Saturday, July 3, 2010

Iran lectures Canada on Human Rights

Yes, you saw that correctly - IRAN is lecturing Canada on it's G20 protests pointing out that the arrests are a violation of human rights.

I know Adrian didn't link to it, but let me put this further into perspective:

Iran, the country which fixes elections and then brutally represses and arrests demonstrators, killing many in the process…
Posted by at 7:00 AM
Labels: , ,

6 comments:

  1. Yeah. We aren't really taking Iran seriously, are we?
    ReplyDelete
  2. If any country needs to take Iran seriously, it's Israel, and they are sufficiently prepared to light it up like a Hanukkah Menorah.

    By the time we need to worry about Iran, Tehran will glow in the dark and the surrounding area will be a silicon parking lot.
    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  4. While I view the criticism with credibility myself simply due to the fact that I think the G20/G8 protests were horrifically mismanaged, I can't help but wonder though, if Iran's leadership doesn't think that this won't further highlight their own failures. I. Mean, there's deflection to a point but Iran is so bad that it's simply a case of tea kettle and pot. I mean, to me, in regards to Iran, this is like highlighting a passage in a book that has already been highlighted several times over.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Zach, you and I don't see eye to eye on the proper application of the police in Toronto for the G20 "protests". I found the police in that instance to be remarkably restrained considering, I'm sure, the countless abuses that were heaped on them while they were standing by and allowing people to protest.

    I think that Christie Blachford's column in the Globe hits the nail on the head.

    In the end, there were many instances of vandalism but no deaths or serious injuries. The police didn't use tear gas, and while they may have detained many innocent people, I would suggest that many of those same innocent people were complicit in the vandalism by allowing those vandals back into their ranks without outing them to the police.

    Everybody KNEW that the "anarchists" were going to be at the protests. Everybody KNEW that the policing budget had been increased because of the prior attack by "anarchists" in Ottawa. I submit that most of those protesting groups would have more effectively got their word out by issuing a presser explaining their point of view and explaining why they WEREN'T protesting than they did by showing up and providing cover for the destructive idiots.
    ReplyDelete
  6. So kind of like how the police KNEW anarchists were burning cars? I mean, they were literally within earshot and had a direct line of sight. If you're thinkin' that police decided not to escalate the violent situation in consideration for their safety and the safety of others, you're probably right. I mean, there is no clearer demonstration of that then when they attacked the protesters singing oh Canada, none of whom seemed violent to me.

    Yes, I think police are restrained in some instances such as when some idiot is yelling "Is it true that you guys are trained to be assholes? Are you assholes?" but would you expect anything less of a professional peace officer? When a professional police officer doesn't fly into a frenzy because they're being called names, degraded via the spoken word or even having plastic bottles thrown at them dressed in full protective riot gear, some modicum of restraint should not even be worth a mention. Again, this is what a professional officer is supposed to be trained to do. Show restraint and preserve the peace.

    Often times however, you get cases like the Toronto police breaking into the home of a couple of vets police mistook for the residence of protest organizers. Its worth pointing out that according to the pair of veterinarians, police wouldn't show their warrant despite repeated requests. People like me tire very quickly and become exceptionally irritable when police refuse to identify themselves or provide constitutionally valid, legal justification for their actions.

    There is a fairly constant and frustrating theme during these protests. "Anarchist" protesters who wreak violence and destruction are consistently left alone by police while protesters who are peaceful and exercising a constitutional right are attacked by police who then beat them. I don't care what you say about police restraint, how the policing profession is powered by wide eyed kittens and goldfish who happen to know who to defend the peace or whatever it is makes you think the profession of policing is deserving of respect, the fact is that at these protests, peaceful people are attacked by the state and violent people can burn police cars left abandoned as rows of riot police either look on or simply disappear. That one gets me all the time. Police either just watch "anarchists" do their thing or clear out as they approach. what the hell is with that?

    Oh and as for CB's column? True, some one with a camera is not a journalist in a professional sense. they are not as buffered by lawyers and editorial layers. It is indeed not an excuse to wave a press pass and demand access to a murder scene. I frankly couldn't care less about what she says on the topic. I have some modicum of revulsion for that particular columnist but am thankful that irritably idiotic view points like hers are out there for public consumption. Unlike her, I do believe that unfettered editorializing, information dissemination and the argumentative process we may call the great debate is incredibly valuable. Whether or not some left wing loon is toting a video camera matters little to me as they wail about police suppressing their views. What matters to me is whether or not the police abuse people and I think they do.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)