My experience in the G20 detention centre

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cytizen H
My experience in the G20 detention centre

here it comes

Cytizen H

This is a first draft... kinda rough and probably am forgetting a few things. Just wanted to get something up. It's really important these stories get out. Please leave any criticism of the BB or violent protests off of here. I request, respectfully, that people stay on topic in this thread. Also, no NDP banter please.

Cytizen H

On the night of Saturday June 26th I was involved in a peaceful demonstration (in the form of a dance party!) outside the temporary detention centre at Eastern and Pape. I was acting as police liason and over and over again was assured by the police that as long as we complied with their conditions no one would be arrested and we would be allowed to continue with our party. We were there to show our solidarity with our friends and family who had been brutalized and taken hostage by the police. We were also there to show that we were not afraid, despite the terrifying police tactics that we had all seen that day. We were there to show that extreme police violence could not keep us from doing and saying what we wanted in our own city. The events of the party can be read about here,but long story short, the police lied to us over and over again and when we tried to leave were arrested. We were arrested without violence, a fact for which we are both lucky and an exception to the norm. We were cuffed with zip ties and placed in the transport trucks. Despite being across the street from the detention centre we were left inside the trucks for over an hour, in sweltering heat. When we were finally let out of the trucks we were placed in cages in the room where vehicles entered the building. There were maybe four or five cages in a row, each about 20'x10'. Our cage had about 25 people in it at all times. I heard of others who had up to 45 people in a cage. In the corner of each cage was a prot-a-potty, open in the front. Anyone who tried to go to the bathroom was watched and jeered at by the guards. No toilet paper was ever provided. When we were placed in our cage people who had been picked up at Novatel, Queen's Park, or elsewhere, many of whom had not even been protesting, complained they had already been in there up to ten hours. They were pleading for water. At that time I sstill somehow assumed we would be given water, a phone call, access to a lawyer and released in a reasonable amount of time. Why I was so naive is beyond me.
While inside that first cage it came to our attention that one of the men inside was a minor. He was seventeen and cold (it was freezing in there) and terrified. For three hours we tried to get one of the guards to let him phone his parents, or to phone his parents for him. They never did. Anyone who tried to find us while they were inside was never able to. There was no record anywhere of us being in there. My partner was told by the police that she'd have to file a missing persons report if she wanted to be helped at all. The whole time in that first cell we were trying to get food and water. IN the whole 20 hours I was inside we got two of those now infamous cheese sandwhiches and maybe five cups of water. I saw grown men on their hands and knees begging to be fed and given water. Our requests were met with laughter, stonewalling, or threats of violence. I heard several threats of rape.
After about 10 hours in the first cage, while we had to watch the complete incompetence and heartlessness of guards either would not or could not help us (or both), we were finally taken from our cage. We assumed we were now going to be processed, given a phone call, given access to a lawyer and released. NOPE. They marched us through the the processing room, past a bank of phones into another room full of cages and placed us in one. They split up the group I had been with and found ourselves now in a cage of about 30 people. Included in that cage were two people who obviously needed medical attention. One, a man in his thirties who explained quite calmly that he didn't have his meds, and that while he knew they wouldn't get his meds for him, regular cups of water might help. We were denied food and water for the next eight hours. The other fellow in our cage was a diabetic. He was already sick when he joined us, but he was clearly getting worse by the second. We literally watched him fading away in front of us. For four bloody hours we tried to get medical attention for him. I yelled until my voice was hoarse. A few times a guard would come over (E. Guertin, badge number 90264) and snicker, then walk away and laugh with one of his buddies. One time he looked at him and said "pfff. He's not going to die. Shut the fuck up." It wasn't until our friend could no longer stand up on his own that a guard finally came in and took him to see the medic. Five minutes later he was brought back, cuffed again, and put back in the cell.
The list of terrifying, infuriating, dehumanizing behaviour of the guards goes on and on. They did everything they could to humiliate us, break us, and rob us of our dignity and humanity. We did what we could to stay strong. We were all going through cycles of anger, fear, exhaustion, terror, depression. Those of us who were "up" did the best we could to keep others going, but it was hard. Those of us who spent time in the cage together have formed a pretty unique bond. We are staying in touch and have met several times to support eachother. None of us are quite seeing the world in the same way. If there is one positive thing I can take from this, it is the fact that the cops, by arresting 900 people did a lot of organizing for us. We now have a massive network of people, all furious at the police and the governments at all levels, who are radicalized and mobilized and for the most part never would have connected otherwise. I mentioned before that many of the people I encountered inside were not even protesting (including the now famous TTC driver) and would never have identified as activists before this experience. Everyone of them does now though.
The final thing I'll say for now, that I think is the most terrifying, is that my experience is actually relatively mild compared to what others went through. People were held much longer than me, treated worse, beaten. I have since learned that queers were segregated. I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre.
Oh! One more thing. I have heard it said that people only hold those in charge accountable for what happened. I disagree. I believe that every guard inside that detention centre should be charged with a criminal offence. They treated us like animals. They stood by and ignored our cries for help. They are all responsible. Following orders can never be a legitimate excuse for this kind of treatment of fellow human beings.

milo204

thanks

Bacchus

Thanks Cytizen!

 

May I ask, who were the guards? Private? OPP? RCMP? Toronto Police?

Tommy_Paine

 

 

Thanks, Cytizen H.

 

For the report, too.

Cytizen H

The guards were court officers from across the province.

Bacchus

Great people with no experience being put in charge and given power over others with no supervision. What did they think was going to happen? Did no one learn from that experiment in california with students made to be prisoners or guards?

Michelle

So terrible.  Thanks so much for sharing your experience, Cytizen H. :(

NDPP

 

Thanks Cytizen H,

Whenever you give the police the power to abuse people, nine times out of ten they do. I am so tired of having to explain myself when I make some general statement about the darker tendancies of police to those who still foster the oft repeated 'THE POLICEMAN IS YOUR FRIEND'. The police are NOT your friend they are police and they do whatever they are told and even when not told have a marked and well observed tendancy towards brutishness and sadism. They also lie effortlessly and automatically. The anecdotes you relate here support my point. I repeat and always remember:

THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND! Or as Mao said: "all over the world cats make friends with cats. Nowhere in the world do cats make friends with mice"

Police are essentially doglike . If you have power or might have - police will usually take some care. If you have no power and police have power - you stand a good chance of being abused by them. The TO police need a serious lesson after being let off their leashes to bite, snarl and snap as they did last weekend. They must get one or mark my words they'll have at us citizens again, it is in their nature.

 

 

No Yards No Yards's picture
Polunatic2

Sounds like a horrendous experience. And sounds like the "guards" may have been members of my union if they are court officers (jail guards are too). I hope not. Not much the union can do but I will ask around and least put my own concerns on the record with our leadership because that kind of behavior would bring some shame on the union by association. 

Quote:
... would have never identified as activists before this experience. Everyone of them does now though.

One little quibble. I don't see being an activist as a philosophy or ideology that one identifies with per se. Activism is about organizing, mobilizing and fighting to win issues. People become activists by being active. Hopefully, peoples' experiences will lead them to activism. 

[aside]

Quote:
as Mao said: "all over the world cats make friends with cats. Nowhere in the world do cats make friends with mice"

Did he steal that line from Tommy Douglas :) Deng Xiaoping later went on to say, "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat."[/aside]

NDPP

  Mao's quote comes from one of his little red books, I think 'Selected Military Writings' but not positive. I think it's probably an old saying which Mao elaborated upon. And of course 'Mouseland' by Tommy Douglas is also a great little political fable.  Did Tommy Douglas read Mao? Perhaps the  RCMP would know if they ever release the file...

NDPP

one reporter's experience in the G20 detention center:

G20 Cops Threaten Reporter with 'Rape'

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=133376&sectionid=351020701

"Numerous journalists covering protests during the G20 summit in Toronto, Canada, have been strip-searched by police. Amy Miller, one of four journalists who have now filed complaints with Ontario's police watchdog, has told of her ordeal in police detention.

Throughout the time that I was detained...I was told I was going to be raped. I was told I was going to be gang-banged; I was told that they were going to make sure that I was never going to want to act as a 'journalist' again, by making sure that I would be repeatedly raped while I was in jail.."

Green Grouch

Thanks for having the guts to to write this up and then share it, Cytizen H. 

remind remind's picture

Thank you cytizen h for your story, and I mean that truly, but really I have heard/seen it 100 of times, welcome to the world of Canada's Aboriginals. Empathy may start to ring home for many.

Thanks to for sharing the links others, as these stories grow so will the awakening and resolve.

Perhaps there will be documentaries made of it all to be sent to communties everywhere, or a play written etc, etc..

shame on those guards who are union members....if this is accurate, and there has to be an investigation....

Unionist

Cytizen H wrote:
I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre.

Really. Odd that you're the only one reporting this.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Unionist wrote:

Cytizen H wrote:
I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre.

Really. Odd that you're the only one reporting this.

U can be, uh, blunt at times but he has a point. It's a good story Cytizen H, but a passage like the one above can seriously undermine the credibilty of the story. Check your facts and check your emotions, as hard as it is. Time for second draft.

There have been more than a couple of accounts where the threat rape was one of the inneuendos used by the jailers. But rapes in cell cages with 20, 40, or 60 cellmates present?

I am being kind here. This whole G20 story has a surreal feel to it. There is no doubt the secuirty forces were goons; hired mercenaries brought in from all over North America and beyond, with guarantees of high pay ($CDN) and legal immunity (Canada's justice system headed up by commissar Harper).

Will the MSM and the Harper government now label yourself and 900 others as "detainees".  Will there be a spirited debate in the house of Commons over the release of documents, in unredacted form? Maybe we need to prorogue parliament again, to prevent an unnecessary election.

-Dio

Looking for an honest man

Maysie Maysie's picture
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

That's a horrible, moving testimony, Maysie. My heart goes out to your friend.

Unionist wrote:
Cytizen H wrote:
I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre.

Really. Odd that you're the only one reporting this.

Journalist Amy Miller alleges threats of sexual assualt, strip searches and one instance of sexual assault.

Unionist

Yes, Catchfire, I watched that when it was posted upthread yesterday. My comments were not intended to minimize the horrendous and despicable actions of the police. They were about a poster whose posts here disappear, then reappear, and whose accounts should be treated with caution. That's all.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Diogenes wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Cytizen H wrote:
I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre.

Really. Odd that you're the only one reporting this.

U can be, uh, blunt at times but he has a point. It's a good story Cytizen H, but a passage like the one above can seriously undermine the credibilty of the story. Check your facts and check your emotions, as hard as it is. Time for second draft.

Looking for an honest man

I have read numerous accounts that fit the definition of sexual assault.  For those of you who think we have rape in our criminal code you are mistaken.  There is no requirement for penetration for a conviction on sexual assault charges.  that old male defence is gone for good so get over it boys. 

Here are Canada's laws against sexual assault.  No our police officers don't get to grab a tit or handful of ass that is sexual assault or in old school language rape.  the reason why we went away from using merely rape is because it dismisses women's complaints if  the women involved was merely groped not penetrated.  I for one think it is outrageous that these women have been sexually assaulted and we have people giving the police a free ride because everyone knows they couldn't have penetration in a cell full of people.

If Cytizen is guilty of anything it is using the wrong term under our law.  The others attacking him are guilty of minimizing the treatment of these women and downgrading the charges from sexual assault to garden variety assault.  Honest men stand with their sisters not downgrade the abuse visited on them by our police.

Doesn't it make every Canadian warm and fussy to know that we are going to train the Afghan military and police in the proper techniques of population control.

 

Quote:

Assault

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application

(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent

(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Accused’s belief as to consent

(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused’s belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 244; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 21; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Assault

266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 245; 1972, c. 13, s. 21; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 22; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm

267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 267; 1994, c. 44, s. 17.

Aggravated assault

268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Excision

(3) For greater certainty, in this section, “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where

(a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or

(b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.

Consent

(4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 268; 1997, c. 16, s. 5.

Unlawfully causing bodily harm

269. Every one who unlawfully causes bodily harm to any person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 269; 1994, c. 44, s. 18.

Torture

269.1 (1) Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Definitions

(2) For the purposes of this section,

“official”
« fonctionnaire »

“official” means

(a) a peace officer,

(b) a public officer,

(c) a member of the Canadian Forces, or

(d) any person who may exercise powers, pursuant to a law in force in a foreign state, that would, in Canada, be exercised by a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c),

whether the person exercises powers in Canada or outside Canada;

“torture”
« torture »

“torture” means any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

(a) for a purpose including

(i) obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a statement,

(ii) punishing the person for an act that the person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, and

(iii) intimidating or coercing the person or a third person, or

(b) for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,

but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

No defence

(3) It is no defence to a charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject-matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency.

Evidence

(4) In any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction, any statement obtained as a result of the commission of an offence under this section is inadmissible in evidence, except as evidence that the statement was so obtained.

R.S., 1985, c. 10 (3rd Supp.), s. 2.

...

Sexual assault

271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

(2) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 10]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 271; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 10; 1994, c. 44, s. 19.

Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm

272. (1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon;

(b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant;

(c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or

(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Subsequent offences

(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

(a) an offence under this section;

(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244 or 244.2; or

(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1, 344 or 346 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

Sequence of convictions only

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 272; 1995, c. 39, s. 145; 2008, c. 6, s. 28; 2009, c. 22, s. 10.

Aggravated sexual assault

273. (1) Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Aggravated sexual assault

(2) Every person who commits an aggravated sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Subsequent offences

(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

(a) an offence under this section;

(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244 or 244.2; or

(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239 or 272, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1, 344 or 346 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.

Corroboration not required

274. If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 212, 271, 272 or 273, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 274; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12.

 

remind remind's picture

am not sure what unionist and diongenes see in that passage of:

"I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre."

To make them believe the recounting is not credible.

As I had heard of 1 that Ms Miller recounted, and then the account of the lady in the purple pants, indicated a young 17 year old girl was being held one her own with no allowance of contact with other women for her own safety.

That screamed at me BS on the part of the guards, as it is quite obvious they did not want her in contact with other women.

Now whether this young woman would be the account 1 or an account 2 who knows.

Moreover the statiscal probability of sexual assault occuring in these conditions is high, extremely high. So high it would be beyond reasonable perception to believe it did not happen on more than 2 occasions even.

writer writer's picture

I saw a video of a woman bent over one of those metal fences that are often around outdoor patios. The riot cop, in full gear, is cuffing her from behind, pressed hard against her body as she is doubled over. I don't understand why there is still this male obsession that things aren't really bad unless a woman has been "raped." This woman is completely helpless and exposed, she is put in a very vulnerable sexual position, she is humiliated and terrified, with a man's groin pressed hard against her privates. A man with the full power and authority of the state on his side. And a gun. And a baton. And armoured protection.

What I understand as rape very rarely includes penetration by a penis. And it doesn't have to. The message of rape is communicated in many ways.

remind remind's picture

Exactly writer

am so glad i cannot view youtube as the verbal accounts are more than i can handle in some instances.

writer writer's picture

My heart goes out to all survivors who were triggered that weekend, and every other day.

Rape is a gift that keeps on giving.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Another incredible survivors story

Quote:
As Sarah began pleading with them to give her father a little time and space to get up because he is an amputee, they began kicking and hitting him. One of the police officers used his knee to press Pruyn’s head down so hard on the ground, said Pruyn in an interview this July 4 with Niagara At Large, that his head was still hurting a week later.

Accusing him of resisting arrest, they pulled his walking sticks away from him, tied his hands behind his back and ripped off his prosthetic leg. Then they told him to get up and hop, and when he said he couldn’t, they dragged him across the pavement, tearing skin off his elbows , with his hands still tied behind his back. His glasses were knocked off as they continued to accuse him of resisting arrest and of being a “spitter,” something he said he did not do. They took him to a warehouse and locked him in a steel-mesh cage where his nightmare continued for another 27 hours.

remind remind's picture

fuckers, a measure of society is... and they do not measure....

Unionist

remind wrote:
am not sure what unionist and diongenes see in that passage of: "I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre." 

I'll tell you what did it for me. It was the word "actual". As if "rape" wasn't bad enough. This was "actual" rape. What would that be?

 

writer writer's picture

I hear you, Unionist. One of my triggers is "innocent victim." Uh ...

No Yards, thanks for sharing that horrible, horrible story. A friend shared this link in relation to it: [url=http://torontotruthg20.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/the-true-story-of-the-g2... TRUE STORY OF THE G20 GUITAR HERO[/url], Toronto Truth

And now the two stories are interwoven. Thanks again.

remind remind's picture

Interesting unionist, I find people say all too often "actual rape",  whereby grabbing an ass/breast, or shoving a dick up against a strange women, or co-worker, is not "actual rape".

Actual rape to many means actual penetration.

 

And this mistaken awareness is a huge problem, but is not a red herring accounting in my view, or experience.

 

...hear you on the "innocent victim" writer, like wha, some women/girls just deserve it and are not innocent?

 

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

writer wrote:

No Yards, thanks for sharing that horrible, horrible story. A friend shared this link in relation to it: [url=http://torontotruthg20.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/the-true-story-of-the-g2... TRUE STORY OF THE G20 GUITAR HERO[/url], Toronto Truth

And now the two stories are interwoven. Thanks again.

Thanks for making the connection and sharing.

One of the videos on Toronto Truth had an embedded link to this interesting video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dwqRttw1qg&annotation_id=annotation_7979...

Tracks what looks like an undercover cop as he switches from protestor,  masked BB protester, undercover cop, out of the closet cop.

 

No Yards No Yards's picture

Here's a youtube channel that seems to be for G20 survivor testimonials

No Yards No Yards's picture

A "The Real News Network" report, Interview with Prof David McNally, David Miller, and many clips from the Monday June 28th rally.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

from CBC - G20 protesters get bail hearings

Quote:

Because of a publication ban, no details of the proceedings can be reported.

WTF ?!

writer writer's picture
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

That's fucked?  Torontanomo Bay? (credit to somewhere I saw it)

writer writer's picture

From what I've read, it is likely at the request of someone / those charged, though no specifics with regard to this situation.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

my bad.  thanks writer.  you rock.

Cytizen H

Unionist wrote:

remind wrote:
am not sure what unionist and diongenes see in that passage of: "I have heard now of at least two accounts of actual rape inside the detention centre." 

I'll tell you what did it for me. It was the word "actual". As if "rape" wasn't bad enough. This was "actual" rape. What would that be?

 

The phrase "actual rape" was meant to be in contrast to the mention earlier in the piece to "threats of rape".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Rape is an unfortunate term since it has no legal definition in Canada.  There seems to be strong evidence of actual sexual assault by police officers and that is the Criminal Code offence not rape.  

Yiwah

Is it really a big issue whether we use the word rape versus sexual assault?

I mean, is our discussion legal or vernacular?

Sexual assault includes a range of behaviours, which is a benefit of using the term, as well as it's legal status.  Rape may be a limiting term because it tends to suggest specific activities...but rape is also pretty widely understood.

 

All I'm getting at here is...unless we're really focusing on a legal debate, I'm not sure it matters what term we use.  And this is coming from someone with a legal education.  We don't always need to talk like lawyers.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It is because rape in our language is such a limited term is why I think it needs to be avoided.  Sexual assault is sexual assault. Using the word rape implies some sexual assaults are not as bad as others.  The law has changed as a result of much lobbying by groups like LEAF because the debate quickly turns to, "well she had her clothes on when the police officer grabbed her by the crouch so it isn't rape."  Sexual assault is sexual assault no matter what variation the violence in the power game takes.  Sexual assault is about power not sex and the term rape implies a specific sexual act.

That is my view anyways.

Yiwah

nm

MontyCantsin

ive been posting all these allegedly "shocking" and "tragic" examples around Facebook and my twitter account...i have not received any indication whatsoever that anyone out there cares at all...that's the sad situation we may face here, folks...

MontyCantsin

here we have all this technology to record police misconduct and catch them red-handed, as well as media that people have access to (blogs, facebook, twitter,Youtube)...and nobody finds them the least bit shocking or appears to care in the least

there was even the case where the cops beat up a deaf man for failing to produce his ID quickly enough upon (obviously unheard) request, the case where the police ripped an amputees leg off before dragging him off to jail...punching out and illegally detaining journalists...

but as i wrote at FB, MAYBE if the cops actually ripped someone's leg off and ate it and somebody posted THAT to youtube, there might be some kind of reaction...but otherwise, nada...

MontyCantsin

i hope so...because most of them, from what i saw, did absolutely nothing...

Polunatic2

As a result of the trigabytes of video and still photos, it's probably safe to say that many of the charged G20 defendants will have charges dropped before court. It's unlikley the state will want to hand over evidence of police abuses to the defense. 

If I was a lawyer, I'd certainly be subpoenaing video from every camera near where my client was detained.