a baton, and their own personal gas masks.
        Here's the link that you can ignore 'cause it doesn't fit into your conspiracy theory of the events
        http://www.cupe.ca/gallery/albums/montebello-monday/Montebello_20_ao_t_049.sized.jpg

        Case closed. These 3 were up to NO good, and all it's gonna take are some afidavits from the protesters that witnessed it.

        Also, EVEN if you ignore the provocation element, two of these cops are clearly seen assaulting citizens. The puffy eyed guy grabs and later shoves the Union leader. The blonde tall cop clearly grabs a protester by the wrist. There's 2 cops committing 3 assaults. Their names should be pretty easy to find once the charges get laid.

        It's a pretty sad state of affairs when these crooks need to be video taped and policed by citizens, and then some moron gets on here defending their actions like they did nothing wrong.

        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are a lot of big government lovers on digg who are completely ***** clueless.
      • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2It is very un-Canadian to practice such underhanded stunts. But, this happened in Quebec--and they're not really Canadian anyway.
        • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Now please digg this down. All of Quebec is Canadian. Period full stop. I hope this is coming from someone outside of Canada because if these comments are from the "Real Canada" I don't want any part of it. Please go Heckle somewhere else
      • clak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This idiot Yazzilliclick accused me of being a "Mindless Lemming" because I thought it was obvious from looking at the video on YouTube, that these guys were cops. Now he comes here today and can't even admit he's wrong and continues to make excuses for these cops, saying that they were not there to incite violence. Man, he is so full of *****.

        This is what he said to me the other day:

        Yazilliclick

        #1 It was about 10 seconds of one of them saying something to the cops.

        #2 A large number of the protesters were wearing masks there, not just these three. If the other protesters felt there was a need for masks then why should these fellas take theirs off? #3 One of them had their mask taken off and yet nobody has identified him as a cop yet. #4 They were being harrased and pushed towards the cops by the people saying they were cops at which point they tried to push through the cops and were handcuffed and taken away. The uniformed police didn't make the move. #5 That video doesn't pick up anything except the few people yelling at the top of their lungs so they could very well have denied they were cops many times over and we wouldn't know. Maybe they are cops maybe they aren't. The fact of the matter is there is NO PROOF that they are, just consipiracy theories based on very very little. If you really think governments are corrupt and things need to be done then here's a lesson for you: BY BEING A MINDLESS LEMMING THAT BELIEVES ANYTHING WITHOUT PUTTING ANY LOGICAL THINKING BEHIND IT YOU FALL RIGHT INTO THEIR GAME. That's how you let yourself be controlled. Time to start openning your eyes and minds, to start thinking for yourself again. When you believe all this junk that people post online without being able to step back and think about it and make up your own mind you've already lost. Practically every body posting comments here is now convinced they were cops. Not because there is any evidence towards it but simply because they don't like the government and somebody else said it was true, that's all they need. Welcome to being a mindless puppet.
    • SlimFastForYou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7FTA: "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."
      To anyone who actually watched the video, this is pure rotten *****. The pigs are trying to whitewash it, and hoping the majority of the paper's readers don't go on Youtube. They were lying through their teeth when they denied the three weren't theirs and they're lying through their teeth currently by saying that it was the real protesters who were trying to get the pigs to throw rocks.
      • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They were called out when they refused to remove their bandanas!
    • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The ends justify the means, to them.
      Lying is just another tool in their bag of tricks.
  • awch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+43From yesterday:
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/08/22/ot-police-070822.html?ref=rss
    "The RCMP has refused to comment, while Quebec's provincial force has flatly denied that its officers were involved in the incident."

    Quebec's provincial force is the Sûreté du Québec
  • RogerStrong, on 10/10/2007, -2/+102The Surete du Quebec's designated liar Const. Melanie Larouche was swearing up and down to reporters yesterday that those weren't their officers.

    Today's admission was issued by press release instead.

    Owned.
  • aargh01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+84Disgusting. We need hard journalism on this. Badger those in charge non-stop until they give us an answer about what happened to those three men and who they were. Badger the officers that were present until one of them answers some questions. If they weren't Quebec police then what group were they associated with? There shouldn't be any legal reason to concealing these men's identities, so the Quebec police need to be pressed heavily until they are out of PR ducks and dodges and are in a legal corner. It infuriates me that this happens in my country, and I hope for once the journalists in Canada do some actual digging and don't let the government sweep this under the rug.
    • aargh01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32First line changed from when I read the article (before they were saying there were undercover officers but those three weren't them). So now we know they actually are Surete du Quebec! What kind of police carry rocks to a protest!? If they just wanted to go undercover, they didn't need the shinpads, the steel-toed boots, the taped up laces and the ROCKS! All they needed was a protest sign. These three need to be identified by name, whoever ordered their presence needs to be identified by name, and we need to know if violent riot provoking is standard tactics in our police services! If it's not, then who told them to do it? Was it specifically for this summit? Dave Coles needs to get another protest going - outside the office of Const. Melanie Larouche! Journalists and citizens alike have to badger these bastards non-stop until we get the whole story!
    • rednorth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4hear hear
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14These cops need to be sued, and their whereabouts and actions accounted for over the last 12 months.

      I'm betting this isn't the first time.
    • jebus123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Kind of reminds my of the Oka crisis a long while ago. Public opinion was pro native and not much support for the provincial police. The one night the received the order: "Don't draw your weapons under no circumstance and rush the baricade at night and make a lot of noise"

      Was the commanding officer mentally retarded, completely crazy or so incompetent as to not understand what was going to happen? No, he was actually very smart. The goal was accomplished, one officer was killed and the public opinion shifted overnight.

      I believe they were trying something similar.
    • carlosglz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I guess fascism is contagious...
  • Qeveren, on 10/10/2007, -4/+122Yeah, they weren't there to stir up trouble in the crowd! Then why were they armed with rocks?
    • imgstacke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26This one has an empty beer bottle in his back right pants pocket.
      http://www.cupe.ca/gallery/montebello-monday/Montebello_20_ao_t_050?full=1
      Corona Extra
    • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -2/+60FTA: "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects." ...what *****. This makes it sound like the protesters were throwing things and these three were called out for refusing to join in. No one was throwing anything! These police guys had things ready to throw. A rock. A beer bottle. These guys were one step away from purposely turning things ugly when the protesters called them out.
      • rednorth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15man. i can't believe how disrespectful the police are. they treated these protesters with such cynicism.
        • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Cynicism is one tenth of it. What these guys were about to do was criminal. Rocks and beer bottles are not things you bring to protest.
      • fac3less, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Please be VERY aware that the CBC is attempting to pass these guys off as 'joining in on the rock throwing'.
        When in ALL COMPLETE actuality, these 3 undercover agents were INSTIGATING the violence.

        The PROTESTERS called them out on it when they wouldn't put their weapons down. I've already made note of this to the CBC but they believe their version is correct. Of course, everyone at the protests disagrees.

        What biased media we have here.
        • mervis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Their version is correct. They are reporting both sides of the story. "Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock.

          In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them."

          And then they give the police version.

          "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."

          It's the police who are the lying douche bags. The reporter is just reporting their side.
          • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Yes but if it's an obvious lie you should report it as such - for example, if there was no 'object throwing' then this is easily dismissed and SHOULDN'T be reported. The American media does this CONSTANTLY - a political figure will say something that is patently false but the media just reports what he/she says instead of following up with facts. Drives me CRAZY. That's not slanted reporting that's just REPORTING.
    • ninetyone, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2they were 'armed' because they'd look like idiots if they just stood there.
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Idiots? How judgmental. They would look like "people that give a ***** about their country" standing around. There is nothing wrong with standing around at a protest. Presence speaks volumes. If you think they are idiots, look in the mirror. The only idiots I see are the ones defending the SQ, NAU, SPP etc.
      • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16What?! They were surrounded by middle-aged women and guys in suits. They were disguised to look like anarchist rioters. Believe me, they looked like idiots with or without rocks.
      • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"they were 'armed' because they'd look like idiots if they just stood there"? What, are we experimenting with talking points here? Are we trying to see which excuses for this shameful behavior won't get laughed at?

        I see a lot of anger towards the police. I'd like to remind everyone that the police do as they are told, and that there's a very strong possibility that they were told to do this by influential, democracy-fearing supporters of the SPP/NAU.
      • aMeta4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1DIAF
    • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Hey, those were official police issue rocks and they were carrying them because if they were carrying official police issue spears in a crowd, well someone could lose an eye, eh.
  • rednorth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36this makes me wonder about the APEC summit being held in sydney next month. i find this all a little chilling as i was wondering earlier in the week about agents provocateurs being unleashed there, and then yesterday i found out about this!

    i hope the protesters in sydney really take note of this and make peace their priority.
  • cdnbambam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Well thats pretty stupid, That union is the most common union among the media.
  • spynes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26The CBC video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg
  • anewname, on 10/10/2007, -9/+39Weren't they just following the guidelines from that Bush Admin. handbook regarding protests like this? If I recall, it has a section about trying to discredit the protesters.
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12This 1) CANADIAN POLICE bush (hopefully GB does not rule here ... yet) 2) These are now confirmed to be police officers, not hired goons for the SSP / NAU. --- Besides, so what if it is in a handbook! This is the worst piece of policing I have ever seen and really borders on SS tactics.
      • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The police do as they're told. I'm thinking that whoever did the telling supports SSP/NAU and fears democracy.
      • MaxK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Dialectical -- the protest was at a site Bush was visiting.
  • CaymanCarpediem, on 10/10/2007, -3/+91From the article: "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."
    Well, not to be picky but after viewing the video that is certainly not what happened. They were called out as undercover agents after they refused to drop their rock and leave because the protesters were scared they would start trouble.
    To that the police I'm sure will respond "Who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?"
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15They admitted only as much as they got caught red handed doing and only after it became obvious. I saw the whole video. You could tell they were cops from the physique and body language. They seemed to be scared ***** when they were confronted. And YES, the one guy had a rock. These guys were out to beat, mace and gas some people!
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28Thank god someone videotaped this. The lying government keeps getting the benefit of the doubt by the media.
    • LowROI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9http://www.cbc.ca/news/feedback/index_typo.html?Quebec%20police%20admit%20they%20went%20undercover%20at%20Montebello%20protest

      Do your part and submit the inaccuracy to CBC. It's the only way they're going to rectify their mistake.
      • fac3less, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Agreed. I've already sent a few comments to them.
        Please do the same -- it was either a purposeful mistake or this is about to make me hurl up lunch.

      • aMeta4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5My Feedback to CBC:
        This article gives the impression that the police infiltrators (obviously potential instigators) were "called out" by protesters for "refusing to throw rocks", when in fact (if you had watched the video as millions around the world have) the protesters were telling them to drop the rocks.
        Also, you may want to report that one of the three had an empty beer bottle in his pocket. It obviously appears that they were planning to incite violence at an otherwise peaceful protest. Why are you toning down the serious magnitude of this occurrence? Please clarify, or at least use quotation marks to indicate what the police SAY.
    • fac3less, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Exceptional way of putting it. CBC has it wrong, but of course -- it'll get gobbled up.
    • mervis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The CBC doesn't have it wrong. The Police have it wrong. Just because you report a lie doesn't mean you are lying. They give both sides of the story.
      "Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock.

      In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them."

      And then they give the police version.

      "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.
      • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11No that is being a PARTY to a lie. If it is black and white: Party A is NOT lying and Party B is LYING then you should report THAT FACT. This is why politics is messed up, because you can say ANY-*****-thing and it'll be reported without analysis until you get to partisan-hack-commentary time.
      • CaymanCarpediem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Agreed. Though one would hope when one side of the story is so obviously contradicted by the evidence, the media might find it worthwhile to point that out in thier reporting.
        • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Or do some deeper investigating. Like asking questions, verifying sources etc etc. Instead, they print what they hear and people eat it up if it serves them well to do so.
      • aMeta4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think the problem is an obvious lack of quotation marks:
        "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."
        ~~Who said this? ALL police evidently....
        This is irresponsibly poor reporting.
  • faskippy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37It looks as if our Canadian brethren are doing a good job in their attempts to discredit the SPP and NAU. They are getting the word out better than we've been able to so far. Keep it up, guys. And thanks for unveiling the attempts of the police/traitors to make peaceful protestors look like unlawful mobs. They have shown themselves to be much worse than the citizens. Give them an inch...they'll ***** up a mile.
  • klisejo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+61So they lied that they were in the crowd. Then they turn around and say they where only there to monitor others and got caught when they REFUSED to throw things? Ohhhhh ok. They were lying before, but theyre telling the truth now. How crazy of me to doubt the police. I must be one of those silly "conspiracy theorists"
  • broohaha, on 10/10/2007, -2/+62"...but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."
    Wasn't it more like they were called out as undercover agents when one of them refused to drop the rock he was carrying?
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Thats the video I saw... Bafoonish Cops... I hope the MSM gets hold of this. People need to know.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29 OK, so we have no - proof positive(As if we needed any) that Harper, and the Canadian Government is nothing more than comman criminals.

    How is this not being blasted across the nation????

    Canadians better take note - things aren't just going bad down South, it is just more obvious there.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16The NeoCons have been active in Canada and Mexico.

      These compromised individuals are the jackboots of the Globalists -- the intra-national corporations. And they are the greatest threat to freedom that the world faces today.

      When I say "compromised" -- I'm talking about Mob-like tactics of getting dirt on people, and those are the ones promoted. You don't have to be a child molesting, crack smoking, criminal hypocrite to be a NeoCon leader -- but it helps.

      You'll notice that the president of Israel got in trouble for raping about ten women. You can do a google search on "neocon and sex crime" and start seeing a pattern. What is significant about this, isn't merely the sexually disturbed nature of these planted leaders -- it's the systematic recruitment.

      For instance, Mark Foley was urged by Carl Rove to run for office, AFTER he was found to have a thing for young boys.

      Canada and Mexico has been infiltrated far worse than you know -- it's just more obvious right now in the US. There is no sanctuary from these people -- we have to find a way to organize ourselves and bring these people to justice.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"Intra-national" doesn't mean what you think it means.
    • cameldung, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That's so blind partisan. This has little to do with Harper. This same thing would have happened if the Liberal criminals Chretien or Martin were still in power. In fact violent protest did happen when they were in power - protest about concerning the very same thing. Protests that were far more violent - yet there was probably no conspiracy theory from you then was there. And though the Liberals promised an end to NA Free Trade the liars never followed through.

      That being said this is news. The Quebec police force has allot of questions to answer and I won't blame the Quebec Liberal Leader for the problem. That's as stupid as it was to blame Conservative Mike Harris for Ipperwash. Police mentality is just universally stupid regardless of who's in power. Accept it. And think of a solution and share it with us. No one and any side of the political fence wants to see this stuff happen.
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Agreed. Conservatives and Liberals are the same sheep in wolves clothing. They will do what they can to stay in power. I'm tried of the debate, "Liberals wouldn't do this, or Conservatives would have done it better" blah blah..
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't confuse a neo-con with a Conservative. Conservatives would NEVER do this but a neo-con wouldn't think twice.
      • skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed. SPP was founded under Liberal government. Martin started a cabinet committee on US relations.
    • gamemaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It is getting coverage Waiting2Awake. It was on the front page of today's Globe (Canada's national newspaper) and they also had a scathing editorial demanding a full investigation into both the police and the RCMP (who would have also been involved with planning at this event).
  • umdmatto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21If the officers were only there to ferret out trouble makes and were only discovered because they “refused to throw objects” then why in an earlier report was it reported that there was no damage as a result of the protest. If protesters were throwing things much like the rock in one of the fake protesters hand I would think there would be reports of damage.
    • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Your logic escapes most people. I welcome such logic and appreciate the fact that I'm not the only one that sees how BS this is.

      As it was said before, the SQ denied one day, accepted the next. This means only one thing. You can't trust the SQ, period. As someone else mentioned, where do we go from here? Clearly the SQ gets direction from politicians in some fashion. Is there anyone at the top not corrupted by the NAU/SPP ?
  • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15The SQ is an embarrassment and with this one incident will undermine the trust people place in their police authority. I am quite shocked at these tactics. We need to know who ordered these people to do these things and if Agent Provocateurs were used previously. Pathetic. These are gestapo tactics and people need to be fired over this.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The questions is - who do you ask? Those that have already lied? Or those above them, who in all probablity, are the ones that told them to lie?

      Maybe it is time we take off our rose coloured glasses in regards to our Government and their relationship with Business.
      • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8We are way beyond worrying about business and government relationships with this evidence. This is basic human rights we are talking about, supported by our constitution. The aim is to at least restore democratic rights to a peaceful protest. This is not 1929, per-labour movement. If these types of tactics are used then I really cannot trust the SQ or my local police force. ------ Please note, I was the one saying yesterday that we needed evidence and not jump to wild conclusions. But when an undercover police officer has rocks in his hands and empty beer bottles dressed up like the Black Bloq we are in a heap of *****. Trust me I am NOT easily convinced but this is hands down the WORST piece of evidence that our Charter and Constitution is being pissed on. Makes me wonder why they (remember Quebec City?) returned to QC in the first place.
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5 This is serious ***** no doubt. We need to organize and start fighting back with info for people. There isn't one Canadian I know that wouldn't be "deeply disturbed" about this...

          How do you hold these people's feets' to the fire? Maybe general strike? Just throwing out ideas.
        • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We need a full apology for starters and a freak'n rock hard guarantee that this will not happen again. Demanding an apology should be the first political step!
          • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6True - but then these cops should be punished(semi-harshly), those that ordered them to do this should be punished(harshly) and then set up a system that will handle all this protests in the future so that the Public is fully informed of what is going on in their including transcripts..

            The problem is not just the cops acting like facist pigs - it's the increasing facism that they are protecting happening behind closed doors.

            As a friend wrote the other day - In secrecy fear and lies have their power. Brought out in to the open, and we have the power. Never allow this to happen again.

  • DASK, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29Original video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow

    note the supposedly non provocative agents are carrying rocks and being challenged by the protesters.
  • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4That ain't cool.
  • quentinp, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3Shouldn't they be spending their time making sure everyone speaks French?
    • SoundJudgment, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7How do you say, "False Flag protest-operational tactics" in French? I want to speak their language.
      • trimpnick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Tactique opérationnelles de protestation par faux drapeau
        • SoundJudgment, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thank you! Now we can communicate more effectively about the police, when describing their 'Provocational Methods' used during many such protest-demonstrations... to others.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24I just heard this news on 640am radio - all 10 seconds of the report which ended with "Quebec Police are refusing to comment further" - and then went into another 20 minute discussion on some new law about clothing in the states....

    Amazing, and no wonder that people simply don't know what is going on - and with our goldfish memory, even those that see it, quickly forget it. Unless we all wake up, things are going to be awfully bad for a lot of people..
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Well I certainly will NOT forget this for a long time. And I was one of the people that had doubts this was true, yesterday.
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Spread the word my friend. Write a polite letter to your local papers, news stations and MPP's and local rep's. This must be brought to the light of day.

        People must have trust in their police force, and this ***** just shows that trust is being abused, and should be revoked until they learn how to be adults again.

  • Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Is there any video that starts before they are called out as cops or is the only video out that of after they are called out?
  • c0ldfusi0n, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I'm a Quebecer, and i'm disgusted at this. Anyone has suggestions on what we can do about this?
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Call your local MPP, and MP as well as any counclier that is there and tell them that you and your neighbours will not stand for criminal activity coming from those we trust to protect us from the criminals.

      Police should be respected, but they should act respectful as well - and this entire issue should taint everything around both the QPP, the RCMP and this entire meeting that should never have been allowed to happen without public oversight.

      Why do business leaders in the US have access to our Government that we, the people of Canada, don't?
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Call your MLA. Seriously do it. Make the effort and ask direct and rational questions. As well, show as many people as you can this *****. Keep your cool but remain steadfast that this is a clear example of eliminating a basic tenet of the Canadian Constitution and the very values we supposedly send people to war for.
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7How could you get dug down for that(I +1 for you)?? ? What the heck is it with people?
        • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Herk & Horty are out there burying away. T
    • DashingLeech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You can count on it. I am writing a letter to my MP in another window as I write this note. It will be an open letter that I'll send to the press as well. That's a start. But I want to do more. Letters can be dismissed and ignored, especially since the federal government must have known about this beforehand, at a minimum to approve of the tactic but more likely to order it be done. I can't imagine that U.S. security for GWB would not require that they be fully in the loop and approve of, if not insist upon, the tactics to be used while he was here. This will NOT happen in my country again if I can do anything about it. As a next step I'm also going to contact the union(s) involved in the protest to lend support and see what else I can do.
      • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Same here. I Live in Ontario, so doubt JC will care, I am just one person, so I doubt SH will care - but I will also cc this to the local small media papers - the free tansit newspapers like the metro and 24, as well as a few tv stations.

        Lets hope this can get some legs and force them to come clean...

      • lukehh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5thank you.

    • bmattb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Commence la revolution! Seriously, rubber bullets, tear gas, provacateurs. My Canada includes none of this.
  • feckineejit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Sadly this is what our United States has caused, we can't peacefully protest our idiot presidents or their ridiculous policies because the guys in riot gear are bigger and stronger and angrier than we are. We need some way of taking care of the SWAT teams, I know there have to be tactics for fighting back, dish soap to make them too slippery to grab people, zip ties to incapacitate the agents provocatuers and reveal them to the media and LAWYERS LAWYERS LAWYERS!
  • mynameismudd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+33Heres a few gems from the previous thread on this topic:

    by fitzsimj on 08/22/2007You're an idiot. "OMG SAME EXACT BOOTS!!!" So they happened to buy the same brand, the same or similar model. Big deal.

    by HappyScrappy on 08/22/2007Wow, two people both having Vibram shoes! Conspiracy!

    by BradleyO on 08/22/2007This article has no facts in it what-so-ever. How the hell do you "know" they are policemen?
    • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16It's amazing how quickly some people will discount something based on nothing. Disappointing really.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Well, the pro-CorpGov crowd loves their Coincidence theories. They are quite creative when it comes to finding excuses for our government's increasing NeoCon led Fascist activities.
      • MaxK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Corporations are not the enemy. Direct your anger usefully -- change your government.
        • aMeta4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Whats the difference? The lines between the two are quite blurry these days if you haven't noticed.
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2So the libtards jumped to a conclusion that happened to be right for once. Big ***** deal, I have a broken watch and its right twice a day too.
      • StrangeFamous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Bitter?
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Calling people whom you do not know names is no way to get a point across. Anyone with a brain (read, not you) knew what happened. It's the people that argue on behalf of the government without any insider information that are the idiots. Speculation without cause. We had cause and were right. Admit it, you just hate the fact that we (read, leftist / communist / lieberal / douche bags) were right all along.
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thanks for the compliment Achalemoipas. I've had worst things said by better people. I'm curious though. What's the story behind the quotes? If you were quoting someone you suck at quoting. Otherwise using quotes to make a statement reminds of Joey from friends. "sorry"
    • manogamez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I thought it was already admitted that they were undercover police? What's your point?
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Funny how the other day, there were people claiming anyone who thinks the 'Black Bloc' protesters were undercover police were just a bunch of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist loonies. Then suddenly, it has been revealed to be true. Seriously, this was a conspiracy theory, but just because it was doesn't mean people who believed its validity were crazy. Now that it has been proven true, the nest the naysayers can retort with is "even a broken watch is right twice a day". Seriously, the tin foil hat references need to stop. Just because people do not want to believe those in power sometimes commit crimes behind closed doors does not mean that anyone who thinks there is wrongdoing somewhere is nuts. Get over it.
    • fitzsimj, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0LOL, I was about to post, "wow, you Digg retards were right!"

      I'll still not hop on a bandwagon of circumstantial evidence, though. With all the conspiracy theorists on YouTube, this uproar is definitely the exception, not the rule.

      Digging you up for having a good memory, btw. :-)
  • ninetyone, on 10/10/2007, -27/+1Please! Why would they want to stir up trouble? Think about it - all that's going to happen is cops get injured in ensuing rioting. They were clearly just there as undercover cops, not trying to provacate anything.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Really? and they accidentally had rocks in their hand? Give me a break and please for the good of the nation wake the f up!

      They were busted - they lied about it - then once it was obvious(save for the usual suspects here) that they were cought - they admit it, tell the media to drop it - the media does...

      This is going to be up to the people to keep this front and centre in the media.

    • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Uhhh cops in full riot gear against old dudes in suits and soccer-moms? Yeah, I see a huge massacre of cops in THAT show-off

      /sarcasm
    • drunkwally, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Given the big rock in the guys hand, they were trying to cause a riot and further their police-state agenda. It might be possible that the guy was a keen gardener and was just taking some rocks home for his new water feature.

      Given their lies so far, a number of these people seriously need to be chucked out over this. If there aren't any consequences they will do it again.
    • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah.. clearly they had no rocks in hand when all other protesters did. You're a tool *****. Get bent.
    • brutalentropy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Actually, the protesters would be injured in much greater numbers than any cops if there was an altercation.

      Which is exactly what they wanted, not to mention the press can say "and today these nutjobs were injured because they turned violent". No they wouldn't call them nutjobs, but it would be strongly implied.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah, trained, physically fit police officers in full riot gear with shields, pepper spray and tear gas are really going be injured by fat, out of shape, unarmed protesters. Why don't you take one of these guys on and lemme know how it goes. These guys are itching for a fight. They are compressed springs. They do not want a nice peaceful day.
      • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't forget the Rubber Bullets. Remember, they're less than lethal weapons not Non-Lethal!
    • aMeta4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That was the funniest ***** comment I've read all day (if you were being sarcastic)
      If you are serious: The word is "provoke", asshat :)
    • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah because it's not like law enforcement attracts pyschopaths, bullies, and napoleon cases that revel in the shear power they wield. I thinks it's safe to say that 98% of the apologizers here ARE COPS. You can just tell with their blind loyalty to their fellow donut jockeys.
  • num3thod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Here is the link to the Quebec Justice Minister Complaints Bureau:
    http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/English/joindre/plaintes-a.htm

    or

    Put pressure on Jean Charest (Quebec PM) at:
    http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.qc.ca/premier-ministre/nous-joindre/nous-joindre-en.shtml

    We can't let this slip!
    • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Thanks for the link!! Here's my submitted complaint.

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

      I am appalled and embarrassed that the SQ would openly lie about not having undercover cops as protesters and then the day after, admit that such thing did indeed occur.

      From the article, "Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."

      Clearly the video online shows the opposite. This amounts to yet another lie by the SQ. The Union leader, Dave Coles, had called them out when he noticed they had rocks wielded. He told this was peaceful and to drop the rocks. The official position is a fabrication of the truth and frankly I am saddened as to how far our police will go to further their agenda.

      This event will not be forgotten in the hearts and minds of Canadians everywhere and I plead with you, please look into this matter and give Canadians what we deserve, honesty.
      • Weip, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Honesty and Liberal Party. LOL
        • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Who mentioned the Liberal party you partisan joke? I said we deserve honesty. If you think you are getting it. You're a bigger idiot than you let on.
  • ahuxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Makes me thing of the book "A man without a face" by Markus Wolf, head of the foreign intelligence service in East Germany.
    The East Germans sent young men over to the west, so a western "screening profile" was set up when ppl registered a new residence.
    They looked for young men on the move, foreign visitors and also just hair cuts vs great documentation/cover story (before the computer databases).
    The video seems to show the same.
    The other protesters are younger and idealistic ect vs the fit fake police 'protesters".
    Note the clothing - the "protesters" did a good job with that, except the shoes.
    A dv cam seems the most fun thing you can have.
    They really seemed spooked by it :-)


  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -25/+2Hello, the police were there to PREVENT violence, not start it. If you are going to mingle in with a bunch of violent protestors, you don't come dressed as a bunch of grannies. Its just funny that none of the Black Bloc violent protesters showed up, which made the cops stand out like sore thumbs.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18You are a twit. They showed up to stop violence and so thats is why they had rocks?

      Makes me think they got them from your head.... Please.
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Did they ever throw them?

        The answer is no, they didnt. The idea is to blend in.

        Police go undercover all the time, these guys just got found out. I saw no evidence on the tape that they tried to provoke anything. This is just more libtard hysterics.
        • manogamez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Are rocks required to blend in? Better clothes would probably have been a better idea. They also shouldn't have stuck together like hoolilgans.
          So these cops are either idiots, pigs, or both.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No evidence they tried to provoke anything? *****. Watch it again. I'm sure you'll see one of them assault the union leader.
    • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah, because I guess according to Canadian police regulations, once you got your "disguise" on you can't take it off and adapt to a changing situation.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Prevent violence by carrying rocks......wake up *****
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Please explain exactly how having a rock in your hand is violent.
        • StrangeFamous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Because there's no reason to hold a rock at a protest rally other than the possibility of using it as a weapon. It was meant to be obvious, something that might provoke other protesters to do the same. Once someone else had thrown a rock, the cops could drop theirs, retreat back to police lines, and watch the ensuing riot with smiles on their faces, proud of a job well done.

          Use common sense, man.
        • manogamez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Please explain how having a knife in your hand is violent? I mean it's not he used it? He just wanted to show it to everyone while he wore a mask.
          How about a gun?
          Chainsaw?
          (please tell me where to stop)
        • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Two Words Officer, Brandishing a Weapon. I don't know how it works up in Canada, but here in Missouri if you walk up to a Cop with a rock your hand, be prepared to look down the barrel of a pistol and bet on bumping your head when you get in the cruiser.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you _trying_ to miss the point?
        • 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, I think this is what happens when a cop tries to play lawyer.
    • parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Oh yes please, I would love a glass of your delicious kool-aid, I'm sure that I have no reason to be concerned that the last 5 people who drank it seemed to fall over dead. After all why would I doubt my benevolent master over my lying eyes.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Lemme guess, You are a Guilaini supporter right?
    • petron99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Bohica - you are truly amazing. You say some of the stupidest ***** EVA!
  • shadowofapuddle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26What this really makes me wonder about is Saturday, where protesters were alleged at throwing rocks at police and they had to respond with tear gas and rubber bullets.

    MONTEBELLO, Que. (CP) - As riot police fired tear gas and pepper spray to hold back demonstrators outside the Montebello summit, Stephen Harper shook hands with George W. Bush and dismissed the protest as a "sad" spectacle.
    ...
    Lines of police in riot gear jostled with dozens of demonstrators - the vanguard of hundreds who marched on the front gate of the summit compound shouting taunts.

    Officers used pepper spray and tear gas to hold off the protesters, who responded by flinging rocks and branches. Two people were hauled away in handcuffs.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070820/national/montebello_summit

    So, who was throwing the rocks and inciting the violence? Was it actual protesters or these admitted agents provacateurs? Does any one have any video of the initial confrontation?
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11 Lord only knows - maybe it was incited by the cops and kept going from the protesters? In either case, this is exactly why Cops shouldn't be allowed to do this type of *****...

    • jjmckay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah this seems like 'counter-protest operations'. In other words, make the protestors polarize public opinion, mostly in your (the govt) favor.
    • aargh01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah I think the four arrested during that have a nice legal argument there. Who started what? Were the protesters just defending themselves against cops who were beating on them for a fight other undercover cops started?

      There's no end to how disgusting this is.
      • CrimsonTide7199, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is the kind of propaganda that you have to look for coming from the top, trying to conceal the SPP (a.k.a the NAU, possibly the NWO) grab for power and dominance. Resist.
  • bouche, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3The QPP have shown that they are the coolest police force ever. I'd love to see their other undercover operations on YouTube. It would make a great reality show!
  • kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20It should be clear to all that this is the tactic used in Miami's bloody protests and in G7 protests of the past. I believe that the business owners whose property was damaged in previous "riots" should investigate further and bring suit against the police in their cities.
  • givinupthefight, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0nevermind, bury. I thought I noticed a contradiction but re-read the line.
  • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Where are all the nay-sayers from the original thread? Come out and have some crow.
    • gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah, where did all of the people who claimed this was just some wacko conspiracy theory go? For the record, I'm incredibly skeptical of conspiracy theories, such as those around 9/11, the Kennedy assasination, and the Moon landing. I don't believe any of those. This, however, was different from the beginning. There was solid evidence that these three men were undercover police officers, and now we've been proven correct beyond any doubt (unless someone at this news agency fabricated the admission/story).
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Still here, laughing at your libtard hysterics. Going undercover is part of what police do. None of the actions they took were violent, nor did they try to incite any.

      But really, keep on crying about non-issues. It gives us sane people something to laugh at.
      • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8so they were using the rocks for what? Exercise equipment?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The rocks were useful to blend in to the cobble-stone pavement.

        there Were some other undercover police, but they were holding branches -- apparently, they knew how not to be seen. In the future, the police will experiment with large sausages and fruit in order to disguise themselves.
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9typical response from a child. Call someone a liberal but put an 8 year old slant on it and turn it unto an insult. Libtard. How original. I've heard worst things by better people.
      • zeroDNT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5you are truly a ***** idiot.
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4None of the actions they took were violent, nor did they try to incite any.

        *****. Assault is violence.
      • gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A little boy shouts and runs away. A man talks, and stays.

        'Ol mike17032 has run away.
    • gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm a proud libertarian, thank you very much. You should look into it if you're interested in smaller government and more personal freedom. Unfortunately, "conservatives" in general have strayed far from this supposed ideal.
  • freezerburn666, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14okay.. so they were there to protect the protestors... with rocks
  • jonmin, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2You guys are taking this way too seriously. The rocks and beer bottles were part of the disguise. They had them because they thought it would be the best way to approach and identify would-be trouble makers. In the end it was a stupid idea since this was a relatively calm protest. Stop it with the agents provocateurs conspiracy theories already. This makes absolutely no sense.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I admire your optimism. You must be young.
      • jonmin, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Nah I'm old enough. I just can't stand it when people feel the need to cry for a government conspiracy when plain stupidity and bad judgment from a few cops is a lot more likely.
        • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Where do you think the cops get their mandate from? The people? Not.
    • parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Welcome to denial, I hope you enjoy your stay. Please put on these connected "freedom bracelets" and get on our "liberty bus". Your benevolent master will except your pleas now.
    • gotamd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13If they weren't blending in with the peaceful protest when they had rocks in their hands, why didn't they just drop the rocks and join in the peaceful protesting? Nobody else there had rocks or weapons that I saw or read (besides the police). How are they "fitting in" exactly?
    • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13You don't need rocks and bottles to "associate" with the bad seeds of a protest, being obnoxious and rowdy will do that just fine -- they were there to start trouble.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, by using their rocks, if any airplanes happened to fly into steel structured buildings -- they could prevent collapse by synchronized rock-tosses. The vibration caused on the steel structures would then help to shed heat.

      Under this theory, they should be commended.

      I've got an alarm clock at home, and I think I need to add a mouse, a bowling ball, and a candle to the trigger mechanism. Rube Goldberg would be proud.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Yet another tin-foil-hat theory proven true.

    When are the apologists for the CorpGov going to be right about something? It's constant lies and then an army of trolls that come up with coincidence theories to explain why people in masks being violent at a protest aren't searched and let go. Here once again, is the truth, which seems to have a Liberal bias.
  • tehowe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Oh, police forces or the state would never do anything to discredit or harm citizens. You're all blowing this up... I mean blowing this out of proportion. Go back to sleep. So what if they were walking around holding rocks with anarchist-style disguises on? I'ts for your security. LOL
  • seancanada, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Where are all the tough "anti-conspiracy" diggers now; the commenters from the initial video story the other day; the ones that were so quick to call protesters 'crazy' and to call such tactics by police 'ludicrous', and to call the video *****?

    Very quiet now, it seems. Hopefully they're thinking outside their old, little, crusty comfort zone now.
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1We are still here, getting quite the kick out of you tinfoil tards. Police often go undercover, you must not know much about the world if you find that a shock. And the video shows nothing, nothing on their part that tries to incite violence. None.

      Another free hint for you, sometimes cops pose at the press at these events too. Its part of doing their job.
      • ahuxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And when the mask is pulled off its all over :-)
        All the courses and undercover overtime $$$ gone in a few frames of video.
      • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Here's a free hint: Cops do not need to be armed to look like a protester. A sign saying "I hate harper / bush" would do the trick. Weapons are proof they were willing to go the distance. This simple fact eludes you right-wing anti-humanitarian jerks.
      • seancanada, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5'The video shows nothing.' - Aside from not letting go of a decent-sized rock? His buddy with an empty corona bottle in his pocket? The word 'bias' seems to fit your views nicely, Mike. Your words cancel your opinion out for you. You're a conflict of interest, Mike. Lay off the meds, start eating organic.
      • n8glenn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1look at the video, it's obvious that the undercover cops are acting in a belligerent fashion and attempting to confront the police with rocks! how can you look at that and not know that those men were looking for a fight? have you just never seen a fight? anyway, get your kicks out of the "tinfoil tards" while you can, the police will be getting a kick out of you, soon enough, retard.
      • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Taking orders doesn't supercede one's obligation to the bill of rights.
        The provocateurs acting against the public are just as culpable as those puppetmasters ordering them to do so.
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Sean, I am still here. Yesterday I was on the fence with this one but today I am shocked by this. I guess my trust in the SQ has faded. When undercover officers look to start trouble then we are in a very slippery slope. The intent was there. They only stopped because they knew it was very evident they were tapped and exposed as non-peaceful protesters. I may not agree with what a protester says but I need to have the guarantee that they are allowed to speak their mind with out fear of reprisal. I do not see that with this tape.
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Sean, I am still here. Yesterday I was on the fence with this one but today I am shocked by this. I guess my trust in the SQ has faded. When undercover officers look to start trouble then we are in a very slippery slope. The intent was there. They only stopped because they knew it was very evident they were tapped and exposed as non-peaceful protesters. I may not agree with what a protester says but I need to have the guarantee that they are allowed to speak their mind with out fear of reprisal. I do not see that with this tape.
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Sean, I am still here. Yesterday I was on the fence with this one but today I am shocked by this. I guess my trust in the SQ has faded. When undercover officers look to start trouble then we are in a very slippery slope. The intent was there. They only stopped because they knew it was very evident they were tapped and exposed as non-peaceful protesters. I may not agree with what a protester says but I need to have the guarantee that they are allowed to speak their mind with out fear of reprisal. I do not see that with this tape.
      • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I guess I am here threefold ! WTF with the triple comments? I pressed the freak'n comment button once! sheesh.
        • oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I appreciate your willingness to take an objective stand. Changing your opinion is hard to do sometimes because you have to admit being wrong. No one likes being wrong, even when we are.

          I don't mind people disagreeing. I do mind when despite fact after fact some people just never believe the truth.

          Good for you.
          • seancanada, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I hereby second oderdigg's comment. Dialectical, your honesty is a tribute to you.
        • AbortRetry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Thanks bud.
  • Baroja1898, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15And the pigs wonder why the public hates them.
  • StrangeFamous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The most important thing to take from all of this is that ANYONE who really cares about a cause and goes to a rally needs to keep their heads cool, and not give in to violence. The whole point of these undercover agents holding rocks was to provoke other protesters to pick up rocks of their own and then throw them. My guess is that the cops were never planning on actually throwing the rocks, they were instead trying to get someone else to be the first one to cast a stone. Once the real protesters start acting violent, the cops have succeeded and can retreat back to the lines of the other officers.

    If it's intended as a peaceful protest, then for God's sake, don't try to start a riot. And if you see someone in the crowd trying to get people angry and incite violence, then pull his/her ass out and tell him/her to leave. That's the only way to be successful in political demonstrations. Violence accomplishes nothing more than convincing the public that your cause isn't legitimate.
    • seancanada, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1StrangeFamous, your comments are good. Remember though, that when you 'pull his/her ass out and tell him/her to leave', it could be an undercover cop, so keep that in mind.
    • SlimFastForYou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The question is, is there really a difference between a cop throwing a rock and a cop trying to get a protestor to throw a rock? I'd say the latter is just as despicable.
    • aargh01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but the implication here is that even if you are peaceful, if doesn't ***** matter, because the cops will just throw rocks themselves so their buddies can tear gas you and beat the crap out of you.
      This whole incident makes you wonder about EVERY protest turned violent. How often is it the undercover cops starting *****? Maybe what we need to do is start carrying our own stunguns and zapstraps to protests and start making citizens arrest on *****-disturbers, then we'll have a better chance of finding out how many are actually undercover cops! (The stungun one is probably illegal, but you get the point.)
  • Laurent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8FINALLY, A CONFIRMATION...
    • dt07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There are many more confirmations if you google it.
  • alexkorova, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11This is a common tactic used by police all over the globe, I have personally seen it happen both in Sweden and France and I've heard about it from loads of other places. Sure, there are people in a lot of demonstrations looking for trouble, but having planted police or other agents there just to be agitators is just so ***** up.
    • MichiDutch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Yes it is common but for other reasons: normally the police goes undercover in crowds to PREVENT ***** to happen. It is very effective in taking the lead men out before something serious is happening. In this case the police were agitating and trying to provoke a riot. Thats totally different.
  • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27You know what's funny? When the original post came up a few days ago a bunch of people ragged on it for being left-wing conspiracy bait, and denounced the very idea as ludicrous.

    Naturally, these are the same people who believe that Bush has never lied, and that Iraq had WMDs.
    • mynameisrobert, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Agreed. I'm what many of you would label a conservative. After watching the vid and looking at some pictures I concluded that they were police. The actions of the police in the video were too gentle (my words).

      The police must remember the reason are to protect and to serve the public, not just the state. Sometimes the state itself can be the problem.
    • AbortRetry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2...and that Anna Nicole married for love :)
    • fitzsimj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I ragged on it, but I think Bush is a liar and Iraq never had any WMDs.

      One might note the connection of circumstantial evidence in both cases, though the outcomes are different.
  • execute85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Who watches the watchmen?
  • Turnout, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18The craziest thing about that article is it does not mention the reason the protesters were there, to try and stop a North-American Union. Thats a sure sign it's going to happen if it is not mentioned in the press.
    • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The real traitors are those policy makers divvying up each country's assets behind closed doors. These agents provocateurs are just distractions.
  • dBLiSS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There needs to be an independent investigation. The RCMP were recently taken to task about the Maher Arar scandel.
  • nnscott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7""...but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."
    Wasn't it more like they were called out as undercover agents when one of them refused to drop the rock he was carrying?"

    Drop / Throw... This was a creative way to word their press release regarding the incident. They didn't state where they wanted the undercover police agents to "throw" the rock (at the ground, away, at someone) so to them this is entirely accurate.
  • tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@Turnout
    It was mentioned on nationally syndicated morning news today, Canada AM on CTV.
  • conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Can you say PWN3D?!! If I was there, I would have kicked a soccer ball at those punks domes
    • dialectical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We are glad you weren't there then. Besides we play hockey here. At least shoot a puck so a guy can make a decent save
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.